GoldenEye

United Artists | Release Date: November 17, 1995

7.0	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 289 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

axelkochOct 29, 2012

GoldenEye probably has the worst actors a Bond movie has ever had. The dialogues are crude and almost all of Bonds stunts are extremely unrealistic. The Pierce Brosnan movies are a shame for the series, yet GoldenEye is one of the best in hisGoldenEye probably has the worst actors a Bond movie has ever had. The dialogues are crude and almost all of Bonds stunts are extremely unrealistic. The Pierce Brosnan movies are a shame for the series, yet GoldenEye is one of the best in his career. The reason why I give it at least 4 points is: rememberable scenes (bungee jump, Judi Dench's first 'M' appearance, Death scene of the main villain) and as action crime it's not a complete failure. You can watch it, but you do better with Connery's, Dalton's or Craig's Bond.… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

JoelC.Mar 16, 2007

For a Pierce Brosnan Bond film, probably his best. The drawback? Its a Pierce Brosnan Bond film. Goldeneye is worth watching, but if this is your first Bond movie, watch miracle that happened that is Casino Royale.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

TyranianApr 11, 2019

A decent Bond film, Brosnan is very good and Bean also but there are issues with the story and screenplay.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

gracjanskiSep 26, 2021

On the one side Brosnan is a good Bond, he fits to him, especially the hand fighting scenes are much better than in the last decades. The character Bond was also changing and is interesting here: More serious, cooler and raw.
But the story isOn the one side Brosnan is a good Bond, he fits to him, especially the hand fighting scenes are much better than in the last decades. The character Bond was also changing and is interesting here: More serious, cooler and raw.
But the story is stupid. Some action scenes are even more ridiculous than in the past Bond movies. In addition some characters in the movie were annoying, because so dumb or feminist (like the new M)… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

MovieGeeksApr 1, 2016

"Goldeneye" unveils Pierce Brosnan as the coffee-bar James Bond: mild, fashionable and nice in a very 90's way. Mr. Brosnan, as the best-moussed Bond ever to play baccarat in Monte Carlo, makes the character's latest personality transplant"Goldeneye" unveils Pierce Brosnan as the coffee-bar James Bond: mild, fashionable and nice in a very 90's way. Mr. Brosnan, as the best-moussed Bond ever to play baccarat in Monte Carlo, makes the character's latest personality transplant viable (not to mention smashingly photogenic), but the series still suffers the blahs.

Today's Bond does have the Internet and a credit sequence resembling a pretentious music video. And he has a girlfriend with advanced computer skills (Izabella Scorupco, a deep-voiced model who looks as good as Mr. Brosnan, which is saying a lot). Still, he often seems adrift. And this film is missing such basics as the cold war and the James Bond theme music. The absence of the latter is sure to throw some audience members into a two-hour Pavlovian twitch.

Judi Dench, as the first woman to play his supervisor, M, is on hand to call Bond "a sexist, misogynist dinosaur" so that you won't have to. But the real problem is not a matter of Bond's antediluvian quirks. It's that "Goldeneye" bears no stamp of Ian Fleming beyond its title, which was the name of his Jamaican home. This film's screenplay, by Jeffrey Caine and Bruce Feirstein from a story by Michael France, features only flat repartee and fairly desperate homages to the Fleming style.

And so many other action films have borrowed from the Bond formula in the 33 (yes!) years since "Dr. No" that this one has a hard time looking special. A plane, a motorcycle, a huge dam, a bungee jumper and nerve gas all feature in the opening sequence, yet it still lacks the novelty that starts the best Bond films off with a bang. And Mr. Brosnan, who makes a fabulous clothing model and has mastered the one dramatic mode this role requires of him (wry), is not at his most believable during action scenes. When Bond rides in a tank through St. Petersburg during a scenery-crunching chase scene, Michael Dukakis comes to mind.

Clinging desperately to the idea of Russian villainy for old times' sake, the plot involves Russian gangsters trying to exploit a secret space-based weapons program to sabotage financial markets in the West. And its chief villain is 006 (Sean Bean), who was once Bond's colleague and now calls him "Her Majesty's loyal terrier." Beyond this, it's enough to note that character actors include Robbie Coltrane as a Russian hood and Joe Don Baker as a C.I.A. man, and that settings can be drably industrial unless the film is pointedly visiting Switzerland or the Caribbean, where it practically screams about the scenery.

Though 006 has the poor form to bait Bond about his past, wondering theatrically whether all those vodka martinis can silence the screams of all the men Bond has killed, most of "Goldeneye" is relatively restrained. Martin Campbell, who previously directed the sci-fi prison film "No Escape" with Ray Liotta, supplies shootouts and explosions at reliable intervals, and without any special frills. The film's gaudiest feature is a vicious Russian named Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen), who bites and claws her lovers and has a way of confusing sex with death. Her nutcracker thighs, not to mention her name, suggest that the Bond babe is as ready as 007 was for a timely overhaul.

In the product-placement department, BMW, Perrier and the becoming Bond wardrobe are all advertised. "Goldeneye" is as much a merchandising event as it is a wishfully nostalgic movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

amheretojudgeMay 13, 2019

And he is here, the ultimate saviour of the franchise, he is going to line up quite an audience to watch him do, well, anything.

GoldenEye Campbell raises the bar. It was light and easy to do so, and yet he failed to place it in the majorAnd he is here, the ultimate saviour of the franchise, he is going to line up quite an audience to watch him do, well, anything.

