It's crazy we're as far removed from GoldenEye, released this fall back in 1995, as that film was from 1965's Thunderball. Even when I was younger in the 90s, those 60s Sean Connery films already felt like relics from a bygone age. I don't think GoldenEye would feel as much like a time piece to Gen Z or Gen Alpha the way the Connery films did when I was growing up; it still probably acts as a perfect gateway in to the Bond franchise. It was mine and admittedly I didn't exactly love the older Bond films when I initially saw them- probably because they weren't GoldenEye and it took me a while to get used to older films.
I also can't help but remember that I'm about the same age as my mother when Goldeneye was released. I'm about to turn 37 in February and she was 37 when she took me to see my first Bond in theatres, The World is Not Enough and that is a little weird. Your parents seem so much older when you're younger and when you hit their age when you were a kid, you realize young they were. My mother was a single mother and I can't imagine raising a kid on my own.
GoldenEye was the first Bond released in over 6 years, the last one coming out when I was a baby in 1989, that film being Timothy Dalton's second and last Bond film, Licence to Kill. It wasn't a huge it at the box office, coming out the same summer as Tim Burton's original Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters II, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. It would end up being the last Bond film released in the summer. Behind the scenes legal issues would delay a third Dalton film until 1994, but by that time Dalton had decided to quit. Pierce Brosnan, who was supposed to take over from Roger Moore in The Living Daylights but was replaced when his contract for the TV show Remington Steele was renewed and Bond producer Albert R. Broccoli didn't want Brosnan doing both, was chosen as Dalton's replacement.
GoldenEye was originally written for Dalton and it's one of the sizable what ifs of the Bond franchise, along with what if George Lazenby continued on in the role. Okay, maybe not as sizable as that, but still pretty sizable. As much as I like Dalton and I think he would've killed certain moments, I don't know if Goldeneye is as big of a deal if Dalton comes back. He wasn't the most popular Bond in his time, even though he gained a following. I think Brosnan got a lot oof people excited when he finally got to take over the role, and he became the Bond for mu generation.
Brosnan was the first actor to come of age with the franchise, citing seeing Goldfinger as having a huge influence on him. His portrayal of Bond is often seen as an amalgamation of the previous Bonds, and just as often he's negatively seen as not being different enough from the other Bonds. But I'd argue what Brosnan is doing is harder than it looks. He has to be both down to business as a spy but still pull of the humour, as well be convincing in the more tender scenes with Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco). Personally, I feel Brosnan pulls it really well, though I think he gets even more comfortable in the part as he goes along. Was he a safe choice for Bond? Sure, especially when he's placed in between Dalton and Craig, two bolder choices. But I think Brosnan is probably the coziest Bond next to Roger Moore.
We fans take it for granted but from 1962 until 1989 there was only a two year to at the most a three year gap between Bond films. People were never given the chance to miss the franchise. That, and there was so much competition from other franchises, like Indiana Jones and action films like Die Hard, Batman and Lethal Weapon. Before Star Wars, Bond was kind of the pinnacle of cinematic escapism and excitement, and even Bond can feel passe compared to other franchises, and I feel Bond 26 has the potential to make Bond exciting again, the way GoldenEye did. The six year gap from 1989 to 1995 gave the franchise the opportunity to feel fresh again, with new writers, a new director (Martin Campbell took over from John Glen who had directed the last five films in the series), and again, a new actor who would appeal to both old and new fans.
Aesthetically, there's a big jump from Licence to Kill to GoldenEye. If the 1980s Bond films are often criticized for being TV movieish, from the very first shot GoldenEye feels more wildly cinematic. It also has a stronger sense of mood and place. Campbell and cinematographer Phil Meheux create a more shadowy and atmospheric film, a film that's haunted the ghosts of the Cold War. It feels like a more lived-in world of spies and espionage, vibing like an actual spy film in a way the Bond films usually don't. The film's aesthetics are complimented by Eric Serra's industrial score, with also has its moments that can't help but create a certain amount of nostalgia in me. I know Serra's score is somewhat controversial and not well liked by some. Maybe because I grew up with this movie and the score is ingrained in me that I've never had a problem with it. I get it's not the typical score that was defined by John Barry as the Bond sound but it's a sizable part of what gives the film its singular identity in the franchise (David Arnold would score the next five films) and for me it sounds as much "Bond" as the Barry stuff. And Tina Turner's theme song does feel indebted to the classic Bond songs of Shirley Bassey and remains one of the more underrated songs in the franchise
GoldenEye was the first Bond film made after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, and this is strongly reflected in the film's story and vibes. As I said earlier, The ghosts of the Cold War haunt this film, with one sequence taking place in a graveyard where Bond meets a literal ghost from his past, Alec Trevelyan, former 006, who fakes his death at the beginning of the film and is the villain behind the stealing of the titular GoldenEye satellite, planning to send England back to the "stone age" in revenge for England's betrayal of the Leinz Cossacks after WWII, which led Trevelyan's father to the murder of his mother and then suicide. Trevelyan was the first time the series attempted a sympathetic villain, and making him a former ally of Bond (another first) just makes him doubly interesting. I don't love a lot of the main Bond villains but Trevelyan is my favourite, I think largely due to Sean Bean's performance. It's those line readings, right. They're so good. Bean supposedly did audition for Bond and casting a would-be Bond as Bond's dark twisted mirror is kind of perfect. And if the previous film, Licence to Kill saw Bond going rogue avenging his friend, GoldenEye sees Bond on a mission where he has to eliminate a friend.
