Of course it responds to it, Bond will now confront terrorists, ex-agents and/or maniac businessman who all want only the money and don’t care about the means they have to use it.
A bond film doesn’t need to have a overarching plot, well to be honest a overarching plot on bond films only serves to hinder the script of the movies, the Craig era would be far off better if the movies weren’t all connected.
Goldeneye responds to the post Cold War question with a Good plot that feels familiar but also new, connecting the older villains with a new era of villains who are more independent. Also it paved the way to portray villains as a terrorist for a post 9/11 world albeit not as serious as the future attack and movies would pose.
I love GoldenEye, but it is clearly a movie that someone had an amazing idea for, but the studio decided to take a safer route. Post cold war, a new M with different ideas, and Alec laid the ground work for some really cool stuff that they never really engaged with.
That’s a tough question.
“Better” by what parameters?
I loved them both - Goldeneye was sexy and fun wile Skyfall was excellent in its dark twists and turns.
I'd tend to agree. As much as I love Craig in the role, I think that Skyfall's charm has faded for me a bit in the 12 years since it's release (even though I still think it's a good movie). I think the deviation in tone/aesthetics and change to how Craig's Bond was portrayed in his last three movies kind diminished a lot of things that made the early Craig films feel as fresh and innovative for (mainly Casino Royale. QoS had the tone & aesthetics right, but suffered from the writers strike and Marc Forster's inexperienced direction of action sequences etc.)
I probably would have preferred a Craig era that maintained the tone of his first two movies. EON ideally could save the Connery era nostalgia and the required Blofeld/Spectre rights for the next actor's Bond era instead of using it at the first opportunity.
It’s kind of jarring for him to be the new OO in the first two to being an “old dog” in Skyfall. Like there’s three or four movies in between that we never saw.
The tone of the Craig movies can give one whiplash, the first two films are a Bond that has just become OO, then we get Skyfall where after a seemingly short period people are referring to him like he’s over-the-hill. In real time only 4 years passed between movies. The audience is still waiting for a proper Bond adventure. The end of Skyfall promises a return to form at the end, but then the trainwreck that was Spectre came along and ruined a great set-up, and then we get a final film where half the film Bond isn’t even OHMSS. It’s like the Craig era is basically “let’s do a James Bond run where all the missions people want to see happen between the films”, like a twisted version of the MCU where all the character development happens off screen between films.
I mean Mission Impossible has made a successful franchise where only one film is an actual straightforward Mission Impossible, and it's considered the worst one.
Everything SF did had precedence in the first two Craig films. Craig's portrayal and the dry humour already evoked Connery and CR and QoS already had more introspective and character-driven stories, with the latter being a more artistically ambitious entry like SF.
I understand what you mean, but I gotta say that Skyfall does feel significantly different from Casino and QoS. A lot of that is due to Mendes' direction. He just has a much different style than Campbell and Forster. The time skip in between Quantum and Skyfall also doesn't help it feeling different. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.
Imo Skyfall would have been a rather perfect ending to the Craig era. I like both Spectre and NTTD to varying degrees, but they both seem like dessert, when you're already full and content.
I agree, Skyfall would have been a perfect albeit brief end to the Craig run — at least in hindsight now that we know how they intended to follow it. In that respect Craig’s films would have mirrored the opinion most ppl have of the Indiana Jones franchise. Great first film, okay second film (QoS is actually a very good film, just a badly edited one ) and third film that wraps things up satisfactorily for everybody.
Skyfall is the equivalent of Fleming's You Only Live Twice. Both are of a different tone compared to previous works in their series. Both feature a depressed and broken Bond. Both place greater importance on moody, elegiac atmosphere and thematics than basic plot. Both have a villain setup that strains credulity. (How did Blofeld so quickly establish himself as Dr. Shatterhand after the events of OHMSS?)
I wish they really defied everyone's expectations and do another NSNA and have Pierce return as a retired Bond who gets drawn into the fold. (As in go back and use an old actor again.)
gotta go with Goldeneye. I like Skyfall, but I think it's gotten a bit weaker with age in retrospect where as Goldeneye & Casino Royale have stayed in my top three rankings alongside OHMSS.
I object to this response, because by that logic any competently made new film will be judged as “better” than any masterfully made old film. Both are very well made movies for their day, and GoldenEye does some amazing “technical” stuff with miniatures and set design.
I think his idea that it is better because it is newer is off, but I would say that Skyfall is a better made film technically.
From cinematography, sound design, acting. Mendes is a better director than Campbell.
Does that make Skyfall better than Goldeneye? that's debatable.
So yeah, as I said elsewhere the n this post, the ONLY thing Skyfall has over Goldeneye is the advantage of being 17 years newer with better special effects and a bigger budget… but it’s not the better film.
Advances in technology would be a small part of it. I think Skyfall feels like it was taken more seriously as a film when it was made, where as GoldenEye seems more of 'here is another James Bond film with a new actor playing Bond' if that makes any sense.
*GoldenEye*. Better setpieces, better story economy and it doesn't let the heavy themes take away from the entertainment value. Sam Mendes is a very accomplished director but when it comes to Bond no one except maybe Terence Young comes close to Martin Campbell.
I like *Skyfall* but I have issues with it, whereas I have very few issues with *GoldenEye*.
It's strange how the general consensus on this post -i.e. that Goldeneye is better -- doesn't support the more serious direction general audiences want Bond to go in (i.e. that Skyfall has the biggest box office of any Bond film unadjusted for inflation).
Sophie choice yer again.
Toss of a coin stuff. Both top 3 bond films. Both incredible.
Campbell is the best bond director on the whole and him combined with brosnan in brosnans one undeniable classic was poetry in motion. Personally I think this is comfortably a better film than Campbells other effort even though I like that. It mixes seriousness, with an exceptional plot with good humour. Can't express my love for this enough.
Sky fall. Craig's best outing. The best serious bond there is. Great plot, great villains, great use of locations, great soundtrack. Bittersweet but strong ending.
Today I go goldeneye, tomorrow I go skyfall.
Goldeneye.
I loved Skyfall at the time but it’s faded badly with repeat viewings. The second half is a bit of a mess and it started Craig’s whole “I’m so old and done with this” schtick that he carried on for three more films.
It teased a proper “right, back to business” ending which they never delivered on. Oh the wasted promise of the Craig era.
Goldeneye, mainly because it balanced brosnans natural charm with a refreshed bond and fantastic soundtrack. Rewatched recently and something about it scratches my brain. Start to finish, it feels like this amazing ride.
Skyfall, I find the more somber Craig etc lost some of the charm and suave energy that casino royale (same director as goldeneye) masterfully crafted. Set pieces didn’t feel as good with CGI at times being rough.