GoldenEye

Campbell raises the bar. It was light and easy to do so, and yet he failed to place it in the major leagues. The franchise does this every time, they take a big break and hype up their upcoming project and tease the fans to a degree that they go vulnerable enough to chug up any bizarre made up story that somehow revolves around the same cheesy, ethically wrong icon. And I guess, it's that very same controversial debate that what is it so absorbing to watch three hours of gangsters creating havoc and still root for them. But at least, there is some sort of originality and authenticity in every new version of Martin Scorsese's mean street boys.

Here, this almost a Royale personality, has been revoking his license for commercial cinema as a get out clause which never was and shouldn't be an excuse to low quality cinema. And Martin Campbell, the director, isn't adding anything new to it, yet with such huge fumbles in the past, this seems like a project where a lot of work was put on. And similar is our new hero Pierce Brosnan ready to be drooled over, he puts on a lot of effort even in the long chase sequences, unlike Roger Moore he doesn't just sit by in a boat.

But what comes in natural to Brosnan; a highly appealing personality, is never reflected back by him with equally sincerity. And when he does work hard, his performance makes sure you are aware of it, such an effortful is his process and painful our experience. Sean Bean, a worthy foe sweats hard for it just like Famke Janssen who yells loud for the effects, combining them lies a noteworthy set of evil partner which is undermined by Brosnan's stealy cold look with his blue-grey eyes and yet they called it a GoldenEye.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

FilipeNetoFeb 19, 2018

Directed by Martin Campbell and produced by Barbara Broccoli (daughter of Albert Broccoli, who stepped down for health reasons), has screenplay by Jeffrey Caine and Bruce Feirstein, and is the seventeenth film in the franchise. It wasDirected by Martin Campbell and produced by Barbara Broccoli (daughter of Albert Broccoli, who stepped down for health reasons), has screenplay by Jeffrey Caine and Bruce Feirstein, and is the seventeenth film in the franchise. It was produced after a long gap of six years, due to legal problems involving firms that had rights to the franchise. And it's very different from what was in the eighties, beginning with the cast: a veteran Judi Dench gave life to M, and for the first time the role was assigned to a woman; the role of Miss Moneypenny was awarded to Samantha Bond and 007 was assigned to Pierce Brosnan. From the list of previous films only survived Desmond Llewelyn, the eternal Q. In the film goes even Izabella Scorupco in the role of Bond-girl Natalya, Joe Don Baker in the role of Jack Wade, Robbie Coltrane in the role of Valentin Zukovsky, Alan Cumming in the role of Boris, Famke Janssen in the role of Xenia Gottfried John in the role of General Ourumov and Sean Bean in the role of villain Alec Trevelyan.

In this film, James Bond seeks to combat Janus, a powerful criminal who stole a Russian mass destruction weapon, Goldeneye. To stop the villain that threatens to destroy London, he will ally Natalya, a Russian expert computer working on the Goldeneye project before it being stolen.

This is the first Bond film to be released after the end of the Soviet Union, when the film industry had questioned the appropriateness of continuing the franchise. Despite the doubts, Pierce Brosnan took the role and the task of bringing his character to a new era of "invisible enemies" (using the words that M will say in "Skyfall", ten years later, when faced with precisely the same doubts). Although not one of the best films of the franchise, "Goldeneye" knew, in fact, update it. Brosnan is not surprising in his role but can be up to the challenge. Surprising is Judi Dench, in the role of M, achieving a remarkable performance. Its the first time that MI6 boss assumes a major role in the plot, and shows even little appreciation for Bond, considering him a relic of the past and something to be discarded, as to seem a form of play with the criticisms made to the franchise before the film's release. The chosen locations are excellent and some of the film's scenes are worthy of memory. This is the case of the tank sequence in St. Peterburg's streets, or the final fight in the antenna. The script is also well thought out, despite having decided to completely ignore the novels of Ian Flemming. The story revolves around the end of the USSR and the "remains" that were all this past: we do not speak only of weaponry but also of people, as Bond and Alec, were marked by decades of cold war. The theft of Russian weapons may be the introduction of the new Bond world of terrorism? Perhaps. The opening theme of this film, sung by Tina Turner and consists of Bono, in my opinion, one of the best of the entire franchise.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Gamepro3093Aug 19, 2020

A movie more suited to Timothy Dalton isn’t nearly as good of a fit for Pierce Brosnan. He looked pretty uncomfortable and unsure of himself, not what I expect for James Bond. Timothy Dalton displayed more confidence and charm in The LivingA movie more suited to Timothy Dalton isn’t nearly as good of a fit for Pierce Brosnan. He looked pretty uncomfortable and unsure of himself, not what I expect for James Bond. Timothy Dalton displayed more confidence and charm in The Living Daylights ( less so in Licence To Kill but that had more to do with the rubbish script and direction than his abilities). A shame that after the promise the Dalton era showed for the series with it’s more gritty and down to earth approach that the series headed right back to the worst aspects of the Roger Moore and Sean Connery era immediately after this movie. I blame a good chunk of that on Brosnan as he didn’t have any real vision for the character. He’s full of fluff when he talks about this so called vision he had of making the character more like he was in the novels. The World Is Not Enough and moments here and there were the closest he ever got. Most of the time he was just a pale imitation of Roger Moore and Sean Connery. His initial goal was to blend the 2 actors and their take on the character with somewhat of the more gritty Dalton take but it never quite got there.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews