It is both the best-looking James Bond film and the best-looking James Bond.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
New Bond man Brosnan can't be faulted for much. He's always been generically sexy, a sort of programmed cover boy. In this new venture, he's appropriately handsome, British-accented and suave.
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.
And yet, Goldeneye proves the character's viability as a pop icon: It isn't a great movie, but it's great, preposterous fun.
Also, there's more action in Goldeneye than in previous 007 entries -- enough to keep a ninety-minute film moving at a frantic pace. Unfortunately, this movie isn't ninety-minutes long -- it's one-hundred thirty, which means that fully one-quarter of Goldeneye is momentum-killing padding.
There's something a mite pathetic about our culture still clinging to 007, but it's hard to deny that this is one of the most entertaining entries in the Bond cycle, which started with "Dr. No" (1962).
Still, just about everything in Goldeneye, from its rote nuclear-weapon-in-space plot to the recitation of lines that sound like they're being read off stone tablets (''Shaken, not stirred!''), has been served up with a thirdhand generic competence that's more wearying than it is exhilarating.
When the action is extreme, GoldenEye is supercharged with spectacular, thundering, brain-numbing fun.
This is the first Bond film that is self-aware, that has lost its innocence and the simplicity of its world view, and has some understanding of the absurdity and sadness of its hero.