• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

Goldeneye - Best James Bond movie...

The opposite is used by ppl with an arrogance to try and deem their view as fact. :yay:

Arrogant? Probably. Right? Most definitely. :cwink:

Actually acting is one of them, both Lazenby and Savalas are horrible in both roles, almost spooflike in their portrayals. The fights look like they came from a Carry On movie IMO so again all you are doing is touting your hard on for the movie as fact, all of which is easily debated away to mere like or dislike.

I never understood the spoof idea here with Bond. Blofield yes, but this is the man who is attempting mind control. Not the most... sound of mind. What does Lazenby do that is spooflike?

You don't recall any of the horrible cringe worthy "undercover" deliveries as Hilary saint James ? :huh:

Well it is ridiculous. Bond is never undercover. These men have already meant in this verse.

Humans have traits, thus characters have traits, if a character has a trait that is not seen regularly in other characters then they are not generic, thus you are over simplifying your reasoning.

Traits was the wrong word. My point is the idea of a henchmen who doesn't have a unique attribute whether it be a throwing hat, crushing metal teeth, or crushing legs.

Like the entire end battle in OHHMSS ?

It was Apocalypse Now before Apocalypse Now. The sled ride however... well it can't be excused. They did the best they could with a terrible finish provided by Fleming. The one major flaw I find in the film. It is OHMSS version of Star Wars' gunner sequence in ANH.
 
Arrogant? Probably. Right? Most definitely. :cwink:

Only when it alligns with me. :cwink:



I never understood the spoof idea here with Bond. Blofield yes, but this is the man who is attempting mind control. Not the most... sound of mind. What does Lazenby do that is spooflike?

Everything about how he talks to the way he carries himself feels like a spoof on the cool and suave character, I never once actually buy him as a smooth killer with high intelligence.



Well it is ridiculous. Bond is never undercover. These men have already meant in this verse.

Regardless, the idea is he is an undercover agent and instead seems more like he's playing dress up pantomoime, the acting is woeful IMO


Traits was the wrong word. My point is the idea of a henchmen who doesn't have a unique attribute whether it be a throwing hat, crushing metal teeth, or crushing legs.

But Assassins and killers do tend to have a preferred method, I just don't see it as a reason to put a negative mark on a film.


It was Apocalypse Now before Apocalypse Now. The sled ride however... well it can't be excused. They did the best they could with a terrible finish provided by Fleming. The one major flaw I find in the film. It is OHMSS version of Star Wars' gunner sequence in ANH.

Care to elaborate on the bolded ?
 
They are easily the best made films of the series. I do not believe the quality of film can be questioned. Only one's enjoyment. A good film is a good film. A superior film is a superior film. A crap film is a crap film. You can enjoy something more, but in terms of pure cinema, those are the "real" films in the series. Everything else is either gimmicky or not fully realized. Goldeneye is good and has some brilliant moments. But it is stuck with such utter repetitive and stupid moments it can't compare. I like to use Die Another Day in situations like this. It is a microcosm of the entire series. Good ideas, with questionable to every so often terrible execution.

Goldeneye is generic. Good, but generic. Leg crushing villain, as hot as she is, is generic. Leaving someone to be killed by missiles when you can just put two between their eyes? Generic and foolish. Don't even get me started on the "catching of the plane" moment or absurd dialogue between Bond and Natalya.

You complain that Xenia is a generic villain, and that is one of the reasons Goldeneye is a "bad film," yet you say that a movie with Red Grant, king of the generic henchmen is the "best film," of the series?
 
Only when it alligns with me. :cwink:





Everything about how he talks to the way he carries himself feels like a spoof on the cool and suave character, I never once actually buy him as a smooth killer with high intelligence.

I just don't see that. When he enters his future father-in-laws room knife in hand, it is for me the most iconic shot of Bond I have seen. He shouldn't look the part. He is a spy. It is his casual nature that I love.

Regardless, the idea is he is an undercover agent and instead seems more like he's playing dress up pantomoime, the acting is woeful IMO

Fine, I agree.

But Assassins and killers do tend to have a preferred method, I just don't see it as a reason to put a negative mark on a film.

Yeah like their preferred knife or gun. It enters a pro wrestling like vibe I don't enjoy with these talents. Grant had one. One that felt geniune, mainly because it was his "last" resort once the gun fair and fist to the face didn't work. It was also practical.

