It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I've noticed in TND that every 5 minutes it seems Brosnan's hair goes from being scruffy to perfectly styled - something that doesn't happen as frequently in GE.
Also he seems a bit more like a "reluctant saviour" in GE, whereas in TND he's more the smarmy big kid having a fun time (I'm talking about how he is onscreen rather than his feelings making the film).
Sometimes I want to say I prefer Broz in GE despite his slightly uncomfortable demeanour in places.
The GQ look that a lot of fans go on about seems more prominant in Brosnan's second flick.
RE: Brosnan - I'm glad he has the November Man franchise, and I hope he is successful with it. He said in a recent interview that he missed having an action franchise, so I'm glad it's working out for him. I'm personally happy that he was not able to change Bond further to his interpretation though, because I did not like where he was taking it personally. So I'm pleased he has an action franchise that he can make his own now.
One thing I've found on these boards is that despite well meaning criticism aimed at Brosnan, people also fail to take into account the 'context' of his films. If we can judge Craig based on the context of the reboot, I think it's fair that we can judge Brosnan based on the context of his tenure.
I personally have judged him in context. I don't know about others. I know he had crappy scripts and MGM was in dire straits during his tenure. That's plain to see.
My personal discomfort with him as Bond has nothing to do with that. It's the elements that he personally brought to his portrayal of James Bond. Elements that are personal to Brosnan and that I've seen in other movies of his. I personally just did not like seeing that in James Bond. That has nothing to do with the producers or the directors etc. I am able to judge the movies separate from the actor. I can't speak for others though.
As I've said before, I'm a big fan of Brosnan. I wanted him as Bond more than most. I like a lot of his other films, including Fourth Protocol, Lawnmower Man (yes, even this), November Man, Tailor of Panama, Ghost, and even the Thomas Crown Affair.
It's just what he injected into his Bond portrayal and the way he did it that I did not personally like. I preferred him in his first two (particularly GE) because he was sort of playing a strawman. By TWINE he was bringing his interpretation - and I did not like it personally. The movie was shiite as well, but that's a different discussion.
I've wondered why I feel this way. It's because I've grown up with Bond (as played by many actors). Bond is my hero. There are certain clear characteristics that my Bond must have and my Bond must clearly and confidently display. So even if I like an actor, if he can't convincingly deliver this for me, then it's not acceptable to me.
@BAIN, the fact that you, a Brosnan fan, have reduced the debate to a discussion about Brozza's hair shows how poor his performances must have been. If the decision on which performance is best - GE or TND - comes down to hairstyle, then clearly something went very badly wrong during the Brosnan era.
My point was that in TND Brosnan seems a bit too clean if you will. In GE he gets more roughed up and also, in terms of his behaviour, seems more restrained.
Hey, I resemble that remark! ;))
And the Craig one too...! ;)
And Dalton deserves a mention for his dracula look in LTK.
To be fair it's all a matter of timing.
Dalton and Craig are in a different league of acting compared to Brosnan who is comparably weaker and as Both Dalton and Craig were essentially begged to take the role, whereas Brosnan was begging for the role, Dalton and Craig both had the ball in their respective courts to approach the movies the way they largely wanted. W
With Dalton's portrayal not being fully embraced by audiences, EoN wanted a safer and more familiar direction. After the spoofing from the likes of Austin Powers and society at large taking a more serious turn with the advent of 9/11 and shows like 24 and films like Bourne practically illegitimating Bond's credibility at the time, it was time to abandon the rubbish EoN had been endorsing and to revisit what Dalton started in Craig. Brosnan was partly to blame but what ever blame he gets is a very small part imo compared to EoN.
Neither does mine.
I remember being shown a picture of Brosnan Brosnan when he was announced as Bond, and all I remember thinking is who the fuck is this bellend? Apparently he was in a TV show but I'd never heard of him. He was meant to play Bond before, I was told, but I didn't care. In my mind Brosnan had stolen the role from Dalton.
Then I saw the Goldeneye trailer. Can't even remember what film it was I was watching, all I remember was being at the cinema and seeing the first trailer. You all know the one I'm talking about, "expecting someone else?". Best Bond trailer ever. I was blown away and I thought Brosnan looked pretty cool but I was still annoyed that it was him and not Dalton.
Then later I saw Goldeneye. And I loved it, and I loved Brosnan as Bond, and I still do today. He was brilliant. A cold blooded assassin with a softer side who hides all that behind a Roger Moore esque facade. As an example, look at the bankers office. He's sitting there with a smile on his face making bad puns and exchanging quips with the villain but then when the shit hits the fan you see what sort of man he really is. He effortlessly kills everyone in the room and then angrily starts to interrogate the banker. That sums up Brosnan's Bond well to me. On the surface he's a cool flashy playboy but you get the sense that this is a bit of an act to hide the killer underneath. He was a real action hero, moreso than any of the others, but his Bond also had more depth than Connery or Moore did.
He was also a proper movie star. Daniel Craig is a better actor sure but in terms of star quality I don't think any Bond except Connery beats Brosnan. Tall, suave, dashing, handsome, oozes charisma and makes even the tiniest thing look incredibly cool (eg- flicking his head to the side as bullets slam into the wall in GE). He's a proper film star.
I was gutted when they sacked him (although I was pretty confident Craig would do a good job, I already knew he was a good actor) but he's given some amazing performances since then. He was brilliant in The Matador, November Man, etc.
And to top it all of he seems like a really nice down to earth guy too. He does loads of charity work and he always seems really nice, humble and approachable in interviews, etc. While most Hollywood actors are up their own arses and egotistical, Brosnan is refreshingly humble and self aware. He's also been through a lot in his personal life, he helped his wife through her battle with cancer which she sadly lost and his daughter died of the same disease years later. But he's gotten through all this and still seems like a genuinely nice guy who wants to help others (all the charity stuff he does) despite all he's been through.
To sum up: great Bond, great actor, great guy.
Someone has to :)
It was Roger Moore a couple of weeks ago, now the hate seems to have shifted back to Brosnan. Who's next? I vote Connery :P
I'm a fan too eventhough I can kind of understand some of the criticisms. Fact is Brosnan got me into Bond and I'll always have a fondness for him.
I don't think he's the greatest of actors but he has undoubtable screen charisma and is always fun to watch even in his poorer performances (*cough*Taffin*cough*).
;)
haha. He's hilariously terrible in that film.
Yes, I have to say that @thelivingroyale's eulogy to the Broz made even me a bit sympathetic.
This is great. You nail exactly why Brosnan was the man.
Connery and Lazenby come across as the biggest dicks off screen, and Dalton and Craig are pretty much in the middle - decent blokes, slightly serious, perhaps lacking the personality, sense of humour and light-heartedness of Moore and Brozza, mainly because they are true thespian actors, there because of their core talent rather than just looks and personality alone.