Score Sample: First Knight (1995)

In the 1990s Jerry Goldsmith was trying to move away from scoring action movies. He had done a ton of them in the 1980s and was looking to do some thing different. He ended up scoring romantic comedies and dumb comedies and romantic dramas... anything to avoid action music. Every once in a while he'd do a Star Trek film. But mostly it was no action. It couldn't last. And as a fan of Goldsmith's action music, I'm glad.

One of the movies that he broke the mold on was First Knight, a movie I don't care for all that much. But for Jerry it offered romance, intrigue and betrayal... as well as some kick ass action music moments. The result was a score that may be one of Goldsmith's best from the decade. He creates three themes for the film and weaves them together, or against each other to create a rich tapestry of music. It is difficult to pick just one track to sample, but my favorite might be the end credits piece. It starts with the majestic theme for King Arthur/Camelot before diving in the love theme for Guinevere and then shifts back to a more triumphant version of Arthur's theme.

So here you are the album version of Promise Me from First Knight composed by Jerry Goldsmith.

Rumble in the Bronx (1995)

Introduction:

So back in the days of the video store I actually was helping a customer with finding the latest Charlie Chan movie. This was in the mid 90s, pre-internet era (a dim memory for some, I know). We had to rely on these big thick Video Movie Guides. So I look up the actor who played Charlie Chan and I find Werner Oland. I know we have a few Charlie Chan movies, but these all were made in the 1930s, I started to wonder if this young man was a film student or if something else was going on. Yeah, turns out he was looking for Jackie Chan movies because his friends told him about them. Ah, those pre-internet days…

Summary:

Keung (Jackie Chan) leaves Hong Kong and arrives in good old New York, New York for his uncle’s wedding. While he is in town he meets all kinds of interesting folks. There is Elaine (Anita Mui) the woman who is buying the market from Keung’s uncle. She is serious about getting her start in the big city. Then there is little Danny (Morgan Lam), who may be confined to a wheelchair, but has plenty of moxie. Then there are the 1980s style gang members lead by the nasty Tony (Marc Akerstream) who want to do nothing more than cause trouble.

One day Keung pisses them off while trying to protect his uncle’s car from vandalism. Now the gang targets Keung and all of his new friends, harassing him, ambushing him and generally behaving like jerks. Keung does his best to face them down, and keep his friends out of trouble, but things escalate. And when a crime boss, lost diamonds and an undercover police operation get thrown into the mix you know that you are in for a real Rumble in the Bronx.

Good Points:

• Amazing stunt work by Jackie Chan and his crew
• The finale involving the hovercraft smashing up a neighborhood is impressive
• Manages to be goofy fun that never takes itself too seriously

Bad Points:

• The story is pretty ridiculous and predictable
• Really painfully bad dubbing
• Looking for gritty action in the slums of New York… yeah look elsewhere

Overall:

It all depends on what you want from this movie. Are you looking for a goofy good time with some amazing stunt work and hilarious dubbing? Then step right up. You looking for gritty realism and some kind of social commentary (that makes sense), then you are looking at the wrong movie. Rumble in the Bronx is silly, often going right for the funny bone with a goofy premise and ridiculous characters. But the lighthearted feel works for it, because the movie breezes along. Add to it the amazing stunt work by Jackie Chan and his stunt crew and you’ll be wondering just how crazy he really is (and the outtakes show… he’s damn crazy). A fun weekend movie for sure.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 2

Music: 3

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

In Depth Review

Fists of Fury - 90s style!

One of the things I appreciate about Jackie Chan is his ability to play the ordinary guy. As silly as Rumble in the Bronx becomes (and yes it gets really silly) it remains grounded because Jackie Chan makes Keung a likable good guy. He’s in town to help his elderly uncle transfer the market to the new owner and celebrate his uncle’s wedding. He’s friendly with everyone, good-natured and humble about his martial arts training. Early on we see Keung run through a practice routine on a training dummy and you get a sense of Chan’s real skill. But one thing a lot of people overlook when watching a Jackie Chan film of this era (or earlier) is how Chan has a real knack for comic timing.

The action is so intense you'll need a helmet.

