Conference bookie::movies

I saw it last weekend, and enjoyed it.  Typical Bond film, lots of chases, explosions, double entrendre,
evil woman, etc.  Pierce Brosnan was excellent in the part, very much what I imagined when
reading the books a hundred years ago.  He's soooo easy to look at.

Judi Dench's role as M as brief but very good indeed.  The character that I enjoyed most,
however, was the talented Alan Cumming as Boris.  He was a hoot.

Thanks god the Roger Moore years are well and truly over!

dcl

    ...i dunno, I liked Roger Moore in the '70's-style Bond...he really
    came off as how 007 was in the sex-ladden/semi-comical 70's....
    
    ..personally, i'm havin' a kinda tuff time dealin' with a woman M...
    i know, i know, get over the gender-stereotypical stuff....but it's
    reallllll tuff considering all the years M was a man.....
    
    imho...
    
    macky

I saw it this weekend and found it generally boring (and I've enjoyed most of
the previous Bond films.)  It seemed to lack the cleverness and innovation of
the previous movies - this one had much less gadgetry and more just plain
shoot-em-up violence.  Pierce Brosnan was good but the script, etc. was lacking.
 The chase scene with the tank just went on and on and I found myself looking at
my watch.

    
    
    Have not seen it but plan to.
    
    Heard one reviewer say "Stay home, a sleeper".
    But did add "he is signed for more so maybe
    this is a warm up".
    
    Hell with it. I'll go see it anyway.
    
    Rick A

The action sequences in this film are more that adequate for the genre.
What makes it an enjoyable film is the intelligent and stylized 
characterizations and dialogue.  Bond is great, the girl is great and
the villains are great.  Even "M" gives a hundred percent.  One technical 
glitch was that the mic'ing of the dialogue was at times muddy.  I'm sure 
all the location shooting made this hard.  The film is rated PG-13 and they 
mean it.

Brian

    
    I lost interest in Bond films after Sean Connery left.
    
    This one got my interest back.
    
    Very entertaining movie.
    
    Dave
    

	Here's .1 reformatted for the majority of us folks reading NOTES
	on 80 column windows/terminals:

Notefile: ORION::Movies
Note: 970.1
Author: DRAGNS::LEHMKUHL "H, V ii 216"
Topic: James Bond - Goldeneye
Date: 20-NOV-1995 10:04
Lines: 10

I saw it last weekend, and enjoyed it.  Typical Bond film, lots of chases,
explosions, double entrendre, evil woman, etc.  Pierce Brosnan was excellent
in the part, very much what I imagined when reading the books a hundred years
ago.  He's soooo easy to look at.

Judi Dench's role as M as brief but very good indeed.  The character that I
enjoyed most, however, was the talented Alan Cumming as Boris.  He was a
hoot.

Thanks god the Roger Moore years are well and truly over!

dcl

    MI5 (or is it MI6... Britain's Secret Service department at any rate) is 
    currently run by a woman... Maybe this is the reason the film makers chose
    good ol' Dame Judy Dench (and she is quite litterally) for the new M.
    
    Reargards,
    
    Stephen
    

    
    
    
    re -1
    
    not much of a secret is it then? :))
    
    Chris
    :)

re:  970.7 - Must be this
ULTRIX workstation your friends 
gave me, Jeff.  The DECterm window \
in which I work (and insert lots of 
<cr> is less than 80 characters.

Back to the movies.

    
    On ET tonight they covered the incredible bungee jump.
    
    No special effects, a real 700+ jump and the stunt guy actually shot
    the gun for the spike.
    
    
    He now holds a world record.
    
    Dave
    

    
    What kept him from swinging back into the wall of the dam, even after
    he'd shot the spike?
    

    
    -1
    
    The clip showing the shot, with the director and stunt man
    really didn't show how he avoided the dam wall. There was quite
    a curve on the face of the wall though.
    
    what a way to earn a living.
    
                     

    
    
    
    last night , on this is your life, they did the life of
    the actor that plays Q in all the movies. The main stars
    from Goldeneye were all in attendance.
    
    Chris
    :)

I saw this over the weekend and have mixed feelings about it, but the
more I think about it the more I like it...

For the good points, Pierce played Bond very well... closer to the book
Bond than I had hoped for. (I was worried they'd got for a more Moore-style
of Bond, but thankfully they went for the more cruel Bond).

However, I felt they didn't really develop Bond's character much, rather
they just stuck him into all these situations... so while I think Pierce
played him good, we didn't really get any feeling for him. Rather, the
feeling I got was that he was the plot device for all the explosions,etc.

On the bad side, the story is pretty weak, and the bad guy... well... 
who cares... he was a poor bad guy. 

