PAGE 1 of 8

Last updated 18 DEC 95.

Several people have commented on my analysis of GoldenEye and the future of Bond, so much so, that I have several pages of comments! I have interjected my own comments in italics.

The reason that I have posted these comments is to foster discussion, among hardcore Bond fans, on the merits of GoldenEye.

If you would like to respond to my analysis, or to what anyone else has written on these pages, please don't hesitate to contact me using the Comments Form or email me at

And if you think some of us are wasting our time, don't bother going any further; go read Snoopy!

1) Shawn Fuller,, writes:

    In your review of the plot, you have problems with Natalya's move from the Arctic Circle to St. Petersburg in one day. There are any number of plausible explanations for this. If you're living on the Arctic Circle in Russia, St. Petersburg would in fact be the closest city to you, due to the curvature of the Earth. Getting to St. Petersburg would be more than possible within a 24 hour period.
    The bigger questions are 1) was Severnaya really in the Arctic Circle (as I recall the map in the Goldeneye situation room, it appeared, rather, to be in the middle of Siberia) and 2) what transportation would she be able to use to get out of Severnaya given the "Goldeneye effect"? (The question of her being without money is a moot one to me: we can't really say she had no money, nor is it strictly necessary to have money in Russia to get transportation, especially for a woman so obviously in distress as she would have been.) Another interesting question is why the Ministry of Defense would be meeting in St. Petersburg instead of Moscow.

After seeing the movie a second time, Shawn wrote again.

    First, Severnaya is very definitely NOT in the Arctic Circle – at least, not according to the map in the Severnaya situation room. Rather, it is in the dead middle of the country, apparently close to the main East-West rail line that runs through Russia. Natalya could've easily used the dog sled team she finds to make her way back to a rail station, and from there get back to a major city. Moscow would definitely appear to be the closer city, though. She might have chosen St. Petersburg for any number of fairly logical reasons, unexamined in the film. For instance, St. Petersburg is the more "westernized/marketized" city. Given the unevenness of the telecommunication industry in Russia, St. Petersburg may be a better place from which to to hook into the Internet. Further, she could be from St. Petersburg, and she is naturally therefore returning to a place she knows after the horrifying events she has just experienced. Also, she could well have made her way to the next town with an airport and easily made it back to St. Petersburg in under 24 hours. In sum, then, her arrival at St. Petersburg poses no big problems for me.

Your comments make sense. I read Gardner's novelization of GoldenEye and he explains that Natalya has cash from her salary in Severnaya, which is supposed to be in the Artic Circle. It is also now clear to me why she would head out to St. Petersburg.

    The more troubling aspects of St. Petersburg for me are 1) the Defense Ministry's meeting there and 2) the ease with which Bond calls the tank into operation. In the first place, it makes little sense to me that the entire Defense staff of Russia would convene in St. Petersburg. How many times have we seen the Chiefs of Staff meet in New York or Los Angeles instead of Washington? Never, really. In the second place, Bond should never have been able to use that tank. He was not on a base; those tanks were museum pieces. Having lived in Eastern Europe I can tell you that you find this sort of military hardware museum in most cities that were victims to World War II. My problem with this scene, then, is a simple one: what the hell is a museum piece doing with gas in it?

My understanding is that the tank is located in an Army depot. The chase scene in the archives room shows that this is also a major military intelligence archiving station. I assume that the tank they used in the film must have been "vintage", in order for you to think that it was a museum piece?

    Your comments about the scene in the Cuba GoldenEye situation room are also baffling. When Bond is setting the mine and then is confronted by the guards, he clearly slides his gun across to them – not a mine. I never saw a second mine, so I don't really understand what your objection to the scene is. In fact, with the exception of the mysterious gloves Bond is wearing on the motorcycle as he chases after the plane in the teaser, I don't really agree with most of your so-called "editing" problems. Maybe if I saw the film on videotape with the ability to rewind and closely examine the scenes, I would be bothered by them. But on the big screen, being caught up in the action of the moment, I don't think any of these errors really detract from the overall effect of the film.

When Wade stops by Puerto Rico to see Bond, he hands him a package. Bond takes a few items out of the package, including what appear to be two mines. Later, when he is arming the mines in the facility, while guards are shooting around him, it seems that Bond is arming the two mines. In addition, see my response to Michael Farina's letter, #5.

Individually, I don't have a problem with the mines, the gloves are any of the other small errors – it's just that as a whole they grow to be annoying! It doesn't affect me so much that I don't like the movie, but in general, careless mistakes like this show me that some people are not doing their job.

    I disagree, too, with your analysis of some of the characters. Frankly, this is one of the best-acted Bond films in a very, very long time. Natalya is an entirely appealing and well-acted character. She is very much worthy of Bond. At once vulnerable and resourceful, she is close to being as appealing as Diana Rigg in OHMSS. Wade, too, deserves far more credit than you give him. He's a clever foil for Bond, in some ways better than Felix as the CIA counterpoint because he is so very different than Bond. And as for the pallor of Janus/006, well, I think they could've written in slightly longer scenes detailing the history of the Lien's Cossacks so that we could better understand his angst. There's nothing really wrong with Bean's performance, except that the very interesting Cossack story line is not perhaps adequately explored. (Also, how the HELL did he escape from his predicament in the teaser? I mean, talk about fantasy: How do you escape being shot point-blank in the head on top of an explosion of a chemical factory?)

Funny, I found Natalya to be very shallow! I guess the problem is that after seeing the film twice, I heard Izabella Scorupco in an interview and she came off as flaky. I guess the impression stuck when I wrote my review. I'll just have to see the film again to correct it!

As for Wade, I should have clarified more: I don't object to the character as much as I object to Joe Don Baker back in the series again! It's just too soon!

As for Sean Bean, everyone is entitled to their opinion; Bean just doesn't do much for me.

Finally, many people on the Net don't seem to understand:

006 and Ourumov were in cahoots from the very beginning!

006 was not shot be Ourumov; it was faked so that 006 could go underground without raising suspicion. His face was ruined by the release of checmical weapons from the timer that Bond set 3 mins. early.

2) An anonymous female user from CompuServe writes:

I only saw it two times. And I'm sorry if I did not make it clear: I VERY MUCH ENJOYED THE FILM.