I don't know, I watched Goldeneye when it came out on Blu-ray and was surprised by how much I wasn't really into it. When I was a kid that was one of the first Bond films that I remember seeing and always thought it was awesome. Watching it again though I just didn't feel like it held up very well. Some films can capture that timeless quality and no matter when you watch them they're always good whereas other films you can totally tell the time they were made. To me Goldeneye felt totally nineties and not in a good nostalgic way but in a damn this is really cheesy way.

I never was a big fan of Goldeneye and never really understood the adoration it seems to get. Tomorrow Never Dies was always my favorite of the Brosnan films but I haven't really seen it in awhile to see how it holds up.

I have been slowly re-watching the Bond films lately and will say that no Bond can deliver a line like Connery can. He can make even the silliest lines sound sophisticated and his delivery of them is usually pitch perfect.

This is actually the same way I feel. I didn't care for Goldeneye very much but I do like Tomorrow Never Dies quite a bit. It's cheesy but to me it's more of a fun film. I actually kind of like The World is Not Enough too.

I always enjoyed TND a great deal. It was wonderful seeing Michelle Yeoh as a Bond girl (even if they went to great lengths to tone down her abilities) and Jonathan Price was having a great time playing a delightful Ted Turner parody.

The end credits song of TND, Surrender, should have been the opening credits theme track (and originally was intended as such). It was a much better song than the Sheryl Crow song.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kh1C_AbFoNc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's even integrated into the actual score:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZHjCNoWRrbc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Goldeneye doesn't hold up with me all that well; it's alright but as far as the Brosnans are concerned it's #3.

The action sequences are terrible and the ending sequence is uninspired. This movie also followed the greatest Bond since Goldeneye and for many people (under 30s), the best Bond they have seen in theaters.

It just could have been (and should have been) so much more.

I like Tomorrow Never Dies as well, but a lot of that has to do with nostalgiac since it was my first Bond-in-theaters experience. I do love the score/soundtrack.

I don't know how one could say GoldenEye doesn't "hold up." Does it feel too 90s or something? If that's the case you could make an argument that none of the Bond films hold up since they're all a product of the decade they were produced in. Might be nostalgic too (the N64 tie-in being a huge part of it), but it's hard finding a Bond movie before the reboot as entertaining/fun to me.

I have the feeling that some of those hating on GoldenEye are under 30 years old. It makes sense. One will gravitate towards the ones that were brand new for their generation. Variables and such. Outside of GoldenEye, the Brosnan ones were god awful.

My simple reason: It in no way lived up to the way Casino Royale burst onto the scene and entertained, or the promise and anticipation of what was to come next.

At least it wasn't as bloated as Casino Royale with poor pacing, a forced love story featuring no chemistry, and a third act that really dragged.

I didn't see Quantum until about a year after it had come out, so by that time I knew all of the hate and went in with checked expectations. I think that may have a lot to do with it. I really was expecting a total letdown, but I was entertained. I'll admit it didn't have the same "feeling" Casino Royale did when I saw it for the first time. But it was hardly the pile of shit that I was led to believe.

I am 27 years old but as I stated Goldeneye is one of the first (if not the first) exposures I had to Bond films. I just really don't think it holds up that great and quite frankly feels cheaply made. Brosnan was also hit and miss to me as Bond for pretty much his entire run. He had the swagger to pull of the ladies man Bond but there were a lot of times that I found him hard to believe as an MI6 agent. I think that this movie had some good things going for it such as Trevelyan being one of the better villains of the entire franchise and I do give Brosnan credit for the final fight sequence being pretty badass. Overall though the movie just isn't what I once thought it was. I also think some of the films being regarded so highly does come from the game. I think a lot of people from my era associate this film being one of the first Bond films they remember seeing along with the game and remember it more fondly than it actually is. It certainly isn't the worst Bond film but I don't think it's really one of the best either.

