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
Brosnan, like all the Bonds, was perfect for the time he was cast and he played an important role. He bought Bond back for a new generation, proving the franchise still had legs, and sort of bridged the gap between old school and modern Bond, it was a transitional period in a way befause Bond was more fleshed out and the films were more self aware than before but they weren't quite ready to go all the way with it, so we still had the quips and gadgets of the Moore era.
Brosnan is my second favourite after Dalton. He was effortlessly cool and charismatic but underneath all the one liners and sex puns was a cold remorseless assassin.
I think there was depth in the Brosnan era, people just refuse to see it because it doesn't fit their idea of whar happened (Brosnan was shit and Craig bought depth to the role). In many ways Brosnan paved the way for Craig. I think TWINE is quite underrated because of the fleshing out it does for Bond's character. Through Elektra, Bond (who in the Brosnan era was up until then a cold blooded killing machine, capable of gunning down an army or watching a guy get torn apart by a printing press and still not feeling a thing) seems to get in touch with his humanity more. His softer side comes out and he actually genuinely seems to care about her (the relationship between them could have been a lot better written though). When he goes to kill Elektra (who is herself a pretty tragic character) he actually can't bring himself to at first, despite her stringing him along. Then she forces him to shoot and he actually mourns her. It's the first time in the Brosnan films that he actually shows remorse for killing someone. When Elektra died I think Bond's humanity died with her.
So I think there's plenty of depth in the Brosnan era if you want to see it (well, in GE and TWINE there is anyway). No it's not as well written or executed as in the Craig era, but they did flesh out Bond's character more and take the first steps towards the direction we'd see full force in CR.
Dalton is often heralded as the precursor to Craig and I used to agree but while I think that's true to an extent, I think Brosnan is probably closer to the direction they're going in now. Dalton's Bond (my favourite) was the Bond from the TLD short story mixed with an 80s action hero. A badass burnt out world weary assassin. Even delivering the one liners it was if he was tired of it all. This was a
Brosnan, like all the Bonds, was perfect for the time he was cast and he played an important role. He bought Bond back for a new generation, proving the franchise still had legs, and sort of bridged the gap between old school and modern Bond, it was a transitional period in a way befause Bond was more fleshed out and the films were more self aware than before but they weren't quite ready to go all the way with it, so we still had the quips and gadgets of the Moore era.
Brosnan is my second favourite after Dalton. He was effortlessly cool and charismatic but underneath all the one liners and sex puns was a cold remorseless assassin.
I think there was depth in the Brosnan era, people just refuse to see it because it doesn't fit their idea of whar happened (Brosnan was shit and Craig bought depth to the role). In many ways Brosnan paved the way for Craig. I think TWINE is quite underrated because of the fleshing out it does for Bond's character. Through Elektra, Bond (who in the Brosnan era was up until then a cold blooded killing machine, capable of gunning down an army or watching a guy get torn apart by a printing press and still not feeling a thing) seems to get in touch with his humanity more. His softer side comes out and he actually genuinely seems to care about her (the relationship between them could have been a lot better written though). When he goes to kill Elektra (who is herself a pretty tragic character) he actually can't bring himself to at first, despite her stringing him along. Then she forces him to shoot and he actually mourns her. It's the first time in the Brosnan films that he actually shows remorse for killing someone. When Elektra died I think Bond's humanity died with her.
So I think there's plenty of depth in the Brosnan era if you want to see it (well, in GE and TWINE there is anyway). No it's not as well written or executed as in the Craig era, but they did flesh out Bond's character more and take the first steps towards the direction we'd see full force in CR.
Dalton is often heralded as the precursor to Craig and I used to agree but while I think that's true to an extent, I think Brosnan is probably closer to the direction they're going in now. Dalton's Bond (my favourite) was the Bond from the TLD short story mixed with an 80s action hero. A badass burnt out world weary assassin. Even delivering the one liners it was if he was tired of it all. This was a Bond nearing the end of his career, just one step away from being pushed over the edge and quitting (then in LTK he actually does). It was a dark, interesting take on the character but it wasn't that complex or deep. With Craig, Bond is more multi layered and fleshed out, and I think it was Brosnan's era that paved the way for that, because like with Craig, there are lots of different aspects to his character, and there was a sense of self awareness that carried on into the Craig era, it was as if Bond was in the real world now.
However, I think where you (and a lot of the Brosnan fans) and I differ is not in what they were trying to do with Brosnan's Bond (they definitely tried to add depth) but the level of credibility that Brosnan brought to these proceedings as Bond when attempting to flesh out the character. I agree that EON did not execute as well then, nor did they make good directorial or casting choices, but Brosnan's characterization of these so called 'moments of depth' was lacking to me, and compounded my issues with that era of Bond.
In TWINE, you saw a fleshing out of the Brosnan Bond character. I saw a sap and cringeworthy acting all round (except for Marceau, and even she started to ham it up at the end, probably realizing what a mess she was participating in).
You saw layers of profoundness in his relationship with Electra. I winced and felt uncomfortable at the somewhat childish emotional displays I was witnessing by a supposed hardened, crack spy. I never felt this way during Craig's armour breakdown with Vesper. He was still all man to me when giving it up on the beach........or when taking one for the team from Le Chiffre in the chair for that matter.