The big meta-narrative of GoldenEye is how the world has changed and Bond is a relic of the past. Bond's boss, M, is now a woman (Judi Dench in her debut in the role), who calls him out for being a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur." Bond is a difficult character to grapple with because he originated in the 50s, and unlike superheroes like Superman and Batman are easy to adapt modern times, Bond often does feels stuck in the past. His womanizing and sexism feel like it's hard to separate from the character without making him completely different. However you do have to call it out. Natalya also calls out Bond on his emotional detachment in perhaps the film's most pivotal scene, though because it's a Bond she still winds up in bed with him after. That's always going to be a problem when franchises do the self-critique thing. There's always limit to how much you can do it because you ultimately still embrace what makes the franchise the franchise, and also you still have to making the movies.
Natalya may be my favourite Bond woman. I like that she feels like a real person who's been swept up in to a Bond adventure. It's often pointed out she's as much a main character as Bond and we spend quite a bit of time with her before she meets Bond and she's given her motivation and backstory. We sympathize with her due to her witnessing the murder of her colleagues during the stealing of the GoldenEye. While her romance with Bond could feel forced Brosnan and Scorupco make the affection between Bond and Natalya surprisingly real. Natalya never comes across as just automatically falling for Bond because he's Bond. There's certain efficiency in how the script brings Bond and Natalya believability together emotionally by sending them through a pretty tense series of events. It ends up being one of the series' most likable relationships. I remember being disappointed that she wasn't back in Tomorrow Never Dies, but this was before I understood the formula Bond series. Sadly, Bond's relationships don't last.
GoldenEye may have the best ensemble cast of all the Bond films. We remember this film not just because of Bond but of the supporting characters. Tchecky Karyo is only in this film for a few minutes as Defense Minister Dmitri Mishkin but he has such a strong presence you forget how little he actually is in this film. Robbie Coltrane may be Hagrid to many but I always think of him as Valentin Zukovsky, the ext-KGB agent whose knee "aches every day, twice as bad when it's cold." Gottfreid John and Alan Cumming as General Ouromov and Boris Grishenko, respectively, are perfectly slimy in their roles, I would say pretty much all the villains in this film are perfectly deserving of their comeuppances.
All of the Brosnan films provided personal stakes for Bond and despite the finale's large scale backdrop, the story all comes down to a pretty brutal fight between Bond and Trevelyan. Trevelyan's demise is probably the best of any Bond villain: Bond drops him from the satellite, responding to Trevelyan's "For England, James?" which he's said to Bond throughout the film, with "No. For me." Trevelyan always thought Bond cared more about the mission than his friend, which is ironic considering the previous film, but at the end Bond makes it clear he did care about the friendship enough to feel betrayed. Bond wants Trevelyan to know this isn't just about the mission, it's personal.
Campell had a magic touch when he directed GoldenEye and later, Casino Royale, the first Daniel Craig film. He's able to find the balance of seriousness and fun that I think the Craig films struggled with post Casino Royale. GoldenEye has dramatic weight to it but it's still giving the audience a good time with enough Bondian humour and a sense of escapism. Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) is a campy villain but she surprisingly never unbalances the more serious elements. Denis Villenueve is directing the next film in the franchise and his films are pretty heavy. I would hope he would find he balance between seriousness and humour that the franchise is at its best when it nails the juggling act.
The film owes something to Dalton but Skyfall also owes a lot to it. That film is also commenting the relevance of Bond in the modern world, as well as having a villain who's a mirror to Bond. Skyfall also takes from Brosnan's third, The World is Not Enough, where the villain wants revenge against M. Brosnan is the more archetypal Bond between Dalton and Craig, who are spiritually connected, but the Dalton and Brosnan eras set the stage for Craig.
GoldenEye is the most important Bond film of my life, and I hope it's that important for the younger generation getting in to the franchise. It's kind of a perfect gateway in to this world, so here's to 30 years and to another 30 more. Thanks Martin Campbell and Pierce Brosnan for making me a life long Bond fan.
