MovieChat Forums > GoldenEye (1995) Discussion > Most overrated Bond film of all

Most overrated Bond film of all

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
26 replies | jump to latest

I'm not saying it's the worst Bond movie ever made, but I believe it to be the most overrated. This was a huge deal when it came out and quite frankly the movie doesn't live up to the hype. I think Pierce brosnan is terrible in this movie and he makes you dislike James Bond. He was really quite obnoxious in it. Famke Janssen (IMO) is one of the most desirable women ever in a Bond film, but the whole concept of her character was cartoonish and juvenile. It just took things in a direction it didn't need to go. The movie was a chore to watch.

The one thing that GoldenEye has going for it (IMO) is the Nintendo 64 game. To me that will be the lasting legacy of this film.

[–] Threadkiller (2969) 5 years ago

Interestingly I only ever saw bits and pieces of this move until watching it all the way through recently and I agree with the movie being sonewhat overrated. I wouldn't say I found it to be a chore but it was surprisingly forgettable. Even Sean Bean somehow managed to be a bit bland as the main villain. The only memorable character I can think of was the crazy sadomasochistic henchwoman but even her name i don't remember.

[–] Borat (658) 5 years ago

i thought it was ight

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The game was amazing and fun. I find All bond films to be overrated. Perhaps its a matter of taste.

The dam jump is still really cool.

[–] Borat (658) 5 years ago

yeahhhhh that game was dope! one of the best games on n64. gex enter the gecko was good too

[–] UpSideSunny (104) 5 years ago

It was bad, but not A View to a Kill bad. For example, it doesn't take you to the horse races for 40 minutes which are ultimately completely irrelevant to the plot, so it has that going got it, which is nice. But yeah, still bad.

Edit: And you just reminded me of the turd that was Tomorrow Never Dies. What a piece of shit lol

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I actually liked Brosnan as Bond. He was born to play the part.

His movies were a bit subpar, though. I still enjoyed them for the most part.

[–] UpSideSunny (104) 5 years ago

I think people also forget how cringe-worthy and camp the Roger Moore Bond movies were. I still love it. Bring on the cringe.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Totally agree. Enjoy the Moore Bonds, even when they were really ridiculous.

[–] Threadkiller (2969) 5 years ago

Brosnan was perfectly "alright" but was bogged down by mediocre scripts. If Daniel Craig did those movies I imagine he'd be widely considered the worst Bond ever.

[–] earl237 (1106) 5 years ago

It was pretty decent overall, it just hasn't aged well because Casino Royale was so amazing.

[–] Filmtenk2 (3579) 5 years ago

Disagree. This was the best Brosnan Bond film. Way better than half the Mores, both Dalton's.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Partly disagree with you. License to kill was grittier. The Felix Leiter-eaten-alive scene (which would probably be more graphic today) solidifies that argument. Bond going rogue from MI5, successfully, gives License a higher testosterone count than Goldeneye. The inimitable Robert Davi (versus a Russian pen-clucking millennia-precursor computer geek) as the antagonist seals the deal.

I agree that Goldeneye is better than any Bond movie with Roger Moore in it.

[–] Filmtenk2 (3579) 5 years ago

That head explosion in LTK was pretty gritty too. You've convinced me to elevate LTK in my personal ratings.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The major difference between the two is that Goldeneye is a spy film, whilst LTK is a revenge/crime film.

One feels very much Bond, whilst the other is quite removed from the traditional tropes of the genre.

Both good films, just very different. My preference is Goldeneye, due to my own preconceived notions of what a Bond film 'should' be, I.E what I want out of one.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 5 years ago

I was surprised in my most recent viewing that I didn't really like GoldenEye because I remembered it being so good. It hasn't held up very well. I agree that most of the love for it is because of video game nostalgia.

GoldenEye is very Skyfall-ish. It has a heightened sense of realism while being completely absurd and unrealistic. The plot and character motivations don't make any sense at all. Sean Bean doesn't do a bad job or anything, but 006 is a very crappy villain. His backstory and motivations for revenge are silly. There's nothing fun about watching it either. You are right to say that it's a chore to watch.

The special effects and miniatures are also really bad, and the film generally looks dated. I can't believe it's from 1995. It looks more like something from the 1970's. Did they not have the budget to do better after the 6-year hiatus?

GoldenEye has slid into the bottom half of my rankings.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I always give a pass to special effects concerns because I realize that every year they get better and better, so I just tell myself that that's the way it was.

Ultimately it was the story, the acting, and the casting joining forces for the perfect storm to make such a crappy movie.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 4 years ago

Note: There is no 006. Fleming clearly stated in his books that there are only 3 00 agents: 003 005 and 007. Any movie script saying otherwise was written by someone not steeped in Bond canon; hence, does not represent James Bond.

I’ve always found Goldeneye mediocre and’ve never found Famke Janssen sexy. Interesting, yes, but not carnal.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7515) 4 years ago

Don't take this the wrong way but I am pretty sure most of the James Bond movies are not based on the books. And frankly a lot of book adapted movies are very different from the book they are based on.