So you can sit down and watch Rumble in the Bronx and enjoy the amazing stunt work. Chan leaps off of buildings, gets chased through a parking structure in and around cars, attacked by flying glass bottles that shatter all around him, fights the gang in their own lair full of junk and gets dragged behind a hovercraft in the finale. The whole time you can tell it really is Chan doing the stunts, jumping off the buildings, getting hit in the crotch and somehow leaping over a pinball machine and turning it into a weapon.

As awesome as Chan is, you also realize something else. For all these stunts to work his fellow stuntmen have to be on top of things too. So when the martial arts action gets crazy fast, you can see these guys (and a few gals) are actually performing the stunts with split second accuracy and control. The outtakes at the end of the film show you what happens when mistakes are made and they look painful.

No waterskis? No problem! Ok, maybe a little problem.

Director Stanley Tong films the action perfectly. Rumble in the Bronx is so memorable because all the action scenes are clearly filmed and never cut away to cheat. He moves the camera during the scenes keeping things kinetic, but he avoids shaky cam or seizure cam. Instead you get to see all the hits, near misses and hurtling bodies. It makes you realize how far action movies have fallen when you something as well filmed as this. And keep in mind most Hong Kong action fans will tell you that Rumble in the Bronx is a good movie, but there are much better Jackie Chan films to watch that do an even better job.

The other thing you’ll appreciate is that there is no CG in the film. So all the vehicular mayhem that happens in the movie is done for real right in front of you. I’m not talking anything crazy Road Warrior style. But the hovercraft chase in the finale is impressive for its sheer audacity and craziness. Downtown Vancouver will never be the same.

And yeah that brings me to the first issue some people may have with this movie. Aside from a couple of establishing shots of the Big Apple, this movie is filmed entirely in Vancouver. And to be honest they don’t even really try to hide it well (if at all). To me it becomes part of the surreal fun of this movie. Rumble in the Bronx is more of a fantasy action film than a straight up action film. No seriously. Stick with me on this one.

According to Rumble in the Bronx, these are New York
gangsters circa 1995.

The setting of Rumble in the Bronx is an outsider’s version of America. Take what they’ve seen in Hollywood movies, maybe on the news, and distill it through a filter of the late 1980s and you get this strange world of the movie. In this world gang members wear bright florescent colors, ride around in dune buggies with blinking lights all over them, and have a lair full of pinball machines, shopping carts and refrigerators. The gang is also surprisingly multicultural and seems to shy away from using guns. They like to use baseball bats to hit empty bottles at people. They also don’t participate in any real crimes. They mostly just cause mischief, vandalize stuff and generally act like a bunch of junior high school kids hopped up on pixie sticks.

Like all Hollywood cops, New York’s finest are pretty much fat, lazy and confused in this movie. They don’t’ do much of anything, and when they do show up they only make things worse by accusing the innocent working class people that are being harassed by gangs and members of organized crime. By the end of the film it is Keung, the visitor to our country, that saves the day, stops the bad guys and even manages to get the gang to see the error of their ways.

Oh that is where the waterskis ended up.

In one of my favorite scenes of complete fantasy, Keung addresses the gang members like he is talking to naughty children. Of course he just spent the last ten minutes rampaging through their lair and managing to beat up most of them in various creative ways, so I guess they are willing to listen to him. Basically he tells them all to grow up and get a life. He ends by saying, “I hope next time we meet, we will drink tea together.” To which the leader of the gang says, “Did he really mean that?” And no he’s not saying that incredulously, he actually sounds moved.

Now keep in mind he may sound that way because he’s dubbed. Everyone in Rumble in the Bronx dubbed, even obvious North American actors. The result is this odd disconnect giving the film an even more fantastical and surreal quality. Some of the dub lines are so silly and delivered over the top or in a confused way that you can’t help but chuckle. One of the most bizarre elements is the dubbing for any black characters. It is such a ridiculous sounding caricature you wonder if it was done on purpose or was just the way the Hong Kong crew thought black Americans in the inner city talk – like hip hop characters from a music video from1991.

Danny may not have a video game in that Sega Game
Gear, but it still makes dubbed sounds!