You and I are the same age, so I'm curious as to which ones you'd put above it.

I can see some of your points, but saying it doesn't hold up is hard to say of any Bond film. Holding up would typically mean its a relic of the period it was produced, which I think is valid for most of the Roger Moore films. The Connery ones are nearly timeless. I also feel Lazenby gets the shaft - personally Moore is my least-favorite. With the exception of Live and Let Die, most of his outings just come off as cheese.

The Connery films are basically in a league of their own and I put his first five Bond films above pretty much all of them. Like I mentioned before I've also always found Dalton's brief run as Bond very, very underrated. He's actually probably my second favorite Bond after Connery.

If I was making a list of my ten favorites I'd probably go (in no order other than when they were released):
Dr. No
From Russia with Love
Goldfinger
Thunderball
You Only Live Twice
Live and Let Die
The Living Daylights
License to Kill
Casino Royale
Skyfall

I don't think it's one of the best ones either but it IS the best Brosnan one. That was my whole point. As for me, License to Kill is my nostalgic go to point, because it's the first one I saw in theaters back in 1989. Granted, it IS Dalton's best turn as Bond.

I guess that's one of the cool things about the Bond franchise. There just doesn't seem to be a consensus on the best movies or even the best Bonds.

My top ten would look something like this:

On Her Majesty's Secret Service
The Spy Who Loved Me
Goldeneye
Goldfinger
From Russia With Love
Skyfall
Licence to Kill
For Your Eyes Only
Octopussy(Yes I love Octopussy)
The Man with the Golden Gun

Well i actually really liked Dalton as Bond and think that Goldeneye would have been much better with him in it (as originally planned) instead of Brosnan.

License to Kill is one of my favorite Bond films. I don't think Dalton was given much of a chance and after the light heartedness of Moore the serious attitude he brought to the role was not welcomed. I felt it was much more in character.

Craig is without a doubt the best Bond ever.

That's just, like, your opinion man. He's my least favorite. The new movies are good despite him.

The script to Goldeneye would have also been different. The reason the film doesn't work for some is because it has a bit of an identity crisis. After Dalton exited (or was forced out, depending on who tells the story), they had no idea what the next Bond would be like. So Bond as written bounces around Connery-cool, Moore-humour (although, in all fairness, the goofy shit was already rearing its head late in Connery's tenure), or Dalton-gravitas. So Bond seems all over the place. But it also showcased that Brosnan could handle it either way they might have chosen to go.

Die Another Day almost was the best Brosnan Bond ever. It started out really dark and showcased Bond actually employing old school espionage tricks while also relying on old contacts/assets to get around. But after the segment in Cuba (signified by Halle Berry doing that ridiculous backwards dive), the movie reverts to a by-the-numbers Bond flick. Still entertaining but not the movie it originally started out to be. But by the time the movie gets to the ice fortress, it all falls appart with far too much goofyness and not the slightest care for plausibility. I did enjoy seeing the two cars duking it out but I really wish the movie had stayed gritty and grounded (or at the very least not have turned into a Saturday morning cartoon).

It doesn't hold up for me because it feels so generic and vanilla. All the pieces are in place but it also feels like something is missing. It's too self-conscious of itself as a "James Bond" film. It's perfunctory and acceptable but in the end I walk away from it with a shrug.

Tomorrow Never Dies is ridiculous, but it's wonderful fun and has a good sense of spirit and adventure. The World Is Not Enough has a better story and more interesting characters (Denise Richards notwithstanding).

Die Another Day... well. Great first half, ABYSMAL second.

RocShemp and I apparently share the same brain and pass it back-and-forth between each other, like those witches in the original Clash of the Titans with that glass eye, akin to Sandy Duncan. Remember the Hogan Family? Good God, I don't...

Getting back on topic...QOS was just disappointing considering how great Casino Royale was.

But it's still pretty solid.

It was poo

People hate QoS because this guy has no idea how to sweep a floor: