Osmosis Iron Brosnan was the first Bond I saw, and this is my favorite movie with him as Bond and among the top 3 Bond movies ever. It has everything that makes Bond great: action, women, espionage, humor, gadgets and a great villain!

marieltrokan The right of reality, to be treated with respect, is the same as the right of fantasy to be treated with disrespect. Reality getting to be taken seriously means that fantasy is permitted the right to be regarded as something that's nonsense. A disrespectful treatment, is the respect of no treatment. Fantasy's right to be given disrespectful treatment is the equivalent of fantasy having the right to the dignity of no treatment. Fantasy's right is not the same as fantasy, however: the right of fantasy is the illusion of fantasy, and it's a lack of right.The right of fantasy, is to possess the non-possession of the dignity of no treatment - to possess the impossible truth that it's possible to respectfully ignore something.It's an impossible reality, to have the power to ignore something and possess the experience in a dignified way. Ignoring something inevitably means an experience of disrespect.The impossible truth, that ignoring something can mean dignity is the illusion of fantasy - the reality of reality is therefore the opposite, being the ability to ignore something and let the experience have respect.To ignore something, is to know that something exists and yet let the existence be uninterrupted: letting the experience of letting the existence go uninterrupted have respect implies that the existence itself isn't meant to have respect.GoldenEye is perhaps an exceptionally intellectual film, as its style is concerned with the charisma of going out of one's way to save the experience of logical avoidance

Chris_Lacon James Bond: The world's most adaptable secret agent. In 2006, Daniel Craig and director Martin Campbell gave us "Casino Royale" which resurrected the ailing franchise and made it fresh and relevant once again in the post 9/11 world. Campbell however successfully revitalised the Bond franchise once before with Pierce Brosnan's 1995 debut "GoldenEye". Back then, the Bond series was in a crisis. The world had changed: The Soviet Union had collapsed and audience's taste's had shifted towards big, blockbuster action movies, like the various Stallone and Schwarzenegger vehicles being produced. Bond was increasingly seen as archaic and outdated. MGM, the company that produced the franchise, was mired in financial difficulties and eventually in 1994, Timothy Dalton officially resigned from the role. It seemed increasingly that Bond's relevance and appeal had ended with the Cold War.Campbell however, managed to successfully reinvent the franchise and make it relevant again for the post Cold War world. Much like he would do eleven years later with "Casino Royale", Campbell took clear inspiration from the new generation of action films and applied them to the Bond franchise. As a result "GoldenEye" is a slicker, faster paced film than its predecessors. Boasting an impressive array of action set pieces, the opening scene, for example, which depicts Bond bungee jumping from the top of a Soviet dam, is one of the best openings to a film that I have seen and the now famous Tank chase though Saint Petersburg is now considered a classic Bond moment,. The film does retain some of the grit of Dalton's two films, whist having something of an ironic and self deprecating sense about itself. On the downside, the film has noticeably dated in the two decades since its release and several of the aspects that made the film entertaining and appealing in the 1990's, now make it look archaic, especially when compared to Craig's recent outings. The film's various jabs poking fun at Bond's post Cold War relevance can also begin to feel tiresome after a while.In his debut outing, Brosnan aquatints himself well, bringing a smooth charm and his natural charisma to the role. Brosnan's Bond has the glib charm and off the cuff humour of the late Roger Moore and occasionally shows hints of Connery and Dalton's ruthlessness. Whist Brosnan is the most emotionally expressive of the actor's who have played Bond, he plays it subtly. An example would be the beach scene in Cuba: He makes it clear to Natalya, that killing Trevelyan is part of his occupation, but he is clearly conflicted about it on the inside. Whist Brosnan does bring a youthful vigour to the role, this is a double edged sword in a way, as his baby faced features, somewhat undermine the fact he is supposed to be a ruthless assassin. In fact, I would say it wasn't until 1999's "The World Is Not Enough" that Brosnan grew into the role physically. Nevertheless, Bronson handles the action scenes with ease, especially the final fight with Trevelyan, which hearkens back to the train fight in "From Russia With Love". Regardless, I would say that aside a few minor detractors "GoldenEye" is overall, a strong debut from Brosnan.Sean Bean plays the main antagonist: rogue MI6 agent Alec Trevelyan. In keeping with the influence of contemporary action films on the revitalised Bond series, Bean's Trevelyan has less in common with Blofeld or Goldfinger, having a more personal and interesting motive then simple greed or lust for world domination. Making the character, a former friend of 007's also adds a layer of complexity to the film, as this makes him a considerably more personal foe for Bond. Trevelyan is something of a dark mirror to Bond himself, which allows him to, like many characters, subvert and smarmily comment on many of the tropes associated with the Bond series.The main female leads of the film, Janssen's seductive assassin, Xenia Onnatopp and Scorupco's computer programmer, Natayla Simonova, also both conform and subvert our expectation of Bond girls. Onnatop, like Trevelyan, is a dark mirror image of Bond, using his love of sex and beautiful women against him, whereas Simonova is the more straightforward love interest. Neither characters have any real predecessors in the franchise and both reflect the changing world and attitudes that Bond finds himself in. Onnatopp is by far one of the more memorable Bond villainesses due to her rather unique method of killing people, although at times, the character does seem a little too over the top. Simonova, on the other hand, is a considerably more believable Bond girl, and although certainly spunky and assertive, can come across as dowdy and bland, especially compared to Janssen's sultry henchwoman. Ample support also comes from the supporting cast, with Robbie Coltrane and Alan Cumming providing comic relief as a Russian gangster with a grudge against Bond and a sleazy treasonous computer hacker respectively."GoldenEye" is undoubtedly a fairly strong film, however problems with pacing, several plot holes and the fact the film is beginning to show its age, detract from it somewhat. The pacing, especially in the second act of the film, bogs the film down with heavy expositional scenes, especially the conversations between Bond and Coltrane's mobster where they discuss "Janus's" backstory. The model effects used in the film, only slightly convincing back in 1995, now look noticeably dated. The fact that many of the characters comment on Bonds seeming irrelevance following the Cold War doesn't help either as they place the film firmly in the mid 1990's.Overall, I would say "GoldenEye" is one of the better entries in the series and undoubtedly the best film of Brosnan's tenure. Whist not as timeless as the classic Bond's, "GoldenEye" is still, for the large part, confident enough to stand on its own merits, and is a strong debut picture for Brosnan.

John Brooks Answer this: what merit is there in creating a cardboard-deep narrative with totally interchangeable components in every possible facet of the movie ? Like a cliché villain, cliché lines, cliché everything. The entire thing is a disposable piece of commercial rubbish that could've been made any two thousand or whatever other ways and landed exactly the same caliber.The intro scene is beyond risible, I really can't imagine anyone taking it seriously in any potential way. The theme song is horrendous.The entire film is almost literally 5 minutes of headache-enducing line delivery, then an explosion, then 5 minutes of dialog again, then an explosion. There are buildings exploding, there are people exploding, there are guns being fired full blast, there are trains catching fire (like, on the outside), there are tanks exploding, there are buildings collapsing... and then there's Famke Janssen's absolutely ridiculous role and pretty face, Pierce Brosnan's pseudo-smarty pants frown for about two hours straight...Amazingly, it's over two hours. Two hours of this.It got a good press at the time it came out, because mind you between the last of Dalton's Bond in the late 80's and this, 6 years went by without a Bond. Surely a record. But besides that fact of cinema, good Lord, this thing is a whole bunch of nothing.