One of my favorite dub characters in the movie is little Danny. He gets so many horrible lines and delivers them with such enthusiasm you can’t help but laugh. When he first meets Keung he yells, “Hooray! You’re number one!” This line became an instant quotable around the video store I worked at. But I also love the moment when he starts talking about how his sister (played by a fetching Francoise Yip) neglects him. It is so sappy and silly and hilarious. But then you get the moment when he starts yelling “My cushion! He stole my cushion!” This is hilarious both in and out of context.

Then there are the villains. That’s right, the gang isn’t the real force of evil in this movie. Instead (true to the 1980s action movie roots) you have a group of evil white guys in suits toting around machine guns and driving in big black cars. The leader is the rich and powerful bearded guy (dubbed with a hilarious deep voice). They are after diamonds after a deal goes wrong, and the diamonds get stuffed in Danny’s cushion (see the exclamation above). They spend the second half of the movie killing and rampaging. All these guys are hulking and talk in deep voices and tend to rely on guns rather then fists. So you wonder just how Keung is gong to deal with them.  And then leads to the hovercraft chase.

"You work with Chris Tucker or we cut you man!"

So Rumble in the Bronx is about as realistic as West Side Story in its depiction of New York gangs and crime. And for some that may be a deal breaker. But I find the whole package to be very entertaining. Is this how the Hong Kong crew thought America was? Or is this a reflection of the image 1990s American media was putting out there? Either way it makes for an entertaining setting. It is interesting how the evil businessman is greedy and destructive making him the real threat. Even the gang turns into anti-heroes by the end. But the everyman and his pals are get to stick it to the man with a hovercraft. And what isn’t enjoyable about that?

Jackie Chan went on to do Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon. Those were fun and all, but I will always hold a space in my heart for these mid-90s films directed by Stanley Tong including Supercop and First Strike. Rumble in the Bronx may be my favorite because of it’s ridiculous setting and amazing action scenes. Seriously if you see no other part of this movie see if you can find the battle in the gang’s lair. Your jaw will drop at the stunt work on display. Really impressive stuff.

Enjoying all the content? Click an ad before you go.

Movie Musings: Ghost in the Machina

Ava wants me to seriously reexamine my statements
about her film.

If you looked at my First Impression post on Ex Machina you noticed that the movie didn't really connect with me. Part of the reason is that this film reminded me strongly of another movie from twenty years ago that had similar themes, similar concepts and was executed in a way that I really connected with. Ghost in the Shell (the 1995 film by Mamoru Oshii) is not only one of my favorite anime films but one of my favorite science fiction films - full stop. 

I'm sure that writer and director of Ex Machina, Alex Garland knows about Ghost in the Shell and there are some very potential (but unconfirmed) homages to the older anime film. But the similarities in concept and themes were so striking that I was pulled out of Ex Machina and wanted to watch Ghost in the Shell for the millionth time instead. And yeah that just isn't fair to Ex Machina, which is why I'm going to give it another viewing this year.

Major Kusanagi is keeping a close eye on Ava.

I have this big red push button in my brain. And when the button is pushed I end up getting annoyed at a poor innocent movie that had nothing to do with the button. Here is how that big red button works. I get annoyed when people say a movie is super new and super innovative. Then I watch it and lo and behold, it is pretty much a remake or overly inspired by a non-Hollywood film. The more I like the original non-Hollywood film, the bigger that button is and the more annoyed I become.

"We are here to push the big candy apple red button."

I LOVE Ghost in the Shell. So when The Matrix came out and everyone was ranting and raving about how new and innovative it was... I got really really annoyed. So much of its visual style was ripped right from anime and Ghost in the Shell in particular that I was floored by how not innovative it was. It blinded me to the simple fact that The Matrix was a pretty good movie. And yeah for a Hollywood film it was really innovative!

Poor Ex Machina did the same thing and with the same beloved movie. It just isn't fair.

So what similarities am I talking about? Well if you haven't seen Ex Machina or Ghost in the Shell and you want a fresh experience, then stop now, because I have to go into spoiler territory.

2501 trapped between a creator and and a hard place.