Also the scenes didn't seem to flow very well from one scene to the next.

Also, the soundtrack changes were for the worse, I thought. 

Also, there were some obvious model sets which were laughable (like in the
opening bit).

My wife enjoyed it very much, giving it an A...

If I was watching just an action flick, I'd give it a B+/A-, but since I'm
such a big Bond fan (read all of the books except the latest one) I can't
help but be more picky... At first, I gave it a C... but as time passes, 
I think I'd give it a B-... maybe next week it's be up to a B+... ;-)

/scott

    
    Went into this a little leary, but I have to say that this *might* be
    my favorite Bond movie yet.
    
    I'll admit to being in the minority by favoring Moore over Connery for
    007, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about Brosnan in the role just
    yet.  But I credit him for doing that much.
    
    As for the story - good villains, great casting (Onatopp and JD Baker
    as the CIA guy), with just the right amount of humor.  Very enjoyable.
    
    - Sean

    I went into this movie with some trepidation, but came out relatively
    pleased, especially how Brosnan handled the Bond character.
    
    I'm sure the temptation was there to go overboard with special effects,
    to make Brosnan's Bond be more 90s-ish.  But there was a real gritty
    feeling to this Bond, and the fact that the effects abetted the story
    rather than becoming the story helped immensely.
    
    Brosnan gave Bond a world-weary feel, and although he is still quite
    handsome, Brosnan's face showed some of the tiredness and experience
    you would expect from 007 at this stage of his career. Unlike a
    previous noter, I liked the fact that we didn't delve deeply into the
    Bond personality here - that seems like a topic for another movie.
    
    I also rather enjoyed the villians, especially Onatopp!
    
    One litter spoiler nit, after the formfeed:
    
    How did the tank get ahead of the train?
    
    NAZZ

    
    	I don't see why you need character development for a character
    	who's 30 years old and has been in 20 or so movies already.
    
    	Heck, this is basically a sequel to 19 other movies with the
    	same character in it.
    

>    	I don't see why you need character development for a character
>    	who's 30 years old and has been in 20 or so movies already.

By character development, what I meant was that the Bond character was
simply the vehicle for this movie... i.e, it could have been any character,
and the movie would be the same... hmmm... it's hard to describe what I 
mean. Maybe I'm just use to the books, where you get a much better sense
of Bond, who he is, what he's thinking, etc...

This movie just made me feel like the Bond character was placed in
certain situations to be played out, rather than Bond taking control and
placing himself in those situations.

BTW, on the topic of bad guys... Onatopp was good, but my comment was
directed towards the main bad guy... he was way too boring.

/scott

p.s. I liked the Dalton films, BTW... and really really liked Lazenby's
Bond in OHMSS...

    My chief response to Goldeneye is "Bond IS back!"--to me it felt like
    the *real* Bond movies (Dr. No, Goldfinger, etc.).  The big screen was
    used to full effect, and while it would have been nice to see EVEN ONE
    car gadget (well, OK I guess in Monte Carlo we saw one), the non-car
    gadgets were cool.  Loved what was happening in the background in Q's
    scene (but I'm afraid I might have missed some).
    
    My one complaint: I thought the projectionist had skipped a reel. 
    Bond's first conversation (among the statuary) with "Janus" had just
    concluded; fade to black, then we see Bond inexplicably in a
    contraption with a different character.  Did I miss the explanation for
    that?  I assume Janus arranged it, but.... HUH?!  I spent most of that
    scene trying to figure out what the #### they were *in*, then who put
    them there, then *why* they were put there, especially since it didn't
    seem to be a particularly narrow escape (considering it's a Bond movie). 
    Seemed like a badly-patched afterthought scene to pad out the time or
    something.
    
    The chase scene was (wonderfully) ridiculous: I mean come ON, what can
    the top speed of Bond's vehicle possibly be?!  But it was great
    slapstick fun.  And the bungee dive was breathtaking.
    
    Leslie

    
    
    
    I saw this movie on the weekend, and though it was enjoyable
    I have to disagree about Brosnan's portrayal.
    
    I thought going into it that he would be perfect for the role.
    But I found that he was very much in the Roger Moore flavor.
    Too pretty, uncaring, sleeps with anyone wearing a skirt except
    a scotsman. Now , having said that, I re-watched " A View to a Kill"
    starring Timothy Dalton and was very much refreshed. This is the
    kind of Bond I like, in the tradition of Sean Connery. Suave, rugged
    and caring. He wasn't hopping into bed with every lady he saw in the
    movie and he could look messed up and in character. He was more
    believable as Bond.
    I wonder what happened that he didn't make any more.
    