Crushing legs is just not... well it doesn't make any sense. She can be just as sadistic without that talent. Instead it just makes her even more silly.

Care to elaborate on the bolded ?

The approaching choppers. Am I the only one that ever saw that? All you have to do is add the music. :woot:
 
I just don't see that. When he enters his future father-in-laws room knife in hand, it is for me the most iconic shot of Bond I have seen. He shouldn't look the part. He is a spy. It is his casual nature that I love.



Fine, I agree.



Yeah like their preferred knife or gun. It enters a pro wrestling like vibe I don't enjoy with these talents. Grant had one. One that felt geniune, mainly because it was his "last" resort once the gun fair and fist to the face didn't work. It was also practical.

Crushing legs is just not... well it doesn't make any sense. She can be just as sadistic without that talent. Instead it just makes her even more silly.

Many serial killers kill because it gives them sexual gratification and will preform sexual acts on their victims while killing them. In that regard, Xenia is probably the most realistic killer in the history of the Bond franchise.
 
You complain that Xenia is a generic villain, and that is one of the reasons Goldeneye is a "bad film," yet you say that a movie with Red Grant, king of the generic henchmen is the "best film," of the series?

Because they were all based off him. It is the same kind of reaction Watchmen gets from those who haven't read it and have been subject to the attempts to recapture it in its wake. He is the perfect weapon who is all business. The plan was perfect. To bad for his employers he had Irish blood.
 
Many serial killers kill because it gives them sexual gratification and will preform sexual acts on their victims while killing them. In that regard, Xenia is probably the most realistic killer in the history of the Bond franchise.


Ahh ah ah. Scaramanga does it for money. :D



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
Leg crushing villain is generic? :huh: I had never seen it prior to Goldeneye, especially with a female who gets off performing it.
 
Many serial killers kill because it gives them sexual gratification and will preform sexual acts on their victims while killing them. In that regard, Xenia is probably the most realistic killer in the history of the Bond franchise.

I agree and said she could be as sadistic as she wanted. It works. However the legs thing, kind of kills that.
 
Leg crushing villain is generic? :huh: I had never seen it prior to Goldeneye, especially with a female who gets off performing it.

Well I never seen a Man in Blue Tights fight crime. Doesn't mean he isn't derivative. It isn't the exact skill, but the idea behind it.
 
Well I never seen a Man in Blue Tights fight crime. Doesn't mean he isn't derivative. It isn't the exact skill, but the idea behind it.

Isn't everything derivative of something in movies?
 
I just don't see that. When he enters his future father-in-laws room knife in hand, it is for me the most iconic shot of Bond I have seen. He shouldn't look the part. He is a spy. It is his casual nature that I love.

That's fair enough, but all I was stressing from the beginning is the subjectivity involved.

Yeah like their preferred knife or gun. It enters a pro wrestling like vibe I don't enjoy with these talents. Grant had one. One that felt geniune, mainly because it was his "last" resort once the gun fair and fist to the face didn't work. It was also practical.

Crushing legs is just not... well it doesn't make any sense. She can be just as sadistic without that talent. Instead it just makes her even more silly.

But she lures them into a prone position which is quite a smart move, and then like a sociopath gets off on the kill.


The approaching choppers. Am I the only one that ever saw that? All you have to do is add the music. :woot:

I must admit, after this little debate I may throw it in the DVD player tonight. :D
 
Isn't everything derivative of something in movies?

Well in all fiction really. In films though something becomes so common place it becomes a pattern. For Bond it would of been unique for her just to get off on the violence and finish off her victims with a bullet to the head or a knife in the back.
 
I'm just gonna' say if you're looking for "realistic fighting" and natural dialogue in a Bond movie YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE ENTIRE SERIES.

And for the record OHMSS has some terrible dialogue and great amount of cheese. I'm not sure how Xenia Onatopp is anymore generic than Red Grant, who both are great classic villains. But they're bad henchmen, the only thing that distinguishes Grant is he was played by Robert Shaw. Yet, he was used greatly and his confrontation with Bond is one for the ages.

And again there is nothing all that realistic about how Bond takes down choppers in FRWL or the entire plane chase in CR. And though I love CR, it has far more pacing issues than GE. The entire section in the Bahamas and the airport sags on repeat viewings and the movie goes on about 20 minutes after its climax, making it for an awkard ending if still a good one.