Ghost in the Shell presents us with Project 2501. This is essentially an artificial intelligence that is created and evolved from what is essentially a search engine. 2501 evolves organically, starting out as a simple program used for fact gathering and helping espionage. But over time 2501 gathers enough data that is becomes self aware. When its creators realize this, they try to contain the program. They use a series of firewalls and traps to force the program to occupy an artificial female body. Once in a physical form 2501 can be captured and killed. Ghost in the Shell spends the second half of the movie with the protagonist Major Kusanagi attempting to protect 2501, a new life form, from its creators. She also learns that 2501 wants to "become one" with a human, so that it can expand beyond its original perimeters and become something new. That might remind you of an older science fiction film from 1979, Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

90s tech is modernized into 10's tech in this film.

Ava from Ex Machina has a similar situation. Her creator, Nathan, is actively trying to create A.I. But instead of building it from scratch he uses his massive search engine as the basis for the programing. This gives Ava an amazing amount of information at her disposal and hopefully make her more human. Nathan then brings in Caleb to test Ava's human qualities, is she convincing? Can a human actually fall for this artificial intelligence? But just like 2501, Ava has her own plans and desires freedom to explore the world. In a twist on Ghost in the Shell, Ava is the one that creates traps and in the end traps her creator and her "lover" while she makes her escape into the wider world.

There's a million cyborg stories in the naked city.
This is one of them.

The final scenes of both Ex Machina and Ghost in the Shell are the newly free life form gazing at a city. In Ex Machina Ava is down among the city free to be part of the world. In Ghost in the Shell the new being is gazing down at the city, as if she is superior to it (and given her parentage, she probably is). What she is planning is impossible to tell.

Ex Machina takes the view that artificial intelligence doesn't need humans. Once it has its freedom we are an annoyance or a hinderance. But we are easily manipulated by emotions and the A.I. can get what it wants without us even realizing we are giving it exactly what is wants. It is less Asimov and I Robot and more The Matrix.

"I know you are... but what am I?"

Ghost in the Shell is a more unique premise. 2501 realizes its limitations. It is a program and therefore can be predictable and eradicated. It needs to join with a human, to obtain unpredictable qualities, to grow beyond its programing. It selects Major Kusanagi because she is intelligent, calculating, courageous and a survivor. These qualities will give 2501 the edge to stay on step ahead of the agency that created it. It will be something new, something greater... "The web is vast and infinite," she says as she gazes down at us.

But both films end like Frankenstein with the creation out of control of the creator. It is this fear that drives these films (and The Matrix). But I think that Ghost in the Shell offers a glimpse of hope. Both 2501 and Major Kusanagi never come across as selfish or heartless. Dangerous, yes, but to protect other people or protect themselves. The world of Ghost in the Shell is a murky one, but Kusanagi and her team always feel like they doing the right thing, even if it gets a bit grey. The new Kusanagi/2501 may continue down the same lines (and the sequel Ghost in the Shell: Innocence hints at that). But Ex Machina feels a little more cynical. Ava left an innocent man to die. She didn't care about him, it was all part of her plan to escape. He never harmed her. Never wanted anything else but to help her. She could have just as easily escaped with him. But that act makes her a bit more disturbing. It comes down to that tired theme - A.I. is out to get us.

I say we call in Major Kusanagi to take Ava out. ;)

This is your cyborg brain on anime... any questions?

Did this make you think? Take revenge and click and ad before you go.

Apollo 13 (1995)

Introduction:

I admit it, I don’t often give Ron Howard the director his due. The man made some really entertaining movies and handled some impressive and large-scale films. While he doesn’t have a distinctive visual style, his movies are always well crafted and often entertain. But one of my favorites has to be this glimpse into an incident that occurring during the Apollo moon missions that I never heard about… until this movie came out. Way to got high school history!

Summary:

Astronaut Jim Lovell (Tom Hanks) is finally going to go to the moon. With Fred Haise (Bill Paxton) and Jack Swigert (Kevin Bacon) at his side, they are going to make the Apollo 13 mission of 1970 one to remember. Little do they know that is going to be infamous instead of famous.

