> Are you absurd?

Not particularly, no.

> Goldeneye was the defining element to 007. Do you think people would have accepted Die another Day after eight years of delay for a bond movie. No.

"Goldeneye" came out six years after the previous Bond film, not eight, but agree with you that "Die Another Day" would have been a poor introduction of Pierce Brosnan as Bond, if only because "Die Another Day" was essentially one big long homage to the series as a whole. It worked better as Brosnan's fourth outing, because then Brosnan had established himself as Bond and, by extension, his connection with the previous 19 films. A "greatest hits" film with a brand new actor in the role wouldn't have worked so well.

I also think "Die Another Day" would have been *so* much of a change from "Licence To Kill" that the effect could have been jarring.

None of this has anything to do with whether "Goldeneye" or "Die Another Day" was the inherently better film. Films should be judged on their own merits, not their chronological placement within a series of independent stories.

By the way, how can you say "Goldeneye was the defining element to 007" with a straight face? "Goldeneye" didn't *define* anything -- it took the *previously* defined formulas and characteristics of the previous 15 films and adapted them to the modern action genre. NOTHING in "Goldeneye" was defining in any way, shape, or form, and lest you get defensive, I don't consider this an insult. "Goldfinger," back in 1964, is what *defined* Bond as we know him today, and even that built off definitions in progress begun by "Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love."

> I will probably dislike Casino Royale as I did Licence to Kill. But sacrafices ahve to be made. to allow for non stop action bond movies to continue (Moonraker, A view to a kill, Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day)

Anyone that gives "Moonraker" a place of honor in the series is probably too far removed from any common ground he might have with me to make a conversation useful.

But ok, here's why "Goldeneye" is the weakest of the four Brosnan Bonds:

1. Here's the biggest problem for me. There are no less than THREE times, almost all in a row, when 006 has captured 007, desires to kill him, and instead of popping a bullet in his forehead, he puts him in an elaborate death trap, from which Bond can escape in the nick of a time. To a point, this is a cliche that comes with the territory. Elaborate death traps are a staple of Bond films and knock-offs since the beginning. But it has to make sense! When Goldfinger ties Bond down to a table and sets up a laser and rigs it to slice Bond right up the middle, it's logical: Goldfinger's desire to show off his contraption to Bond and then kill him in a sadistic way is perfectly in keeping with Goldfinger's character, AND, moreover, he doesn't leave Bond alone so he can escape -- he and his henchmen are all standing around waiting.

There are other ways to work elaborate death traps into a plot -- if you've put Bond in an elaborate death trap to try to force some information out of him, great. And once he gives it to you (false information, of course; Bond's no squealer), might as well just leave him in the death trap anyway.

But in the case of 006, he not only has NO rational reason to put Bond in any of his three death traps, HE DOESN'T LEARN after the first one, or even the first two, that maybe the best thing to do is just SHOOT HIM. Or, at the very LEAST, stick around and watch him die. The reality, though, is that big sadistic death traps were not at all in keeping with 006's character as they were for Goldfinger. Xenia, sure, but not 006.

2. Bad writing. The dialogue is the least inspired of the four. It has some of the most groan-inducing quips, which can be argued are things one must simply accept in a Bond film. But there are other weaknesses, too. The script included a few different politically correct speeches about Bond's womanizing -- from M, most notably, but other characters as well. Fine. Bring the world around Bond into the 20th century. But Bond meets these speeches with absolute silence. That's not Bond! Bond would have come back with some kind of clever quip to dismiss social lecturing like that. The screenwriters' desire to be politically correct in spite of the character's misogynist tendencies has never been more evident. To be fair, they were perhaps nervous about how Bond would go over after the rise to power of political correctness and didn't understand how to make a film that doesn't demean women while remaining true to the character. But the later Brosnan Bonds show how it can be done and how Goldeneye failed to do it.

The most cringe-inducing line, however, 006 sneering at Bond: he reads a red digital countdown timer, naming how many seconds there will be until Bond and the world blows up, and then he catches himself and corrects his reading, deducting one second from what he had said before. It's such an absurd affectation: "In just 43 seconds, the world will...no wait, 42 seconds. In just...no, 41 seconds now. 40...39, I mean.... Ok, scratch that! In just 36 sec--35 secon--34.... Hang on, accuracy is tricky. Let me start over. You're gonna blow the hell up in a mere 28 seco--I mean 27 seco--"

3. Bad corollation of pacing and plotting. Consider the beach scene, toward the end of the film, when Bond and Natalya take a break on their trip to save the world from the badguy to rest on the beach, stare out over the water and meditate, and exchange some tender words. It's a nice enough scene, and it comes at a moment in the traditional pacing of an action movie where there *would* be a quiet scene just before the big finale. But ask yourself: WHY DID THEY STOP THERE? The badguy's hideout and plan has been discovered. They are racing against time. They STOP TO SUNBATHE. Come on!

4. Without question, the worst musical score of any film in the series. Eric Serra's grating techno score is all wrong for Bond. The filmmakers realized this and brought in a new guy for the next one, who was able to get pretty close to the John Barry-esque sound of something dark and lurid lurking beneath the surface of an escapist spectacle. The damaging effects of the score is profound: consider the end of the pre-credits scene where Bond may or may not have gained control of a crashing plane. The camera sits still on the cliffs for a moment, holding the tension, and then the plane -- in control! -- zooms into view and flies over the camera. The musical accompaniment to this? NOTHING! The feeling of triumph, the release of tension, in this moment is virtually nil. Compare this moment with the pre-credits scene in "The Spy Who Loved Me," during which Bond free-falls off a cliff in dead silence. When his parachute with the Union Jack opens, the Bond theme kicks in in high gear, and the result -- almost entirely because of the brilliant use of silence and subsequent music on the soundtrack -- is one of the most memorable of any moment in all 20 films.

5. Downright bizarre action sequences, including a train that collides with a tank -- *shattering* the tank, and leaving the structurally weaker train *undamaged* and *still on the tracks*. Also an extended sequence where a tank drives through buildings that must not have any basements in them. Except for the aforementioned soundtrack flaw in the pre-credits sequence, I did like that, but I can't help but wonder why freefalling off a skillion-foot dam is on the way to the TOP of a mountain. Eh, I can accept this one, but this kind of logical carelessness pervades the whole script, far worse than any other Brosnan Bond film, and the sum total of these weird logical lapses is unfortunately significant.

6. A preponderance of people shooting at people at close range with machine guns and MISSING. Again, a certain amount of this is something you just have to accept with these movies, but in Goldeneye it's *ridiculous*.

7. *Almost* nitpicking here, but isn't it great how, when you get email, the computer screen clears and blinks, in large letter, "INCOMING EMAIL!" with fire alarm sound effects?


In spite of all of the above, I do like "Goldeneye." Sean Bean makes a good villain, even though the script did nothing to make his character believable. Xenia is a *great* villainess in the best Flemingesque tradition of bizarre, creepy henchmen. Izabella Scorupco is also pretty good. Judi Dench as M is fantastic -- she's a wonderful actress, but she has one brief scene with Bond that is actually quite well written and brings more depth to Bond's relationship with M than most of the previous sixteen Bond films combined.

But to describe Goldeneye with any kind of superlative with regard to the rest of the series is way out of whack.

You obviously disagree. Tell me why.