|
3) Christopher Randolph Bhatia,
bhaticr@okra.millsaps.edu, writes:
one mistake i found that really caught my eye immediately was in the
beginning of the film right when the goldeneye was set off and destroyed all the
electrical circuits at severnaya (sp???). well, then, if all the electrical
circuits were destroyed, how was that alarm set to call the migs in? ...just
something that caught my eye.
As Chris now realizes after I emailed him back, one of the guards shot by
Onatopp was still concious and pressed a button for the alarm. Onatopp shot
him again on her way to investigate the noise in the kitchen.
4) Bill Shaffer, zzshaf@ktwu.wuacc.edu, writes:
I'm just writing to comment on your review of GOLDENEYE. I have to agree
that this is a patchy Bond film - full of high spots and low spots. I disagree on
Eric Serra's score. Although it's uneven, some pieces are pretty close to John
Barry (I'm thinking of dramatic and romantic themes, here) and I found the
title tune pretty routine (Why have Bono & the Edge write a ballad?). Most
importantly, I just saw the film again yesterday in a THX digital stereo
theatre and it improved the quality of the movie by 50%, at least. I'm sorry I
didn't see it there first. The film moves a lot slower the second time
through, though which is not a good sign. As you may estimate from my age, I
have been a Bond fan for quite some time. Saw DR. NO in 1963 when I was 11. My
dad felt that Bond was going to be a big thing. He wasn't proved right til
GOLDFINGER... thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Regarding the score, I just have three words: Bring Back Barry!
As for the sound, I guess that I will just have to wait until June 7, 1996, when
the film is released on videotape, to enjoy it on a Dolby Surround Sound system.
5) Michael Farina, farinam@engin.umich.edu, writes:
. . . as a COLLEGE physics student and a future engineer, I have a
few little points to raise about the opening
dive-off-the-cliff-and-catch-the-plane-and-stop-the-freefall-and-fly
off-into-the-sunset scene.
1) If two objects are in FREEFALL (no forces acting on them except for
gravity and air resistance) then the object with the greater air
resistance will fall slower. However, the plane is most definitely NOT
in freefall, as its propellor is also providing force in addition to the
gravitational force.
2) I do agree that it is possible for a man to catch a plane like that;
however, there's no way in hell that you can rescue a single-engine
propellor driven boat like that from a straight nose dive in 5 seconds.
No way.
I agree 100% on the last point. I guess that this is where the "fantasy" part of
the Bond series kicks in.
Oh, and that could have been the mine slid forward on the floor when
Bond surrendered, but it wasn't about to go off, so why bother with it?
Look at it from the point of view of the soldiers. You have Bond surrounded,
behind a gasoline tank, a man that you have been ordered to capture.
All of a sudden a black object comes sliding at you from behind the tank; you
don't know if Bond is surrendering, or is trying something. Common sense
dictates that you react to it. The way it was filmed seemed unnatural.
6) Kurt Canez, kcanez@ix.netcom.com, writes:
I read your opinion on Golden Eye and will readily agree that there were
problems with the movie, editing.. etc. Also, we are all entitled to express
our opinion, I thank you for the time and effort you have taken in an effort
to relate to us what you have seen and feel. However, along the same lines I
would like to remind you that under close scruting probably almost any movie
will have problems. I for one enjoy watching a movie and finding those little
glitches. But formost is the enjoyement I get from watching a good movie.
Golden Eye represents an end to a long dry spell.
Please don't take me wrong, it is not my intention to start an arguement
with you. But perhaps you should spend more time watching the movie for its
enjoyment and less time tearing it to pieces.
Again, I don't mean to argue in any way, it's only my opinion. It just
seems that you spent a lot of time on the negative aspects of the movie and
not enough on the good points.
1st good point...It's A James Bond Movie
2nd good point...See first good point.
As I told writer #2, I enjoyed the
film very much; part of the reason I posted my analysis was precisely becuase it is
been a "long dry spell". By analyising this film, I was hoping to see what we could
expect in the future Brosnan' Bonds. If the next one is not as good as this
one, Bond fans, and the series, are in trouble.
7) Kimberly Edwards, binky@3rdplanet.com, writes:
The internet was horribly misrepresented even taking into account that the
computer screens need to be readable on film. The "send spike" thing, email me
if you want to know why, I have a true story. And there where vital Bond
elements I missed. I wanted more Bond theme music, more cat and mouse play
between Bond and his nemesis and he should still be able to love 'em and leave
'em like he used to.
But I agree with you that it's a comeback. It had to be a little generic
to succeed, they have 30 years of tradition to uphold.
I think you have hit the bull's eye here: it is very generic! It seems to
me that all of the characters/actors are just moving through the motions, except
for a few very short, expectional scenes (one in a particluar is Brosnan's
expression after 006 was "shot". Absolutely excellent!).
|
RETURN TO THE GOLDENEYE PAGE