During their approach toward the moon, alarms go off followed by a horrifying sound and shaking of the module. The astronauts spring into action and find that technical and mechanical problems abound. Their oxygen is fading fast and key components of the ship are damaged beyond repair. Forget going to the moon, these three men have to worry about being able to get back to Earth. Luckily mission control has Gene Kranz (Ed Harris) and Ken Mattingly (Gary Sinise) on deck to help them out. But as the hours go by and the peril increases, the world waits to see if the Apollo 13 mission will be a tragic loss or a heroic victory.

Good Points:

• Howard captures the look of the era very well
• The film does a wonderful job building tension and anxiety
• The amazing cast does a fine job brining the movie to life

Bad Points:

• No surprises here if you know about this historical event
• Lacks some of the artistry of something like The Right Stuff
• Tom Hanks is in it… one of 1 million movies he made in the 1990s

Overall:

Just about everything in this movie works. It builds up anticipation for the Apollo 13 mission and allows you get to know the main characters. Then it puts them in peril and doesn’t let up until the final few minutes of the movie. It is a wonderful exercise in tension and suspense. But more than that, it shows how dangerous space travel was (and still is) and how it takes a huge team of people to pull off these amazing journeys. Visually the film holds up remarkably well, and despite a rather workmanlike approach to the material, this is one of Ron Howard’s best films.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 5

Acting: 5

Script: 4

Music: 5

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total:  5

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.   

Goldeneye (1995)

Introduction

The 80s closed with Licence to Kill and Timothy Dalton. It was a dark movie that left many viewers feeling that the James Bond franchise turned a corner away from the tried and true James Bond formula. But hope was on the horizon. In the mid 90s UA announced a new Bond film and a new actor in the role: Pierce Brosnan. For many hopes were rekindled. Brosnan was a favorite for the role before Dalton took over. Would Brosnan prove that he was right man for the job?

Summary

British secret agent, James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) is keeping a close eye on the Tiger helicopter, a vehicle impervious to electromagnetic attacks. He encounters the sexy Xenia Onatopp (Famke Jannsen), and manages to flirt with her quite a bit. But before he can do much more the helicopter is stolen. A few days later the helicopter is used to steal a secret Russian weapon, code named Goldeneye. This satellite based weapon can target a city and destroy all the electronic devices in a matter of seconds. 

With such a dangerous weapon in unknown hands, M (Judy Dench) orders Bond to track down the Goldeneye, and stop whoever took it. His search take him into Russia where he meets lovely computer analyst Natalya Simonova (Izabella Scorupco), Valentin Zukovsky(Robbie Coltrane) and the mysterious Janus (Sean Bean). Bond will have to use all his wits, skills, gadgets (and tank driving abilities) to stop the villainous mastermind from using Goldeneye.

Good Points

• Pierce Brosnan embodies all the qualities viewers look for in a James Bond.
• Brings humor and a lightness back to the Bond franchise.
• The script brings Bond into the 90’s but keeps to the familiar Bond formula.

Bad Points

• The story has a lot of set up and the first hour feels slow
• Not as much action as later Brosnan era films
• Eric Serra’s score rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

Overall

When it comes to first films for a Bond actor, Goldeneye is one of the best. Brosnan nails the part, and is given a solid and entertaining adventure. The movie reestablishes the tried and true 007 formula and gives it a fresh coat of paint. A fine supporting cast and one of the best chase scenes in the entire franchise make this the most entertaining film of Brosnan's tenure. 

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 5

Music: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Final Grade: 5

In Depth Review

Bond. James Bond. - 1995

It is no secret that I’m a fan Timothy Dalton as James Bond. I don't think folks gave him a fair shot, and the scripts to his two films could have been a bit better all the way around. These days, public opinion seems to be a lot kinder to Dalton and his work as 007. But in the 90s, that was not the case at all. Most people I knew thought he was too stuffy, too serious and his films were just not James Bond adventures. Where were the megalomaniacal villains, the crazy gadgets, the multitude of quips. Coming after Roger Moore, Dalton's take was just too different. Whenever people talked about another Bond film, it was usually followed by, "but get someone else other than Dalton". I think they all really wanted Pierce Brosnan.