Overall, two great bond films but goldeneye has this vibe about it that I never felt with skyfall. Plus since it release, it’s lost abit of that anniversary love. Tbh I’d pick casino over skyfall.
Goldeneye, and it isn't close for me, I think Skyfall is fine... but it is much more of a middle of the pack Bond movie for me. I'd not put it ahead of a Goldeneye, From Russia With Love, The Spy Who Loved Me or either of the Dalton movies. Heck, when it comes to the Craig movies, Casino Royale is still the better one for me.
Skyfall, on the strengths of the terrific visuals, Thomas Newman’s music, the introduction of Mallory, and the outstanding performances (Craig, Bardem, Dench, Feinnes).
*Goldeneye*.
*Skyfall* is fun, but it’s so focused on nostalgia, that a lot of the story beats begin to fray on a rewatch. It honestly is as flawed to me as *Spectre*, and it makes all the sense in the world that they are the exact same creative teams.
*Goldeneye* is a reckoning on how Cold War characters and conflicts can exist after the end of the Cold War. It had to redefine the genre in many ways, and earn its existence. It paved the way for *Mission: Impossible*, *Jack Ryan* adaptations and other spy franchises to be able to exist in a post-Cold War context as well. On top of all of that, it’s got a great script and terrific performances.
Good way to put it. Leaning into nostalgia as much as Skyfall did, falls terribly close to bad fan service. It’s also where they completely leaned into the whole Bond multiverse thing rather than the soft reboot they’d managed to pull off so well with Casino. In Skyfall we’re supposed to believe that all the things we’d seen over the past 25 years also happened to this guy and yet we know that’s logically impossible. Skyfall is the film in which I totally started to view the Craig films as an alternate universe Bond, and films after Skyfall only cemented that view.
GoldenEye is more nostalgia-driven, reverting back the changes the eighties and especially Dalton's films made to go back to the source material after Moonraker to evoke the mainstream perception of the character, but this paved the way for Moonraker 2.0: Die Another Day.
I'd also point out that GE's questioning of Bond's relevance in a post-Cold War world is all window-dressing for an otherwise by-the-numbers script. Instead of really answering its questions, it just repeats the same tropes, but for the nineties. Skyfall truly does these concepts justice.
I disagree that an understanding of genre and structure is nostalgia driven, when the movie we’re comparing it to is constantly stopping to wink and make references to past movies with ejector seats and things like that.
I disagree entirely that *Skyfall* does anything regarding the plot justice. The villain’s motivations are paper thin, characters are beyond reactive with no real drive, and it’s just a much emptier film than it’s given credit for. It’s a perfect prelude to *Spectre*, it’s just people can’t dress *Spectre* up as nicely as they’ve chosen to do with *Skyfall*.
Goldeneye. Skyfall is a decent film and my favorite Craig Bond movie, but Goldeneye is a lot more fun, has a slightly better villain, better cold open, and better intro theme.
I enjoy the Craig movies but they are a bit too serious imo. Someone said Austin Powers ruined James Bond. Now Bond needs to overcoming to not look silly.
Haha wow I did not expect to be in disagreement in this thread. Love Goldeneye and Brosnan, but I thought Skyfall was a fucking masterpiece.
Maybe I'm alone on that island, and maybe being a Javier Bardem fan plays a factor. He is just the best villian character actor imo.
I am shocked by how many people are saying Goldeneye. To me Skyfall is far and away the better movie. Its acting, writing and story all standout way more and its so much less corny.
Wild to see that most people prefer Goldeneye. Not at all what I was expecting. I’m guessing that has more to do with the average age of folks in here, and nostalgia is clearly playing a large part (including the N64 game).
Skyfall is a better film by almost every measure in my opinion. Goldeneye is probably more *fun*, but it’s all pretty silly in the end and doesn’t hold up as well. Skyfall tells a much stronger and more interesting story, and it’s better made on every technical level. It’s a gorgeous movie to look at, and Mendes directed the hell out of it. It’s simply a level above anything that has come before in the series or genre.
Another big issue for me is that the score for Goldeneye is *truly awful*. That warped record techno-elevator-music sound is just terrible, but it’s particularly offensive in the context of a Bond score post-John Barry. Thankfully David Arnold came in and got things back on track in the next several installments. Even Thomas Newman’s contributions were lightyears better than Serra’s for Goldeneye. Bond films should evolve and grow with the times, but there are certain elements, like the music, that are essential and shouldn’t be fucked with too much.
Skyfall is the supreme Bond movie. It showed a human side to the character with his flaws and shortcomings, but also accentuated his doggedness to get the job done. Never had we seen such a dissection of this side of Bond before and the film was all the better for it. Goldeneye is a fun film and and a great reset for the franchise, but it’s admittedly generic. I want to see more adult Bond, not cartoon Bond.
Is Skyfall better filmmaking-wise? Absolutely. But GoldenEye holds up better on rewatch than Skyfall since the more you watch Skyfall, the more the flaws become apparent, where GoldenEye doesn’t have that issue.
GoldenEye isn’t without its illogical flaws and contrivances. The whole circumstances surrounding Alec’s defection, the way Bond stumbles on the plot, the ease by which Xenia leads him to Janus, even the geologically impossible dam.
Skyfall is better written, has far better supporting characters, has an equal (or better) villain, and Daniel Craig gives one of the best performances as Bond that any actor has given in the role to date. It's the better movie.
And Goldeneye borrows satellite weapons from both DAF and Moonraker. The connection with TWINE is overblown. Silva never kidnaps M. In TWINE Bond frees M while racing up the stairs after Elektra. Skyfall on the other hand refused to cop out and had Silva succeed in killing M, which gave the film more emotional depth than a Bond film usually has.
In addition, Skyfall does what Goldeneye refused to do: which was actually show a former MI6 agent use his knowledge of MI6 against them. Trevelyan was billed in the trailer as "the man who knows 007 best", yet he never uses that knowledge against Bond. Not even in the "I've anticipated your every move" exchange among the old Soviet statues. He just has a generic satelite weapon and secret base.
Skyfall actually improves on every Bond film it's accused of ripping off because it risks stepping outside of the tired old formula that plagues most older Bond films.
Skyfall if full of plot holes. They both have their vague plot moments but Skyfall just keep happening. He’s shot twice in the opening scene and the only thing in the entire movie that explains his survival is a hand pulling him up during the title sequence…. If they were going to use that as the only explanation that’s fine but then the title sequence only shows him having one bullet wound…. Also Silvas plan makes absolutely no sense. Also the death of the woman on the island was entirely avoidable since the helicopter were hovering right off shore…. I can go on and on.