I agree on your point about Dalton being more of a burnt out weary assassin. In a way, he was more a precursor to the jaded SF Craig Bond than the CR one, who appeared youthful, inexperienced, and trigger happy.....but certainly not modeled on Brosnan's Bond imho.
I think the self awareness did start in Dalton's time, but it was subtle. They laid it on a little too thick for my liking during Brosnan's time, and then dialed it back to subtlety again for Craig.
Regarding November Man, I agree that it is generic and B movie like, but I enjoyed seeing Brosnan kick 'a' again after so long. I have not seen Wick, but then I'm not a big fan of Keannu.
I disagree on this personally. I think TSWLM, FYEO, OP, TLD, & LTK are all better Bond films than GE, although GE is very entertaining and certainly very box office friendly - and I personally enjoy it more than FYEO at least.
With respect to TWINE, I couldn't rate it any lower than I already have on this forum, but you're correct that it attempted character development.
John Wick is highly entertaining nonsense. Watch it if you haven't already. All because of a dog...
If he did any running on the beach the film would have become a comedy though.
(PS look at Layer Cake compared to Remington Steel and that pretty much sums things up, the differences in the characters they played and the range of emotions they were required to bring to the character were clearly carried forward into Bond)
He tried to feel comfortable but he didn't succeed. He carried all the tension and anxiety of the previous years of speculation that he would be the next 007. He wanted it, the people wanted him, he got it, but as soon as he understood that he is James Bond, he failed to deliver. Well, there is a Motorhead song called "the chase is better than the catch".
Also, a little irrelevant, but most people my age became Bond fans because of Brosnan. They didn't care for his talent but for his appearance and charisma.
That's something that is impossible to take away or replicate, but hey, that's how it is, much like some here who may love Dalton the most for growing up with him, or Moore, or Lazenby, etc., while others may not be able to stand him. Give it a few more years, and you'll probably see newer die-hard Bond fans who praise Craig as the best, simply because they're introduced to the series via his films since they're the newest ones. It's understandable.
Is he the best actor as Bond? Is he the best actor ever? Was he flawless in all four films? Of course not. I'm biased and love every moment of him playing 007, but in reality, I can agree there were missteps and things that didn't work. This is how I like to put it: Brosnan is my favorite, but Connery is the best.
Not that I'm saying I would want to change CR, because it seldom gets better than that. Craig nails it. But, I think Craig's take on the role is what Brosnan wanted to do the entire time.
Thanks @Thunderfinger, don't know what I'd do without you :))
@bondjames Personally I don't think the Bond Elektra stuff in TWINE is awful or brilliant, I agree it's melodramatic and the whole relationship could have felt less rushed and been written better but I thought there were some sweet moments and overall it worked. Anyway, regardless of the execution, what I meant was that they at least tried to flesh out Bond's character there. That's what I meant when I said Brosnan paved the way for Craig (I didn't mean Craig's Bond was a similar character to Brosnan's, because I agree they're very different). Because while it could have been done much better, the Brosnan era did try to actually flesh out and develop Bond as a character (as I said, during the Dalton era we has a fresh interesting take on the character, my favourite in fact, but not a very complex one and he didn't really have much character development). They continued this in the Craig era and did it much more successfully, but it started with Brosnan, and I don't think his films (and his performances) get enough credit for that.
I really enjoy TWINE. It's flawed but I think it's underrated, doesn't get enough credit imo. A great theme song, inventive action scenes with some cool stunts (particuarly during the boat chase and the hot air balloon bit), does some interesting stuff with Bond's character, a great villain in Elektra (and while Robert Carlyle was wasted, Renard was quite interesting too), some great Bond moments, 90s Denise Richards in hot pants (one of the hottest Bond girls), Zukofsky making a brilliant return, a great theme song, one of the sexiest Bond cars (by far the best of the BMW's), an outstanding PTS, tension, humour, etc. It's top ten for me, comes close to matching Goldeneye imo and I really wish Apted came back for Die Another Day.
Brosnan rocks! \m/
-the casino scene (he even admits this in the EON doc)
-the Q scene
He grows into it more during the second part of the film.
The more I think about it the more the Q scene in particular feels stilted from BOTH parties, not just Brosnan.
Would Brosnan have benefited from the scripts Craig gets? Perhaps or perhaps not but the thing to realise is, Craig has the acting talent to pull off the material whereas I don't feel Brosnan does. Brosnan could just about keep it together for his own movies but he allowed himself to feel the pressure of the weight of the role and the actors that came before him. Craig doesn't have the problem which is why he was able to cement himself immediately in the role in 2006.
I grew up with Brosnan, my first Bond cinema experience was GE when I was 10 and even then, growing up with Brosnan in the role i never regarded him as the best nor my favourite so such sentiments of him being the one I grew up with simply doesn't apply to me and have never understood that way of bias thinking tbh. That being said, Brosnan was good and he was entertaining but I don't think he or his era were ever meant to be great but to line EoN's pockets with cash and reestablish Bond's place in pop culture which they succeeded in.
I don't think I can think of any introduction in a film that is better than Connery's in DN. It's the textbook definition of 'cool.'
Connery's DN name introduction scene is tge best in the series. It will never be topped because all the elements are tgere, aligned perfectly and yet Eunice Gaydon who played Sylvia was going on about how overly nervous he was before and building up to the scene and when you watch it, it's nothing but effortlessly pure, raw, charmingly smooth, alpha confidence.