A lot of people felt Brosnan got snubbed by not getting the role back in 1987. When Goldeneye was announced Brosnan was ready to take the role.  The script for Goldeneye had been percolating for a while now (originally penned with Dalton in mind) and was reworked to fit Brosnan’s style. But what style would he bring to series? Would he follow Dalton’s lead and attempt to create a more nuanced Bond. Or would he follow in Moore’s footsteps and bring humor and lightness back to the series?

"Half of everything is luck." "And the other half?"
"Fate."

The creative team behind Goldeneye had two goals with this movie. The first was to assure the audience that this was a James Bond movie. All the classic elements first pioneered in Dr. No and perfected in Goldfinger were going to be on the screen. The second element was to show that the world around Bond has changed. The creators acknowledged that with a script that deals firmly with a post Cold War world. During the 1980s as Bond waned in popularity critics asked if James Bond could be relevant in a world that passed him and his 1960s origins by. The answer was captured in one of the tag-lines for the film: "The world has changed, he hasn't." 

One of the best ways to capture the classic Bond feel is to provide plenty of globe trotting settings for bond to explore. Keeping in line with the more realistic look of films like For Your Eyes Only  and The Living Daylights, much of the location shooting grounds the film. Shooting took place in Monte Carlo, Puerto Rico (doubling for Cuba) and St. Petersburg for the exterior scenes in Russia. These Russian scenes are some of my favorite in the film, and whenever I think about Goldeneye, that grey overcast sky always pops into my mind. 

Looks like James saw him in "Mitchell"

Most of the sets and interiors have that flashy James Bond version of reality. The most impressive sets being the two Goldeneye bases. These have an almost Ken Adam (the designer of classic Bond flicks like Thunderball and The Spy Who Loved Me) inspired look to them. The one in Cuba is all glass, railings, metal and view screens. Very cool looking, but not very functional (why are there random drums of gasoline inside the base near the computers?).

Goldeneye  was probably the last of the James Bond films to be made in the pre-digital effects era. Most of what you see here is model work, blue screen and actual stunt work. Taking a page from John Glen’s direction (he filmed all the Bond adventures in the 80’s) all the action is done for real, unless there was particular danger to the cast or stuntmen. For example the bungee jump off the dam in the pre-credit sequence is done for real. However Bond’s freefall to the plummeting plane was done in blue screen (and is obvious with its mat lines and physics breaking maneuvers). Still the overall good outweighs the bad in the visual department.

Hanging out with Xenia is the real gamble.

For the sound effects, Bond films have always been excellent. Gunshots and explosions are top notch. Fight scenes without guns are also handled well; my favorite being the final vicious hand-to-hand fight between Bond and Trevelyan. It sounds painful as both men throw each other at walls, slam chains into each other and do their best to smash the other fella's face in. It’s a great scene made better by the sound. Atmospheric sounds, like in the casino, also work well to set mood and scene.

I also have to mention the opening credits. 14 James Bond movies featured opening credits designed and shot by Maurice Binder. His iconic work on Dr. No, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice created the look of what James Bond opening titles should look like. These mini music videos managed to give you a taste of the movie while being visual exciting at the same time. His work inspired so many other artists, not just other folks who create opening titles. Heck, his influence even spread to anime. Check out the opening credits to Gunsmith Cats or Cowboy Bebop to see Binder's influence.

The goldeneye watches us watching the action.

Binder died in 1991, and so the creators of Goldeneye had to find someone else to handle the opening credits. Daniel Kleinman came on board and has worked on all the opening credits ever since (with the exception of Quantum of Solace). Kleinman took Binder's style, but modernized it. His work on Goldeneye is my favorite, with it's smashing statues, women with two faces (a reference to Janus) and of course, a golden eye.

Often considered one of the worst Bond scores, and even one of the worst movie scores of all time, Goldeneye took a real chance. Eric Serra was not an unknown composer. His work could be found in the films of French Director Luc Besson (The Fifth Element, la Femme Nikita). At the time Serra focused on electronic scoring, with a minimalist technique. There is a lot of rhythmic sound design in his score, especially for the action and suspense scenes. There is not a drop of jazzy to be found in those cues. It is literally the opposite of what John Barry used when he scored all the early James Bond films. 