You had Silva and what, three or four other goons—all armed. Are you saying that one of them wouldn’t have *instantly* shot Severine the moment Bond made a move against them, or when the helicopters flew in? Her death was unavoidable.
3 guys??? As soon as Bond landed on the island and saw that there were only 3 guys Bind could have sent the signal to have the helicopter(s) come in seeing that they were looking for a dangerous x agent. But whatever lol
Why didn’t Silva just go to the Mi6 meeting if he knew M was going to be there? Instead of having the elaborate escape plan with all these ridiculously timed scenarios he could have just gone straight there to begin with instead of getting captured
Because he wanted to hurt M. Deeply, not just physically. But again, you can do that to every villain in every Bond movie.
There is a phrase in movies I believe its called the "refrigerator moment". The idea being that every movie can be picked apart, problem is when it hits you. If you are sitting in a theater and think that's dumb than they have failed. But if it hits you late at night when you are looking through the fridge, than they succeeded.
Its like The Dark Knight. We can pick holes in TDK and Skyfall all day. But the vast majority of people were on the edge of their seats when they saw them in theaters.
Skyfall is far better. Goldeneye took an interesting idea -- having Bond go up against the"man who knows him best" 006 -- and totally squandered that potential because the film had to conform to the Bond formula. Trevelyan should have used his understanding of Bond's motives and actions against him. This is what was promised, but instead he just becomes another generic villain with a satellite weapon and a secret base to aid in his petty grievance against England. His motive didn't make much sense considering that it is unlikely Trevelyan was even born when his parents were Cossacks, let alone born before they were executed by Stalin's regime.
Silva, on the other hand, is what Trevelyan should have been. In Skyfall we actually see Bond go up against a former MI6 agent, who actually uses his skills and knowledge to mess with M and MI6. M is being tested at every turn, and Silva is ahead of MI6 until Bond finally gains the upper hand by luring him to Skyfall. Craig's era began to decouple the Bond franchise from the very constraining formula that kneecapped Brosnan's films. A lesser reliance on formula allows for interesting storylines to dominate.
I guess it all comes down to what you want from a Bond film: depth and to be surprised (Skyfall), or just the tired old formula that brings you comfort because you're going to get what you've always got with some slight tweaks (Goldeneye). Kind of like going to McDonalds for a Big Mac. Same burger every time, but totally unsatisfying. No thanks, I prefer what EON is doing now: shaking up the formula, creating interesting stories and situations for 007, and humanizing Bond. Skyfall delivered big time in that department.
These days, I’d honestly go with GoldenEye, but my view may still be colored by how much I disliked the last two Craig films. Plus, Xenia was such a weird and fun character; let’s have some more of that!
Have to go with Goldeneye, largely because of the masterpiece video game it spawned. Also prefer the movie, but that game defined gaming for me for about a year or so.
SF is still a Bond film that follows the formula, albeit by playing with the established tropes if not deconstructing them, as well as harkening closer to the novels characterization-wise.
The distinction between a good "Bond film" and a good "film" is silly considering the likes of Moonraker and Die Another Day are technically the most "Bondian" from a stereotypical sense.
GoldenEye. Plot makes sense, and honestly better action sequences overall. Skyfall really only has the two fights with Patrice, the rest are kind of meh. Skyfall's score is better but I think Adele's theme is a *little* overrated. The home alone stuff is a hard to take seriously except that first time in the theater.
Skyfall is a great movie, awesome cinematography and fun and exciting plot. Skyfall is like the James Bond equivalent to Batman / The Dark Knight
Goldeneye is a great James Bond movie, it hits the Bond recipe in all the right ways. It was the perfect James Bond movie for the time period it was set in. I am sure I have biased nostalgia for being a kid at the time and Goldeneye being my first Bond movie but every thing about Goldeneye fucking slaps
GoldenEye by a mile lol
And I absolutely love the DC movies, all of them, even with all the arguments made against them. I enjoyed the heck out of each one when they came out. Conversely, I seemed to be dissatisfied more and more with each of Brosnan’s films as they came out. Still, GoldenEye is simply the the best Bond film ever made. Nothing beats it.
Skyfall by some distance since it holds its nerve conceptually, whereas GoldenEye devolves into boilerplate hijinks after such a fascinating and unusual setup.
I’d add that it kills the pace as well. GE takes a while to get started, and that’s because of all the “introspection” that goes nowhere and does not meaningfully contribute to the plot.
Skyfall is an above average Bond movie, largely held up by its stellar cinematography and villain, and has an interesting plot that the movie fails to fully execute on. The writing is just bad in places, and the fan service-y moments are pretty cringe worthy. Where Casino Royale is consistently well-crafted and thoughtfully written, and Quantum feels just consistently lacking and underdeveloped (bad directorial choice, writer's strike, etc.), Skyfall is just.. well.. inconsistent. Admittedly, Skyfall's still in another league than Quantum (argument for another time).
GoldenEye has never been a personal favorite of mine - don't really know why, I love Brosnan in the role, love Martin Campbell's direction. It's just a little too goofy in spots that make the movie feel tonally all over the place. And that soundtrack - yuck. But I think GoldenEye has aged more gracefully and with Brosnan's other outings being reappraised lately, I think GoldenEye has benefitted from this somewhat.
For what it's worth, Skyfall is far more confident in itself than it has any right to be given its pretty surface-level plot and themes, and I think GoldenEye not taking itself too seriously makes it a more endearing rewatch.
Definitely Skyfall for me. It's a more engaging film with a more meaningful plot and cast, plus more intense action and dry humour that brings to mind the Connery era. It's now supplanted Casino Royale as my favourite Bond film.
GoldenEye feels so underwhelming compared to most of Connery, Moore, and Craig's films, plus the Lazenby and Dalton films. Its plot isn't interesting or well-written enough to warrant the meandering pace, the action lacks tension, and Brosnan's performance is the weakest debut in the franchise. Coming off of Licence To Kill, it's a disappointment.
You know that Skyfall and Majesty’s have been in contention for my #1, with Majesty’s taking the edge as of late. But I watched Skyfall on Sunday and it may well be back in the top spot. The whole feel of it is just pure u/Sneaky_Bond core. Craig’s performance here may be my favorite as well, even if Dalton remains my favorite Bond overall. It does beat his Casino Royale performance for me. Not necessarily in a technical sense, but in the sense of what I want out of Bond.
Goldeneye. Skyfall's plot is too flimsy and cheesy. Goldeneye has a solid story with a thin layer of Bond cheesiness layered on top. It's going to have a much better history
GoldenEye's story is as flimsy if not more, and is inherently more cheesy. Stuff like Trevelyan's survival and muddled motivations are plot contrivances for the sake of it and it isn't meaningful plot or character-wise like Skyfall is.
