|
14) Hallgrimur Steinsson, hallgrim@cc.is, from way up north, writes:
I must object this petty criticism for some details that really dont make
any difference. The fact is that James Bond movies aren't supposed to be
realistic, if we want to see realistic movies we will rent "In the name
of the father" or something like that. In my opinion the only qualities
that a james bond movie has to have is humour and suspense. I found
myself smiling at many times during the movies both at Bond's comments
and Natalyas comments, furthermore the film never slowed down which
happened in so many Moore films, in conclusion: Golden Eye go's with
Goldfinger and Thunderball as one of the best bond movies.
If you disagree (which I suspect you will) please reply to
hallgrim@venus.cc.is. I'd like to add that everyone I have spoken to
agrees with me.
There is one reason and one reason only why I wrote my analysis: because this has
been the longest gap between Bond movies. I wanted to see how well the Bond film
mystique has carried through. It's a little tarnished and worn for the wear, but
still entertaining.
15) Rabbe Sandelin,
tiedotusosasto@stockmann.mailnet.fi, also from way up north, writes:
I think you were a bit harsh on the small defects with editing and miniature
work. There have been many more and very much bigger bloopers in earlier
Bond-films. I think basically the probelmn with any new bond-movie is that the
producers sort of have to please very different expectations. Some like the
old-style taunt thriller-style of the firts two films, others like gadgetery,
others think want the films to be spoofs on the whole series (a la Moonraker).
I think Goldeneye had many plus-points: a careful balance between straightforward
suspense, action and gadgetery, much better dialogue than the Dalton-epics. But I
especially liked the lightning in the indoor-scenes, which gave strong reminders
of the sixtie's Bonds. Beautiful work. The score: njaah. Lets face it. Eric
Serras music was ok in The Big Blue. Not very good in an Bond movie.
I agree that there was a lot of pressure on the producers for this one, and in
the face of that pressure they did an okay job.
But it's not over yet. A lot depends now on the next one. Many will go see #18
simply because they enjoyed GoldenEye. If the producers fumble #18, they
could lose it for good.
16) Anonymous writes:
There is one little editing mistake in GOLDENEYE I saw: after the
St. Petersburg scene one sees Bond waiting in the tank for the train to
arrive. He sees the train arriving and jumps out of the tank. But in the
next scene one sees the train passing by Bond, and then crushing into
the tank after some fifty metres or so. How could Bond have gone this way
in one second or two?
You are right. It was too short a time period for Bond to have gotten
away. They may not have enough good footage and decided to edit it this way.
A little comment to GOLDENEYE itself: all in all I was quite disappointed
from the film, I miss the "good old times" when the Bond films didn't
have to concurate with Rambo and those films. GOLDENEYE is - in my opinion -
a good action film, but a disappointing Bond film (Bond has always been
surrealistic, you can't take Bond serious one minute - that's exactly
what makes the films so good -, but the scene at the beginning with Bond
"capturing" the plane is just a little bit too much...).
Again, you are right. It is just barely makes it as Bond film. But it is the best
that we could have hoped for after six years.
|
RETURN TO THE GOLDENEYE PAGE