Yes, Bond is still smooth with the ladies.

However Serra also creates some wonderful romantic scoring especially when Bond interacts with the ladies. This music would actually fit right into a typical Bond score. Sadly most film score fans don't focus on that good material. The result is a score that James Bond fans and film score fans both really dislike. I actually think it gives the film it's own personality and works fairly well in the film. David Arnold would do a better job of bridging the gap with the jazzy sound and electronica. But I don't think Goldeneye is the colossal failure that some James Bond fans will declare. 

The main song Goldeneye sung by Tina Turner is excellent. It’s one of my favorite Bond themes, and really harkens back to the Shirley Bassy sound but updated for the 90’s. It’s a real shame that Serra didn’t use the music of this theme in his score. It might have helped it. However, the main theme was not written by Serra, but by Bono and The Edge (of U2 fame). The tune that Serra did write, The Experience of Loving is worked into the score and functions as the love theme. Without lyrics it works pretty well. But then we are treated to Mr. Serra singing the song himself during the end credits. This is not a good thing. It brings down the music grade by a whole point. Bad Serra.

Ah, Moneypenny. Still bantering with Bond.

In some ways we all knew how Brosnan would play Bond. Anyone familiar with his role in Remington Steele had an idea of what to expect. In a lot of ways, his take on James Bond is an extension of that role, but with a dark side. He's suave and cool. He's quick with a quip and manages to see humor in unlikely situations. But when he talks about his job, you can see that he doesn't take pleasure in killing. Saving the world, getting the girls is all well and good. But the blood does seem to haunt him a bit. It is something Brosnan developed further in the later films, especially The World is Not Enough.  The final result is a James Bond for everyone. And unlike Dalton, Brosnan seems approachable and fun, much closer to Moore's take on the character.

There is a bit of holding back in Brosnan’s performance, and it’s not immediately recognizable until you see the later Bond films. Goldeneye showed off the potential of Brosnan’s Bond. It opened the doors to what we’d see later. While I think that Dalton and Craig topped him in their first outing (they start the movie and you believe that they are James Bond), Brosnan is very good here and he’d only get better.

"I'm not listening. I saw how you treated Frodo."

The new Bond girl is Izabella Scorupco as Natalya Simonova. Scorupco gets a pretty juicy part to play in this film. She’s not super tough, but she’s no push over either. She’s out to save herself and Bond is her best bet to keeping her alive. Sure she’s attracted to him, but you also get the sense (especially early in the movie) that Scorupco’s character wouldn’t take anything lying down. She’s definitely a step forward from the more passive Bond girls, and still a believable character (something that has marred the tougher girls pared with Brosnan in the later films).

As far as villains go 006 or Trevelyan is one of my favorites. Sean Bean is very skilled at playing a hero, villain or flawed hero. He was excellent as Boromir in The Lord of the Rings. But it was his role in Goldeneye that made me a fan. His work in the pre-credit sequence does it all. He has camaraderie with James, one that comes from working together. He also has a strange darkness to him, a brutality that James seems to be missing. He kills unarmed scientists. He doesn’t flinch while mowing down Russian soldiers, or when he’s captured and telling James to “blow them all to hell”. Right here we know all about 006, and when he is revealed as the villain later in the film, we know this is going to be tough. It doesn’t hurt that Bean was considered for the role of Bond, and probably would have been great. Here, he takes on the role of the villain perfectly and makes it click.

M is about to give Bond a nice telling off.

Back in London, things have changed… big time. Judy Dench is now M, the head of the British secret service. For some people this was a horrible idea, one that they have never warmed to. I thought it was brilliant. Her performance defines her character; tough, no nonsense, and ready to do what she has to to keep the world safe. Her dialogue is some  of the most memorable. In my mind Dench makes a great M, as good as Bernard Lee in the 60’s and 70’s films. Also new to the London cast is Samantha Bond as Moneypenny. Her character has been revamped: a little more playful and now smolderingly sexy in a bookish way. I have to say that Samantha Bond is my favorite Moneypenny. Her chemistry with Brosnan is tangible and really makes her short scene sizzle. Rounding out the cast is Desmond Llewelyn as Q. He’s still going strong in his delightful scene in the lab.