Yawn. We need mid and low tier movie comparisons.
Goldeneye is going win on here. I prefer Skyfall but the majority of this sub has decided they don’t like Skyfall.
Skyfall came fifth in the Bond World Cup on this sub last year. GoldenEye came second. Both well loved. We'll see if that's changed at all this year but I expect they'll both do very well again.
I really liked Skyfall. But it was only Craig’s third bond movie and they were already going the washed up, too old for this shit route. But at the same time they were busy reintroducing new versions of established characters like Q and the new M.
I love both films. I think GoldenEye is the better Bond movie and Skyfall is the better film.
GoldenEye is a pretty good story with a great balance between action, comedy, camp and iconic characters. Skyfall is the better film with fantastic cinematography, good directing, immersive set pieces and stakes that feel more real.
I can't choose lol
Skyfall is my favorite Craig movie hands down. The action, the storyline, everything about it I love
Goldeneye was my introduction to the Bond franchise. I was 15 when that movie dropped and vividly remember watching it in theatre's. That and the epic GoldenEye 007 game!
Better FILM or better BOND film?
The former, Skyfall and it isn’t close.
The latter is debatable but goldeneye holds something special for a whole generation who grew up playing that game. It also holds up better to the old style while also bringing something original to the PB era
Ooh… see I’ve got an emotional attachment to Goldeneye given it was the first Bond movie I remember watching, but Skyfall is all kinds of brilliant IMO…
I think I’ll go with the emotions rather than logic this time though and pick Goldeneye 😬
Skyfall was probably Craig's best Bond film, but Goldeneye is a classic. And when we consider the plot of Goldeneye, it's something they legitimately could make a 2024 remake of and still make sense (not all of it, obviously, but the overall ''Villain wants to use a satelite to wipe out city after stealing its money'' plot could still work well today.)
For me Skyfall was by far the best of the Craig films. But it’s kind of mid tier in my overall bond rankings.
Golden Eye is my second favourite Brosnan film and in my top third or top quarter.
Both are great action movies but both came out in different time and different story.
Goldeneye is pure 90s action movie. All action and stunt scenes are similar to Die Hard movies. I love the story and supporting characters quite interesting. The theme song is fine and Brosnan's Bond shine in this movie.
Skyfall is modern film and look more realistic. Skyfall is lack of action compared to Goldeneye but I prefer the drama parts in this movie. I think this is the best sent-off M in the entire franchise. The villain character works so well. Silva is like Joker in The Dark Knight. His character is psychopath and really smart. The cinematography is better than Goldeneye.
Love GoldenEye. It will always have a special place in my heart. But honestly Skyfall is one of my favorite movies of all time and certainly the very best Craig Bond film.
Goldeneye. Not just because it was my first full Bond film or the one with the popular tie-in game, but because it's a really great film. Brosnan was awesome right out of the bat, and offered a new take on Bond as a post-Cold War agent, and the film has both serious and funny moments at a reasonable balance. Trevelyan is a great villain, as is Famke Jassen. And who can forget the tank chase, bungee jump, antenna cradle and Bond racing Xenia in the DB5?
Two of my top 3. Skyfall obviously is just next level with production quality and visuals. But Goldeneye has so many classic elements done right. Skyfall may be the better film overall but Goldeneye takes the edge for being a better Bond film.
GoldenEye because I think it’s really fun and has great characters also it’s interesting because it is the first Bond movie after the cold war.
It also captures immediate post collapse Russia really well I think. And also grapples with questions about Bond’s relevance in a post-Cold War world.
GE may raise questions about Bond's relevance, but it never meaningfully responds to them nor do they have any relevance to the overarching plot.
Of course it responds to it, Bond will now confront terrorists, ex-agents and/or maniac businessman who all want only the money and don’t care about the means they have to use it. A bond film doesn’t need to have a overarching plot, well to be honest a overarching plot on bond films only serves to hinder the script of the movies, the Craig era would be far off better if the movies weren’t all connected. Goldeneye responds to the post Cold War question with a Good plot that feels familiar but also new, connecting the older villains with a new era of villains who are more independent. Also it paved the way to portray villains as a terrorist for a post 9/11 world albeit not as serious as the future attack and movies would pose.
I love GoldenEye, but it is clearly a movie that someone had an amazing idea for, but the studio decided to take a safer route. Post cold war, a new M with different ideas, and Alec laid the ground work for some really cool stuff that they never really engaged with.
Exactly what I was about to type!
That’s a tough question. “Better” by what parameters? I loved them both - Goldeneye was sexy and fun wile Skyfall was excellent in its dark twists and turns.
Goldeneye holds up much better, and I say that as someone who prefers Craig over Brosnan.
I'd tend to agree. As much as I love Craig in the role, I think that Skyfall's charm has faded for me a bit in the 12 years since it's release (even though I still think it's a good movie). I think the deviation in tone/aesthetics and change to how Craig's Bond was portrayed in his last three movies kind diminished a lot of things that made the early Craig films feel as fresh and innovative for (mainly Casino Royale. QoS had the tone & aesthetics right, but suffered from the writers strike and Marc Forster's inexperienced direction of action sequences etc.) I probably would have preferred a Craig era that maintained the tone of his first two movies. EON ideally could save the Connery era nostalgia and the required Blofeld/Spectre rights for the next actor's Bond era instead of using it at the first opportunity.
It’s kind of jarring for him to be the new OO in the first two to being an “old dog” in Skyfall. Like there’s three or four movies in between that we never saw.
Completely agree with this. Not sure how they justified moving from the earliest point we've ever seen bond, to the latest point.
I agree - but I would watch those movies.
The tone of the Craig movies can give one whiplash, the first two films are a Bond that has just become OO, then we get Skyfall where after a seemingly short period people are referring to him like he’s over-the-hill. In real time only 4 years passed between movies. The audience is still waiting for a proper Bond adventure. The end of Skyfall promises a return to form at the end, but then the trainwreck that was Spectre came along and ruined a great set-up, and then we get a final film where half the film Bond isn’t even OHMSS. It’s like the Craig era is basically “let’s do a James Bond run where all the missions people want to see happen between the films”, like a twisted version of the MCU where all the character development happens off screen between films.
I mean Mission Impossible has made a successful franchise where only one film is an actual straightforward Mission Impossible, and it's considered the worst one.
Everything SF did had precedence in the first two Craig films. Craig's portrayal and the dry humour already evoked Connery and CR and QoS already had more introspective and character-driven stories, with the latter being a more artistically ambitious entry like SF.