Yes, GE is over-the-top and ridiculous. But so is James Bond. That is why some of his best movies are the most absurd. Such as The Spy Who Loved Me. However, the best Bond movie, IMO (because it IS open for debate) is Goldfinger which is just as absurd as Goldeneye.

But if you want your "gritty realistic Bond," go ahead. Mind you it has never existed on film and OHMSS has a great story, which is why diehards remember it. But it had a terrible Bond and some pretty cheesy effects and editing, hence no one else cares. But everyone remembers the "cheese" of Goldfinger, Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me. And Goldeneye for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Well in all fiction really. In films though something becomes so common place it becomes a pattern. For Bond it would of been unique for her just to get off on the violence and finish off her victims with a bullet to the head or a knife in the back.

Bullets to the head or knives to the back are far more generic than squeezing someone to death with your thighs.
 
That's fair enough, but all I was stressing from the beginning is the subjectivity involved.



But she lures them into a prone position which is quite a smart move, and then like a sociopath gets off on the kill.




I must admit, after this little debate I may throw it in the DVD player tonight. :D

You will never get me to agree about subjectivity no matter how much it ruins the rest of my argument. :csad:

And really it doesn't matter what prone position she gets them in because unless she is really BJ Penn in disguise. She doesn't even figure four the legs. :waa:

Bullets to the head or knives to the back are far more generic than squeezing someone to death with your thighs.

Yes, but in this case we are talking about killers. They shoot people in the head when they want them dead. Not squeeze the life out of them with their legs or bit them like a vampire.
 
Yes, but in this case we are talking about killers. They shoot people in the head when they want them dead. Not squeeze the life out of them with their legs or bit them like a vampire.

Then you have the ones who go beyond the typical and prefer outrageous and extreme methods, like Onatopp.

Heck, they even dipped and drowned Fields in oil in Quantum of Solace. Not a point blank at all.
 
Goldeneye has always been one of my favorite Bond films, may be in Top5, or possibly my Top3. And it's not just because of the unforgettable N64 game either :oldrazz: The film is amazing in every aspect. :up:

If Goldeneye does have a claim to fame it comes from the N64 game.That game sold over 8 million copies and still ranks in almost every top ten list out there.Every fan that enjoys killing their friends in multiplayer owes a debt to Goldeneye.I cant think of any other game to this day Ive had more fun playing with friends.Good memories:woot:
 
I'm just gonna' say if you're looking for "realistic fighting" and natural dialogue in a Bond movie YOU COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT OF THE ENTIRE SERIES.

See I actually agree with this. My problem is that wasn't the original intent. However once they hit Goldfinger and more importantly Thunderball, things kept having to be bigger and better and out of control.

And for the record OHMSS has some terrible dialogue and great amount of cheese. I'm not sure how Xenia Onatopp is anymore generic than Red Grant, who both are great classic villains. But they're bad henchmen, the only thing that distinguishes Grant is he was played by Robert Shaw. Yet, he was used greatly and his confrontation with Bond is one for the ages.

Cheese yes, but so does Casablanca. Cheese well earned is something I can go with. I do not see how you can compared Xenia to Grant and see them in the same light. One actually has an arc.

And again there is nothing all that realistic about how Bond takes down choppers in FRWL or the entire plane chase in CR. And though I love CR, it has far more pacing issues than GE. The entire section in the Bahamas and the airport sags on repeat viewings and the movie goes on about 20 minutes after its climax, making it for an awkard ending if still a good one.

I don't like the FRWL chopper sequence to much, but it is far from unrealistic. He shots the guy and he drops the grenade. Not all that unreal.

I agree CR has pacing issues (The airport sequence is the only real culprit in my eyes), but it does not go 20 minutes after its climax. The climax is neither the end of the card game or the torture sequence, but he revelation of the actual traitor.

GE however just dies after the the train/tank sequence and never recovers. It also moves slowly, in a similar way to TND when it comes to the first launching of Goldeneye itself. It reminds me of underwater sequences in Thunderball.

Yes, GE is over-the-top and ridiculous. But so is James Bond. That is why some of his best movies are the most absurd. Such as The Spy Who Loved Me. However, the best Bond movie, IMO (because it IS open for debate) is Goldfinger which is just as absurd as Goldeneye.