    Chris
    :)

I have to disagree with the last writer. If anything, Brosnan is more like Sean Connery. If you watch the old
Connery Bond movies, he never found a woman he didn't like (or want to go to bed with). Just look at Thunderball.
The villainess, Fiona Volpe, goes  to bed with Bond, only to eventually want to kill him. I think Brosnan's
character should have done the same with Onatopp. I liked Dalton's portrayal too. I think he was underrated and
misunderstood. He eventually left his contract, probably under pressure from the producers who wanted Brosnan.

I think the new movie will keep the series alive.

Justin

                      <<< Note 970.22 by BEMUS::KELLEY >>>
                        -< Goldeneye brings Bond back >-
    
    I have to disagree with the last writer. If anything, Brosnan is more like 
    Sean Connery. If you watch the old Connery Bond movies, he never found a 
    woman he didn't like (or want to go to bed with). Just look at Thunderball.
    The villainess, Fiona Volpe, goes  to bed with Bond, only to eventually 
    want to kill him. I think Brosnan's character should have done the same 
    with Onatopp. I liked Dalton's portrayal too. I think he was underrated
    and misunderstood. He eventually left his contract, probably under pressure
    from the producers who wanted Brosnan.

    I think the new movie will keep the series alive.

    Justin

    

                                                                      
    It was okay.  I wouldn't call myself a James Bond fan, but I like the
    movies while recongizing that some of them are atrociously bad even for
    Bond films.  Moonraker and A View to a Kill are positively awful, the
    two I wouldn't bother to even tape off Cinemax.
    
    Pierce Brosnan said in an interview that if they screwed up Goldeneye
    that he was going to go down in history as the actor that killed James
    Bond.  I don't think he has any fears on that score.  The movie just
    isn't that bad.
    
    I think any actor of reasonable ability and the corerct physical type
    has at least one decent James Bond movie in them.  Connery probably had
    the biggest collection of winners, but he had the advantage of novelty
    and the highest caliber script writers.  I thought George Lazenby was
    all right in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  Roger Moore had his
    moments like For Your Eyes Only.  I thought Dalton's performance in The
    Living Daylights redefined Bond for the post Cold-War era even though
    the Cold War was still in progress -- I see a lot more of Dalton in
    Brosnan than anyone else, an opinion I probably hold alone.
    
    These things are pulp, and I go into them expecting pulp, and Brosnan
    delivered.  The score certainly wasn't memorable, but neither was it
    intrusive.  I hope they get hold of a better story idea next time, and
    tone it down just a bit, but if there's another Bond offering featuring
    Brosnan I'll be there to see it.
    
    DFW

    I *do* like Bond movies and the books, and I thought this one was all
    right.  Just all right.  Sean Bean and Pierce Brosnan were certainly
    both easy on the eyes, and some of the movie was clever, but most of it
    was unexceptional.  Some of the special effects, in this day and age,
    should have looked better, some of the action scenes were just
    gratiutious and in general, the plot and villians were weak.  It wasn't
    a waste of my money, just not the best use of my time (as movies go).
    
    **.5 out of ****  
    
    
    kim (who did like Moonraker :)
    
    
    
    

re .8. Stella Rimmington was replaced as the head of MI5 a couple of weeks ago.
MI5 governs counter-intelligence and anti-terrorism: MI6 governs spying on
foreigners and does not officially exist, let alone have a publicised "M".

Re: 13 

>    what a way to earn a living.

The stunt man belongs to the Oxford (where I live) Stunt Factory: he is
currently selling off chunks of the cord!

+Mark+

> re .8. Stella Rimmington was replaced as the head of MI5 a couple of weeks ago.

"Stella Rimmington"   
Is this an alias for a Pierce Brosnan connection or what?

- tom]

re .27

Assuming your question to be a serious one, the answer is no. Stella Rimmington is
a real person who was, until recently, head of MI5, the branch of the British
"secret service" dealing with internal affairs. I admit that there is an uncanny
similarity between Stella Rimmington and Remmington Steel, but it is purely
coincidental.

Clive

> Assuming your question to be a serious one, the answer is no. 
> I admit that there is an uncanny similarity between Stella Rimmington 
> and Remmington Steel, but it is purely coincidental.

Any chance that she's been in the field long enough to have been 
around when Remington Steele was created?  
Could it have been an in-joke on the part of the show's creators?
(Recall that "Remington Steele" was the name Stephanie Zimbalist's
character invented for her detective agency to gain credibility
as a woman detective in a male-dominated field.
Selecting the name as a take-off on Stella's would have been all the more
appropriate.)