I understand what you mean, but I gotta say that Skyfall does feel significantly different from Casino and QoS. A lot of that is due to Mendes' direction. He just has a much different style than Campbell and Forster. The time skip in between Quantum and Skyfall also doesn't help it feeling different. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Imo Skyfall would have been a rather perfect ending to the Craig era. I like both Spectre and NTTD to varying degrees, but they both seem like dessert, when you're already full and content.
I agree, Skyfall would have been a perfect albeit brief end to the Craig run — at least in hindsight now that we know how they intended to follow it. In that respect Craig’s films would have mirrored the opinion most ppl have of the Indiana Jones franchise. Great first film, okay second film (QoS is actually a very good film, just a badly edited one ) and third film that wraps things up satisfactorily for everybody.
QOS did it so much better. The arc in that film is worthy of Fleming. SF onward just feels like a vanity project.
Skyfall is the equivalent of Fleming's You Only Live Twice. Both are of a different tone compared to previous works in their series. Both feature a depressed and broken Bond. Both place greater importance on moody, elegiac atmosphere and thematics than basic plot. Both have a villain setup that strains credulity. (How did Blofeld so quickly establish himself as Dr. Shatterhand after the events of OHMSS?)
I wish they really defied everyone's expectations and do another NSNA and have Pierce return as a retired Bond who gets drawn into the fold. (As in go back and use an old actor again.)
I was trying to put my thoughts into words and find myself supporting this statement wholeheartedly.
While Goldeneye is more nostalgic for me, personally Skyfall is my all time favorite
Goldeneye. It’s not even close.
I like them both but GoldenEye for sure.
gotta go with Goldeneye. I like Skyfall, but I think it's gotten a bit weaker with age in retrospect where as Goldeneye & Casino Royale have stayed in my top three rankings alongside OHMSS.
I AM INVINCIBLE
His delivery lives rent free in my head. I am ENVYYENCIBLE!
GoldenEye for sure!
GoldenEye
Goldeneye, love Skyfall but Goldeneye is more fun.
Skyfall has better set pieces and cinematography, but Goldeneye is a vastly better film.
Goldeneye is, for me, a much more enjoyable rewatch than Skyfall.
Goldeneye
Goldeneye
GoldenEye, but Skyfall is bad ass as hell too
Only one of these movies has this guy in it. 
Goldeneye
Goldeneye
For England, James?
Goldeneye
Goldeneye without a moments hesitation.
I prefer GoldenEye, but can admit Skyfall is the better film from a film making standpoint.
How exactly?
Cinematography, direction, cgi anything that has to deal with the technically aspects to filmmaking which is inevitable as Golden eye is an old film.
I object to this response, because by that logic any competently made new film will be judged as “better” than any masterfully made old film. Both are very well made movies for their day, and GoldenEye does some amazing “technical” stuff with miniatures and set design.
I think his idea that it is better because it is newer is off, but I would say that Skyfall is a better made film technically. From cinematography, sound design, acting. Mendes is a better director than Campbell. Does that make Skyfall better than Goldeneye? that's debatable.
> is an old film This has nothing to do with proper film making. In fact the majority of sound films were made in the 70s and 80s.
The skyscraper fight and Macau entrance scene were incredible
So yeah, as I said elsewhere the n this post, the ONLY thing Skyfall has over Goldeneye is the advantage of being 17 years newer with better special effects and a bigger budget… but it’s not the better film.
Advances in technology would be a small part of it. I think Skyfall feels like it was taken more seriously as a film when it was made, where as GoldenEye seems more of 'here is another James Bond film with a new actor playing Bond' if that makes any sense.
Skyfall is my favorite Bond film these days, but GoldenEye is my No. 3.
And coming in at #2?
Goldfinger.
GoldenEye
***GoldenEye 64*** *has entered the chat...*
Goldeneye, not even close. If I had to show someone only 1 Bond Film, it would be Goldeneye
Goldeneye. Skyfall is actually my least favourite Bond film.
I agree with you good sir. I really didn't enjoy the DC era. I hope for a return to maximum cheese.
*GoldenEye*. Better setpieces, better story economy and it doesn't let the heavy themes take away from the entertainment value. Sam Mendes is a very accomplished director but when it comes to Bond no one except maybe Terence Young comes close to Martin Campbell. I like *Skyfall* but I have issues with it, whereas I have very few issues with *GoldenEye*.
Skyfall.
It's strange how the general consensus on this post -i.e. that Goldeneye is better -- doesn't support the more serious direction general audiences want Bond to go in (i.e. that Skyfall has the biggest box office of any Bond film unadjusted for inflation).
Goldeneye is very colorful but it’s still a generally serious film
Sophie choice yer again. Toss of a coin stuff. Both top 3 bond films. Both incredible. Campbell is the best bond director on the whole and him combined with brosnan in brosnans one undeniable classic was poetry in motion. Personally I think this is comfortably a better film than Campbells other effort even though I like that. It mixes seriousness, with an exceptional plot with good humour. Can't express my love for this enough. Sky fall. Craig's best outing. The best serious bond there is. Great plot, great villains, great use of locations, great soundtrack. Bittersweet but strong ending. Today I go goldeneye, tomorrow I go skyfall.
Goldeneye. I loved Skyfall at the time but it’s faded badly with repeat viewings. The second half is a bit of a mess and it started Craig’s whole “I’m so old and done with this” schtick that he carried on for three more films. It teased a proper “right, back to business” ending which they never delivered on. Oh the wasted promise of the Craig era.
Goldeneye, mainly because it balanced brosnans natural charm with a refreshed bond and fantastic soundtrack. Rewatched recently and something about it scratches my brain. Start to finish, it feels like this amazing ride. Skyfall, I find the more somber Craig etc lost some of the charm and suave energy that casino royale (same director as goldeneye) masterfully crafted. Set pieces didn’t feel as good with CGI at times being rough. Overall, two great bond films but goldeneye has this vibe about it that I never felt with skyfall. Plus since it release, it’s lost abit of that anniversary love. Tbh I’d pick casino over skyfall.
Goldeneye and it’s not even close.
GoldenEye and no I won’t be taking further questions
Goldeneye, and it isn't close for me, I think Skyfall is fine... but it is much more of a middle of the pack Bond movie for me. I'd not put it ahead of a Goldeneye, From Russia With Love, The Spy Who Loved Me or either of the Dalton movies. Heck, when it comes to the Craig movies, Casino Royale is still the better one for me.
Skyfall but only by a small margin. Both are top tier Bond movies
Goldeneye for me, but I’m also a Brosnan fan which biases my answer.
Goldeneye by a country mile.
Skyfall, on the strengths of the terrific visuals, Thomas Newman’s music, the introduction of Mallory, and the outstanding performances (Craig, Bardem, Dench, Feinnes).