I hate The Spy Who Loved Me. Hate is a strong word, but I really do. How does anyone get away with that final act? It doesn't even have peaks. It just feels like one continuous moment that never ends.

And while a film like Goldfinger can be the best example of the absurdity of the series as a whole, it does not make it the best film in the series. Which I think it is more then fair to say is hard to debate. Only three fully realized films have come out of this 22 film franchise. :cwink:

But if you want your "gritty realistic Bond," go ahead. Mind you it has never existed on film and OHMSS has a great story, which is why diehards remember it. But it had a terrible Bond and some pretty cheesy effects and editing, hence no one else cares. But everyone remembers the "cheese" of Goldfinger, Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me. And Goldeneye for that matter.

Well that gritty realistic "Bond in name only" is what is making bank at the moment so I think many people want it. Also think that is harsh. He quite apparent in CR, Dr. No (Before they get to no hands), and FRWL.
 
Then you have the ones who go beyond the typical and prefer outrageous and extreme methods, like Onatopp.

Heck, they even dipped and drowned Fields in oil in Quantum of Solace. Not a point blank at all.

You are confusing a method used for misdirection(as stupid as that scene looked in QoS. How in the world did none get all lover the room) with having a quirk they want a character to be identified by.
 
And while a film like Goldfinger can be the best example of the absurdity of the series as a whole, it does not make it the best film in the series. Which I think it is more then fair to say is hard to debate. Only three fully realized films have come out of this 22 film franchise. :cwink:

Not at all, only 3 films ? the 3 you like the best yes ? LOL Come on man, fully realized means they don't have bad acting, terrible action and crappy dialogue, you can't use some three act generic structure as a template for judging film, it constricts the very essence of creativity.
 
See I actually agree with this. My problem is that wasn't the original intent. However once they hit Goldfinger and more importantly Thunderball, things kept having to be bigger and better and out of control.



Cheese yes, but so does Casablanca. Cheese well earned is something I can go with. I do not see how you can compared Xenia to Grant and see them in the same light. One actually has an arc.



I don't like the FRWL chopper sequence to much, but it is far from unrealistic. He shots the guy and he drops the grenade. Not all that unreal.

I agree CR has pacing issues (The airport sequence is the only real culprit in my eyes), but it does not go 20 minutes after its climax. The climax is neither the end of the card game or the torture sequence, but he revelation of the actual traitor.

GE however just dies after the the train/tank sequence and never recovers. It also moves slowly, in a similar way to TND when it comes to the first launching of Goldeneye itself. It reminds me of underwater sequences in Thunderball.



I hate The Spy Who Loved Me. Hate is a strong word, but I really do. How does anyone get away with that final act? It doesn't even have peaks. It just feels like one continuous moment that never ends.

And while a film like Goldfinger can be the best example of the absurdity of the series as a whole, it does not make it the best film in the series. Which I think it is more then fair to say is hard to debate. Only three fully realized films have come out of this 22 film franchise. :cwink:



Well that gritty realistic "Bond in name only" is what is making bank at the moment so I think many people want it. Also think that is harsh. He quite apparent in CR, Dr. No (Before they get to no hands), and FRWL.

The climax of CR is the torture sequence. It is the highest point of interest for the viewer. Then it goes on as a love story, which I don't mind, but it is declining action. Finding out Vesper betrayed him is a twist but the movie has been declining for the last 10+ minutes and never fully recovers. I'm not sure how GE drags at all, but difference of opinion.

My thing is you are simply wrong with saying there are only three fully realized movies in the series. There are apparently only three movies you like. But the thing is, you misinterpret what Bond movies are. If you think only three are fully realized then you are discounting some of the better ones. And while I like OHMSS it is a very confused and bland movie. It certainly is an inferior film to Dr. No, FRWL, Goldfinger, TSWLM and GE. Those were well made movies, OHMSS is not. The comparison to Casablanca is absurd.

And "serious" Bond is in now. But CR still had the quirks and charms of a Bond movie for the most part. QOS is more in your line of thinking and is a generic action movie that got mixed reviews and the general consensus of that movie is "disappointed." Bond is back and gritty without much of the absurd, but it is a bland movie.
 
Despite how much I love CR, I don't think anything will top Goldeneye for me. It's the first movie I think of when I think of a perfect Bond film. All the others, which I love, are still below those two.

"For England, James?"
"No, for me."

I wish Pierce never cut his hair. He was cooler when it was long.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"