- tom]

    Ok - how did they do the tank scenes?  They obviously couldn't drive
    a tank through St. Petersburgh, destroying everything in its path.
    
    Has anyone heard how they did it?
    

re .30

They built a replica at an old factory site in England. They went on location
for the shots where they didn't trash any buildings.

Clive

Response to .20:

I agree! Bond is back.  I loved Goldeneye, it was dazzling! Pierce Brosnan 
did a great job.  I'd love to see it again, for those who haven't seen it 
and if you're a Bond fan don't wait for it to come out on video because of 
all the action you need the big screen perspective to really see how 
spactacular it is.  Although, I will probably rent it once it's out just to 
see it again, but I'm really glad I saw it at the theater first.

mp

    I liked it!  Saw it on Sunday (before the snow started :-)), and
    thought it was great.
    
    But, I'm trying to place Alan Cumming's face and it's driving me
    nuts.  He played Boris, the yuong computer geek, but I've seen
    him in something before.
    
    Where?
    
    Sue 

    
    
    he resembles Balki from Perfect Strangers a bit.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    	.msstate. doesn't list Alan Cummings.
    

    
    I can't find bond anywhere.  Where is it playing in the Hudson area? I
    checked leominster and the her general cinima in Natick - no-go
    
    

According to "Movies This Weekend" it's playing at the Fine Arts theater in
Maynard, and it's also playing at the Burlington 10 and at the Cinema 3
(a.k.a. Brandt) in Nashua.

				-- Bob

    Alan Cummings was in a tv film made by the BBC - Bernard and the Genie,
    also starring Lenny Henry.  
    
    Mikef

>    Alan Cummings was in a tv film made by the BBC - Bernard and the Genie,
>    also starring Lenny Henry.  

I just saw Exotica this weekend, and the young man who owned the pet store
in the movie reminded me of the russian geek in the bond film... 

is this the same guy?

/scott

    Bernard & the Genie...that's it :-)
    
    Sue

    
    
    Hmmmm he does seem to look like the guy from exotica.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    
    
    the guy in Exotica is Don Mckellar, and Goldeneye is Alan Cumming.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    
    you've seen Alan Cumming in "Circle of Friends" , "Prague"
    and "Second Best"
    
    Chris
    :)

    Alan also has a brother (John I think) who is an actor, and looks very
    much like him.  He was in a BBC comedy show about Air Stewards (Flying
    high I think it was called).
    
    Mikef

    Which character did AC play in Circle of Friends?  I don't remember
    him in that.
    
    Sue

    Apart from a partcularily good thigh hold..... I didnae' think this
    film was very good...
    
    Stephen

    
    
    Alan Cumming played Sean Walsh in Circle of Friends. I got that from 
    a bio on him. Personally I can't recall.
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    Great dive into the airplane scene - classic Bond schtick (sp?)!!!! 
    Brosnon is no Connery yet but he is well on his way to creating his own Bond
    style/legend.  This was close to the early Bond style movies IMHO.      
    
    

    I rented this last night and thought it was a typical Bond flick, not
    bad, but didn't keep me on the edge of my seat either!
    
    Overall I'd give it a 2.5 out 5, and save it for a night when evrything
    else is checked out of the videostore!

         One of my favorite movies is DR NO. That, along with GOLDFINGER,
    were the two best Bond films. I would't rate this too high but I hope
    the series continues. Even a bad Bond is better than most of the movies 
    out there.
    
         I thought Boris was a real hoot. My wife pointed out that he was
    the same guy who played Sean Walsh in CIRCLE OF FRIENDS. I naturally
    asked when I could expect to see Minnie Driver (Benny) again. I didn't
    have to wait long. There she was as a Russian country and western singer
    singing (to use the word singing loosely) "Stand By Your Man." I hope
    she does more than this; she was SOOOOOOOO good in CIRCLE OF FRIENDS.
    
         Mike 

    
    Saw Goldeneye last week and all I can say is "What a pile of wank."
    
    I honestly thought that Lazenby and OHMSS was better than this.
    
    Just my opinion, but hey - w.t.f do I know??
    
    
    Chris D.
    
    

    re .51
    
    Well, I don't think I felt THAT strongly about it but - I was extremely
    disappointed with it - I don't think it had any real traits of a Bond
    film - it could have been any old action film!!
    Once you realised that, I think I was reasonably enjoyable just as a
    normal film!
    
    But - yes !!! Diappointment!!
    What more can one say?!
    
    S..x

    Rented this last night.
    
    Entertaining but disappointing.
    
    The story was hard to follow.  And the chase scene with
    the tank was waaaaaaaaaaaay too absurd.