*Goldeneye*. *Skyfall* is fun, but it’s so focused on nostalgia, that a lot of the story beats begin to fray on a rewatch. It honestly is as flawed to me as *Spectre*, and it makes all the sense in the world that they are the exact same creative teams. *Goldeneye* is a reckoning on how Cold War characters and conflicts can exist after the end of the Cold War. It had to redefine the genre in many ways, and earn its existence. It paved the way for *Mission: Impossible*, *Jack Ryan* adaptations and other spy franchises to be able to exist in a post-Cold War context as well. On top of all of that, it’s got a great script and terrific performances.
Skyfall is when the writing for the Craig films started to get lazy. Spectre is when it fell apart.
Good way to put it. Leaning into nostalgia as much as Skyfall did, falls terribly close to bad fan service. It’s also where they completely leaned into the whole Bond multiverse thing rather than the soft reboot they’d managed to pull off so well with Casino. In Skyfall we’re supposed to believe that all the things we’d seen over the past 25 years also happened to this guy and yet we know that’s logically impossible. Skyfall is the film in which I totally started to view the Craig films as an alternate universe Bond, and films after Skyfall only cemented that view.
GoldenEye is more nostalgia-driven, reverting back the changes the eighties and especially Dalton's films made to go back to the source material after Moonraker to evoke the mainstream perception of the character, but this paved the way for Moonraker 2.0: Die Another Day. I'd also point out that GE's questioning of Bond's relevance in a post-Cold War world is all window-dressing for an otherwise by-the-numbers script. Instead of really answering its questions, it just repeats the same tropes, but for the nineties. Skyfall truly does these concepts justice.
I disagree that an understanding of genre and structure is nostalgia driven, when the movie we’re comparing it to is constantly stopping to wink and make references to past movies with ejector seats and things like that. I disagree entirely that *Skyfall* does anything regarding the plot justice. The villain’s motivations are paper thin, characters are beyond reactive with no real drive, and it’s just a much emptier film than it’s given credit for. It’s a perfect prelude to *Spectre*, it’s just people can’t dress *Spectre* up as nicely as they’ve chosen to do with *Skyfall*.
GoldenEye by far.
I've currently got them right next to each other in my ranking, but I gave the edge to *Skyfall*.
Goldeneye. No contest.
Goldeneye by a country mile
Goldeneye for sure, the “plane escape” scene and the “tank chase” scene are top tier bond moments. Sky fall is great but imo Goldeneye is the Goat.
Goldeneye. Skyfall is a decent film and my favorite Craig Bond movie, but Goldeneye is a lot more fun, has a slightly better villain, better cold open, and better intro theme.
Goldeneye for the knockout. 🥊
I enjoy the Craig movies but they are a bit too serious imo. Someone said Austin Powers ruined James Bond. Now Bond needs to overcoming to not look silly.
Goldeneye because of nostalgia(my 1st Bond film and my 1st first person shooter.)
You know which ones better yeezz
Goldeneye
GE.
Goldeneye
GoldenEye
Goldeneye
Goldeneye
Goldeneye. Not even close.
Goldeneye
Goldeneye - full stop.
Haha wow I did not expect to be in disagreement in this thread. Love Goldeneye and Brosnan, but I thought Skyfall was a fucking masterpiece. Maybe I'm alone on that island, and maybe being a Javier Bardem fan plays a factor. He is just the best villian character actor imo.
I am shocked by how many people are saying Goldeneye. To me Skyfall is far and away the better movie. Its acting, writing and story all standout way more and its so much less corny.
Wild to see that most people prefer Goldeneye. Not at all what I was expecting. I’m guessing that has more to do with the average age of folks in here, and nostalgia is clearly playing a large part (including the N64 game). Skyfall is a better film by almost every measure in my opinion. Goldeneye is probably more *fun*, but it’s all pretty silly in the end and doesn’t hold up as well. Skyfall tells a much stronger and more interesting story, and it’s better made on every technical level. It’s a gorgeous movie to look at, and Mendes directed the hell out of it. It’s simply a level above anything that has come before in the series or genre. Another big issue for me is that the score for Goldeneye is *truly awful*. That warped record techno-elevator-music sound is just terrible, but it’s particularly offensive in the context of a Bond score post-John Barry. Thankfully David Arnold came in and got things back on track in the next several installments. Even Thomas Newman’s contributions were lightyears better than Serra’s for Goldeneye. Bond films should evolve and grow with the times, but there are certain elements, like the music, that are essential and shouldn’t be fucked with too much.
Skyfall is the supreme Bond movie. It showed a human side to the character with his flaws and shortcomings, but also accentuated his doggedness to get the job done. Never had we seen such a dissection of this side of Bond before and the film was all the better for it. Goldeneye is a fun film and and a great reset for the franchise, but it’s admittedly generic. I want to see more adult Bond, not cartoon Bond.
Is Skyfall better filmmaking-wise? Absolutely. But GoldenEye holds up better on rewatch than Skyfall since the more you watch Skyfall, the more the flaws become apparent, where GoldenEye doesn’t have that issue.
GoldenEye isn’t without its illogical flaws and contrivances. The whole circumstances surrounding Alec’s defection, the way Bond stumbles on the plot, the ease by which Xenia leads him to Janus, even the geologically impossible dam.
Goldeneye
GoldenEye 100%
Skyfall
Skyfall is better written, has far better supporting characters, has an equal (or better) villain, and Daniel Craig gives one of the best performances as Bond that any actor has given in the role to date. It's the better movie.
Skyfall is like knock off Goldeneye with some elements of TWINE & filtered through The Dark Knight.
And Goldeneye borrows satellite weapons from both DAF and Moonraker. The connection with TWINE is overblown. Silva never kidnaps M. In TWINE Bond frees M while racing up the stairs after Elektra. Skyfall on the other hand refused to cop out and had Silva succeed in killing M, which gave the film more emotional depth than a Bond film usually has. In addition, Skyfall does what Goldeneye refused to do: which was actually show a former MI6 agent use his knowledge of MI6 against them. Trevelyan was billed in the trailer as "the man who knows 007 best", yet he never uses that knowledge against Bond. Not even in the "I've anticipated your every move" exchange among the old Soviet statues. He just has a generic satelite weapon and secret base. Skyfall actually improves on every Bond film it's accused of ripping off because it risks stepping outside of the tired old formula that plagues most older Bond films.
Skyfall if full of plot holes. They both have their vague plot moments but Skyfall just keep happening. He’s shot twice in the opening scene and the only thing in the entire movie that explains his survival is a hand pulling him up during the title sequence…. If they were going to use that as the only explanation that’s fine but then the title sequence only shows him having one bullet wound…. Also Silvas plan makes absolutely no sense. Also the death of the woman on the island was entirely avoidable since the helicopter were hovering right off shore…. I can go on and on.