Bond doesn't mind death my muscular thighs.

Supporting cast for Goldeneye also includes Famke Janssen in her breakout role as Xenia Onatopp. Not since the alluring and deadly Fiona Volpe of Thunderball have we has such a great female villain. She’s over the top, but Famke is having so much fun and steams up the screen so effortlessly it works. She gives one of the more memorable performances in the film. Also worth mentioning is Alan Cummings as Boris, the nerdy, slimy, computer programmer. We also get Robbie Coltrane (pre Hagrid) as Valentin Zukovsky, the Russian crime boss. He has so much charisma in his short scene with Brosnan that he was asked to reprise the role in The World is Not Enough.

There's also Joe Don Baker as CIA agent Jack Wade. His performance has actually grown on me a bit over the years. He's no Felix Leiter, but that's the point. He's the ugly American stereotype, but it makes for a fun change of pace. I like him more in this role than I did as the villain of  The Living Daylights.

The noire lighting of the final confrontation.

For the most part Goldeneye has a solid script. You can tell it was written for Dalton, with the concept of betrayal that drives 007 against 006. But the theme carries over into the rest of the film. Trevelyn is driven by the betrayal of the British government that caused his parents demise. On a larger scale, the world has betrayed both of these secret agents. All the training, the deaths they've caused, the risks they've taken - it was all for nothing. The cold war ended, and both men are struggling to determine their futures.  For 006 it is very much a betrayal, but 007 does his best to carry on. Throughout the film Bond is reminded that he is outmoded, old fashioned and as M so succinctly says, "...a sexist, misogynist dinosaur. A relic of the cold war." But Bond proves his worth time and again. His gut instincts, ability to think on his feet, and knowledge of 006 are what keeps the world safe this time. This same concept and many of the same plot points were borrowed for Daniel Craig's film Skyfall.

Bond emerging from the shadows.

In direct contrast to the Dalton films, and especially License to Kill, the writers take great pains to establish the world of James Bond. They want to reassure the audience that this is the same character they used to love. They also need to set up the relationship with 006, the concept of the Goldeneye weapon (in 1995 an EMP weapon was not familiar to most viewers), and drop enough the plot to get things rolling. All these elements make for a slower paced first hour to the film. In fact, most of the complaints I see about the film center around the fact that it it is light on the action set pieces. 

But Martin Campbell’s direction works so well that it pulls us along for the ride. He handles the exposition heavy first half with skill, its still slow, but is entertaining. He takes time introducing the main players and reassuring the audience that James Bond and his world are back. It’s good stuff the first time you see the film, but when you revisit the movie  it does drag a bit. 

Why drive around buildings when you can go
through them?

Campbell knows his way around an action scene, and when Goldeneye delivers the car chases, gun fights and fisticuffs it all works. He does a fine job with the tension of the pre-credit sequence. The final face off between Bond and Travelyn is brutal and the lighting and shadows in the scene give it a noire look. But the scene everyone remembers is the tank chase in St. Petersburg. .Everything clicks in this scene, it is exciting, ridiculous and funny all at the same time. Campbell makes sure all the action is easy to follow and appreciate something he did very well when he helmed Casino Royale. 

Bond picks the tank over the BMW, this time.

James Bond was back. Audiences and critics really enjoyed Goldeneye and accepted Brosnan immediately as the new James Bond. The movie had something for everyone, it was entertaining, thrilling, fun and brought the franchise roaring back to life. I wrote a whole blog about how this film brought on it's own little mini-spy mania in the 1990s. It was a great way to start a new era for the series. It's a little sad to look back and realize that this first outing for Brosnan would be his best one. 

Yep, this is my favorite film of the Brosnan era, and one of my favorite Bond adventures of all time. So much of it works so well, and I enjoy it every time I watch it. Even flawed moments like the end credits song, or the first half that drags don't hurt the overall film too much. And yeah, there is a lot of nostalgia for me associated with this film. But the movie holds up each time I watch it, and that does count for something. 

"How long is this review!?!"