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 replied to this on another thread:
Basically, there was a lot of projection on the public to Brosnan when he became Bond. This is partially why, I think, people saw his tenure in a far more critical eye after it.
Precisely how I feel. i saw it on the big screen back in 1997, and really enjoyed it. TND has always been near my top 5 Bond films, either in the top 5, or just outside it. I still enjoy it today, even the often maligned 2nd half.
No it gives you insomnia. I am no big fan of TWINE (anymore, I used to defend it a lot, but his director became so bloody arrogant about it I became more critical, but I digress), that said at least they tried. DAD they went lazy and downright vile.
Seriously, I too was a defender of TWINE but it doesn't hold up very well. It's got some terrible lines of dialogue ("do you want to put that in English for those of us who don't speak spy"), some bad acting and some fairly underwhelming action.
I'd use that term loosely when talking about TND. The frequent re-writes and disputes on set are fairly well known.
The action is the least of my problems with TWINE. It's the sheer arrogance of his director that irks me (but DAD was even worse in that regard). Unlike what Michael Apted said, Elektra is not the first Bond villainness, she is not even the best one. The lack of focus regarding who was the villain and the criminal underuse and ultimate deflating of Renard after he was built up to be this great terrorist villain is what sinks TWINE for me. Denise Richards was an appallingly bad casting too, but this is only a peripheral problem.
Even that would not be true: Rosa Klebb is pretty much, alongside Grant, the primary antagonist of FRWL. Blofeld is merely in the background, they are preparing him for later, but he is not the main villain. Apted basically completely ignored one of the greatest Bond films in history, just because hey, he has Sophie Marceau play a sexy villainness who gives orders to a wasted henchman.
Luckily Harlin went on to do the cult classic Cuthroat Island ;)
Peter Jackson wanted to do TWINE but EON turned him down. Tarantino was keen to do a Bond film with Brosnan (specifically stating he would've cast Brosnan rather than Craig). So there are two acclaimed directors who were willing to, or in Tarantino's case wanted to do a Brosnan Bond film, but weren't given the chance.
I'd also argue that Apted is a good director who did a great job, same for Campbell and that even Lee Tamahori is talented (just completely wrong for Bond, or any big budget action film really).
I would have liked Tarantino to do one just for the hell of it. Brosnan and Tarantino would have been an interesting combo. I think Tarantino would have brought hidden depths out of Brosnan. IMO none of then directors 'got' what it is that Brosnan could bring to the role - I.e. An outsiderish fragility (the working class Irish lad making the big time) and a slightly ruthless vanity. I am not a a fan of Brosnan as Bond at all, but I can see how, if he'd had better directors and scripts he could have been a lot better. A missed opportunity.
He was popular and is still. But he'd had his time and I think many people, even among his fans, admit it. His tenure was also in some aspects a missed opportunity. But I will always say that Brosnan made Bond cool again back in 1995 and that GE would not have been the success it became without him.
Just more evidence that the casual film going public have very poor judgement. Ask many people these days and they probably don't even know who Sean Connery is.
The casual film going public also made CR a hit.
That is an unsubstantiated statement. I know casual moviegoers might not be knowledgeable but they are not all completely clueless.
I think the bottom line here is marketing. Any film can be a hit with the public as long as it is given enough publicity. Whether it is good or bad is kind of irrelevant. Look at Jurassic World for example. For my money that was a very average film but it's doing huge business at the box office.
DAD was a hit at the time and seemed (as I remember) to have relatively decent reviews. I admit I enjoyed it myself back then.
The general public are both a blessing and a curse.
The point I'm making is that Brosnan wasn't a failure, or to paraphrase the OP 'bad'. The whole thread is predicated on the idea that Brosnan is considered 'bad'. That just isn't the case. He's no more loved or loathed than any other actor to inhabit the role. Pushing this rhetoric that he is the odd one out somehow is misleading and factually incorrect.