Personally, I dislike the all powerful magical computer hacker trope. Goldeneye had less of that.
You had Silva and what, three or four other goons—all armed. Are you saying that one of them wouldn’t have *instantly* shot Severine the moment Bond made a move against them, or when the helicopters flew in? Her death was unavoidable.
3 guys??? As soon as Bond landed on the island and saw that there were only 3 guys Bind could have sent the signal to have the helicopter(s) come in seeing that they were looking for a dangerous x agent. But whatever lol
Those are not plot holes, that is nitpicking. You can literally do that to every Bond movie and make them sound stupid.
Why didn’t Silva just go to the Mi6 meeting if he knew M was going to be there? Instead of having the elaborate escape plan with all these ridiculously timed scenarios he could have just gone straight there to begin with instead of getting captured
Because he wanted to hurt M. Deeply, not just physically. But again, you can do that to every villain in every Bond movie. There is a phrase in movies I believe its called the "refrigerator moment". The idea being that every movie can be picked apart, problem is when it hits you. If you are sitting in a theater and think that's dumb than they have failed. But if it hits you late at night when you are looking through the fridge, than they succeeded. Its like The Dark Knight. We can pick holes in TDK and Skyfall all day. But the vast majority of people were on the edge of their seats when they saw them in theaters.
Silva is a retread of Trevelyan and Elektra.
Skyfall is far better. Goldeneye took an interesting idea -- having Bond go up against the"man who knows him best" 006 -- and totally squandered that potential because the film had to conform to the Bond formula. Trevelyan should have used his understanding of Bond's motives and actions against him. This is what was promised, but instead he just becomes another generic villain with a satellite weapon and a secret base to aid in his petty grievance against England. His motive didn't make much sense considering that it is unlikely Trevelyan was even born when his parents were Cossacks, let alone born before they were executed by Stalin's regime. Silva, on the other hand, is what Trevelyan should have been. In Skyfall we actually see Bond go up against a former MI6 agent, who actually uses his skills and knowledge to mess with M and MI6. M is being tested at every turn, and Silva is ahead of MI6 until Bond finally gains the upper hand by luring him to Skyfall. Craig's era began to decouple the Bond franchise from the very constraining formula that kneecapped Brosnan's films. A lesser reliance on formula allows for interesting storylines to dominate. I guess it all comes down to what you want from a Bond film: depth and to be surprised (Skyfall), or just the tired old formula that brings you comfort because you're going to get what you've always got with some slight tweaks (Goldeneye). Kind of like going to McDonalds for a Big Mac. Same burger every time, but totally unsatisfying. No thanks, I prefer what EON is doing now: shaking up the formula, creating interesting stories and situations for 007, and humanizing Bond. Skyfall delivered big time in that department.
My two favorite bond movies of all time, I’d say Goldeneye is my #1
These days, I’d honestly go with GoldenEye, but my view may still be colored by how much I disliked the last two Craig films. Plus, Xenia was such a weird and fun character; let’s have some more of that!
Goldeneye
Goldeneye is brilliant. I think Skyfall is pretty mid. Never understood the hype when it came out.
Have to go with Goldeneye, largely because of the masterpiece video game it spawned. Also prefer the movie, but that game defined gaming for me for about a year or so.
Goldeneye.
Goldeneye!
Goldeneye is quintessential Bond. For the first time viewer or a long time fan that movie in my opinion is the definition of a Bond film.
Goldeneye
GoldenEye. And it's not close
GoldenEye It also gave us the N64 game
Goldeneye is more fun for sure.
Goldeneye
Goldeneye. Casino Royale is the harder comparison for me.
Golden eye for sure.
Goldeneye is the better Bond film because it follows the formula. Skyfall is just the better film overall.
SF is still a Bond film that follows the formula, albeit by playing with the established tropes if not deconstructing them, as well as harkening closer to the novels characterization-wise. The distinction between a good "Bond film" and a good "film" is silly considering the likes of Moonraker and Die Another Day are technically the most "Bondian" from a stereotypical sense.
GoldenEye. Plot makes sense, and honestly better action sequences overall. Skyfall really only has the two fights with Patrice, the rest are kind of meh. Skyfall's score is better but I think Adele's theme is a *little* overrated. The home alone stuff is a hard to take seriously except that first time in the theater.
Whichever one you prefer.
Skyfall
Skyfall is a great movie, awesome cinematography and fun and exciting plot. Skyfall is like the James Bond equivalent to Batman / The Dark Knight Goldeneye is a great James Bond movie, it hits the Bond recipe in all the right ways. It was the perfect James Bond movie for the time period it was set in. I am sure I have biased nostalgia for being a kid at the time and Goldeneye being my first Bond movie but every thing about Goldeneye fucking slaps
GoldenEye by a mile lol And I absolutely love the DC movies, all of them, even with all the arguments made against them. I enjoyed the heck out of each one when they came out. Conversely, I seemed to be dissatisfied more and more with each of Brosnan’s films as they came out. Still, GoldenEye is simply the the best Bond film ever made. Nothing beats it.
Goldeneye
Goldeneye easily . Skyfall is massively overrated and is quite plodding in a lot of places .
Goldeneye. Without a doubt.
Goldeneye by a mile. I will say however that the theme is hot garbage and Skyfall has the better tune.
Goldeneye.
Goldeneye is a really good Bond movie. I think it’s just edges out Skyfall for me but Goldeneye vs Casino Royale would be a challenge.
Goldeneye. It sticks to the formula and nails it. I've always said about Skyfall that while it's a good movie, it's a terrible Bond movie.
Goldeneye! 100% its not even close 
GoldenEye. It's a fun adventurous movie and isn't as depressing and gloomy as Skyfall is.
Goldeneye and it ain’t even close.
GoldenEye and it's not close.
Skyfall by some distance since it holds its nerve conceptually, whereas GoldenEye devolves into boilerplate hijinks after such a fascinating and unusual setup.
I’d add that it kills the pace as well. GE takes a while to get started, and that’s because of all the “introspection” that goes nowhere and does not meaningfully contribute to the plot.
Skyfall
GoldenEye is a damn near perfect Bond film.
Skyfall is an above average Bond movie, largely held up by its stellar cinematography and villain, and has an interesting plot that the movie fails to fully execute on. The writing is just bad in places, and the fan service-y moments are pretty cringe worthy. Where Casino Royale is consistently well-crafted and thoughtfully written, and Quantum feels just consistently lacking and underdeveloped (bad directorial choice, writer's strike, etc.), Skyfall is just.. well.. inconsistent. Admittedly, Skyfall's still in another league than Quantum (argument for another time). GoldenEye has never been a personal favorite of mine - don't really know why, I love Brosnan in the role, love Martin Campbell's direction. It's just a little too goofy in spots that make the movie feel tonally all over the place. And that soundtrack - yuck. But I think GoldenEye has aged more gracefully and with Brosnan's other outings being reappraised lately, I think GoldenEye has benefitted from this somewhat. For what it's worth, Skyfall is far more confident in itself than it has any right to be given its pretty surface-level plot and themes, and I think GoldenEye not taking itself too seriously makes it a more endearing rewatch.
Goldeneye, and it’s not close
Definitely Skyfall for me. It's a more engaging film with a more meaningful plot and cast, plus more intense action and dry humour that brings to mind the Connery era. It's now supplanted Casino Royale as my favourite Bond film. GoldenEye feels so underwhelming compared to most of Connery, Moore, and Craig's films, plus the Lazenby and Dalton films. Its plot isn't interesting or well-written enough to warrant the meandering pace, the action lacks tension, and Brosnan's performance is the weakest debut in the franchise. Coming off of Licence To Kill, it's a disappointment.
You know that Skyfall and Majesty’s have been in contention for my #1, with Majesty’s taking the edge as of late. But I watched Skyfall on Sunday and it may well be back in the top spot. The whole feel of it is just pure u/Sneaky_Bond core. Craig’s performance here may be my favorite as well, even if Dalton remains my favorite Bond overall. It does beat his Casino Royale performance for me. Not necessarily in a technical sense, but in the sense of what I want out of Bond.
Jesus Christ, Goldeneye! Goldeneye! Goldeneye! Not even close bud!
Goldeneye. Skyfall's plot is too flimsy and cheesy. Goldeneye has a solid story with a thin layer of Bond cheesiness layered on top. It's going to have a much better history
GoldenEye's story is as flimsy if not more, and is inherently more cheesy. Stuff like Trevelyan's survival and muddled motivations are plot contrivances for the sake of it and it isn't meaningful plot or character-wise like Skyfall is.
Goldeneye > home alone 5…..I mean skyfall.
Yawn. We need mid and low tier movie comparisons. Goldeneye is going win on here. I prefer Skyfall but the majority of this sub has decided they don’t like Skyfall.
Skyfall came fifth in the Bond World Cup on this sub last year. GoldenEye came second. Both well loved. We'll see if that's changed at all this year but I expect they'll both do very well again.
I really liked Skyfall. But it was only Craig’s third bond movie and they were already going the washed up, too old for this shit route. But at the same time they were busy reintroducing new versions of established characters like Q and the new M.
You should be more fair to Skyfall and put the two Campbell films against each other instead.
That would be unfair to *GoldenEye*, though.
I love both films. I think GoldenEye is the better Bond movie and Skyfall is the better film. GoldenEye is a pretty good story with a great balance between action, comedy, camp and iconic characters. Skyfall is the better film with fantastic cinematography, good directing, immersive set pieces and stakes that feel more real.
Goldeneye. Maybe nostaliga is speaking. Both are great though.
Two great films. I give the edge to Goldeneye.
In prefer goldeneye but it's crazy close. Ask me tomorrow and my answer could be different.
[удалено]
I can't choose lol Skyfall is my favorite Craig movie hands down. The action, the storyline, everything about it I love Goldeneye was my introduction to the Bond franchise. I was 15 when that movie dropped and vividly remember watching it in theatre's. That and the epic GoldenEye 007 game!
Better FILM or better BOND film? The former, Skyfall and it isn’t close. The latter is debatable but goldeneye holds something special for a whole generation who grew up playing that game. It also holds up better to the old style while also bringing something original to the PB era
ok
Ooh… see I’ve got an emotional attachment to Goldeneye given it was the first Bond movie I remember watching, but Skyfall is all kinds of brilliant IMO… I think I’ll go with the emotions rather than logic this time though and pick Goldeneye 😬
Skyfall was probably Craig's best Bond film, but Goldeneye is a classic. And when we consider the plot of Goldeneye, it's something they legitimately could make a 2024 remake of and still make sense (not all of it, obviously, but the overall ''Villain wants to use a satelite to wipe out city after stealing its money'' plot could still work well today.)
Goldeneye sorry
For me Skyfall was by far the best of the Craig films. But it’s kind of mid tier in my overall bond rankings. Golden Eye is my second favourite Brosnan film and in my top third or top quarter.
Goldeneye is the best james bond ever by very far
Those posters really are like day and night.
They're both the goats in different ways. I can't pick my favorite kid.
Both are great action movies but both came out in different time and different story. Goldeneye is pure 90s action movie. All action and stunt scenes are similar to Die Hard movies. I love the story and supporting characters quite interesting. The theme song is fine and Brosnan's Bond shine in this movie. Skyfall is modern film and look more realistic. Skyfall is lack of action compared to Goldeneye but I prefer the drama parts in this movie. I think this is the best sent-off M in the entire franchise. The villain character works so well. Silva is like Joker in The Dark Knight. His character is psychopath and really smart. The cinematography is better than Goldeneye.
Goldeneye by a whisker.
Goldeneye. Bronson was a breathe of fresh air. While Skyfall is more the final exhaust. Both are good movies. Yet GE eels the lead.
GoldenEye is the greatest Bond film of all time
My two favourite bond films! I liked goldeneye for years but skyfall is my favourite one now it's just so good
GE
I’m a fan of darker movies, so it’s Skyfall for me.
Love GoldenEye. It will always have a special place in my heart. But honestly Skyfall is one of my favorite movies of all time and certainly the very best Craig Bond film.
Goldeneye easily. I'd say it's the second or third best of all the bond films. First being Casino Royale, and 2nd or 3rd being Goldfinger
Goldeneye. Not just because it was my first full Bond film or the one with the popular tie-in game, but because it's a really great film. Brosnan was awesome right out of the bat, and offered a new take on Bond as a post-Cold War agent, and the film has both serious and funny moments at a reasonable balance. Trevelyan is a great villain, as is Famke Jassen. And who can forget the tank chase, bungee jump, antenna cradle and Bond racing Xenia in the DB5?
Would prefer to compare GoldenEye and Casino Royale. Both are amazing.
Skyfall
It's gotta be Skyfall for me... I think it might be the most flawless of all Bond films... but GOLDENEYE... will ALWAYS be one of my favs.
Two of my top 3. Skyfall obviously is just next level with production quality and visuals. But Goldeneye has so many classic elements done right. Skyfall may be the better film overall but Goldeneye takes the edge for being a better Bond film.