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
He reminds me of an older Taffin here. Not sure that's a good thing.
"Is that a noooo!?"
I don t understand a word of this.
As you know I think Brosnan was the worst Bond by a long shot. However, I do think he could have been a lot better.
His main problem is that he never had a remotely interesting take on the character. I don't think he ever really gave the character much thought, whereas even Roger had a very clear idea of who Bond was and what he was trying to portray.
Brosnan had abysmal to poor direction, and lacked the actorly ability or instincts to fashion something new and interesting.
His roles in the Tailor of Panama and The Ghost Writer show he can act and also point to a darker dimension that he could/should have brought to the fore with Bond.
Not a great actor, but not as bad as his Bond films would have you believe. A sort of missed opportunity, although frankly I would have preferred if he'd never go the gig in the first place.
Everything about Dalton's approach was/is far more interesting, and I'd have liked to see it develop more.
I am really glad you are only a critic with no powers at all, Dalton failed miserably and Brosnan relit the franchise in a way Dalton lacked the skills to do so.
Craig did an excellent reboot and then in the next 3 movies he kinda dumbed the series to a soapie and silly level and I admit the movies looked good. ;)
Brosnan saved the franchise and Dalton kinda did nothing really exciting. One Brosnan/Moore movie and a a revenge movie that was more Miami Vice than anything it just was not as good as the tv show.
Brosnan most assuredly was a success, but in comparison to Dalton's turn, both in the movies themselves and in their performances, they are day and night.
Brosnan's era is full of films that look more like video games than Bond films, and that's fine from an entertainment standpoint, but they have left me cold many, many times as there's not much to think about afterward. The post-Cubby team was still getting its legs, so I can give them some understanding there, but I was largely unimpressed while Dalton delivered one "classic" styled Bond film and another very intriguing and dark revenge film that the public quite frankly weren't ready for, both of which showed him commanding a presence. EON under Cubby were willing to experiment in that way back then, but after Cubby, the production team thought making silly, one-dimensional films would get them by. GE was the only peak, then after two unremarkable films we got DAD, the ultimate eyesore of the series, so things didn't go so well, did they? I'd appreciate the films more if they were artfully done, and grounded by a great Bond performance that felt rich, as I believe Dalton's was, but it's just not there. They're quite frankly just movies that result in Brosnan doing random stuff that's supposed to look cool (sometimes he does), with finales that conclude with him using automatic weapons to mow down columns of endless baddies (again, like a video game).
I'm thankful for DAD though, because without its failure we may never have seen EON return to films of substance again. You can call the Craig films silly all you want, but I do find that a funny contention coming from a man whose favorite Bond is Roger. I fear you've endured too many eyebrow raises, and it's fried your noggin'. And just like I can't deny Pierce's reasonable success (or at least that of the films), you also can't deny Dan's impact.
I am increasingly a believer in a four film run. That's enough time to establish oneself and make one's mark. Then shake it up again. At the rate they're releasing films, that gives a 12 year run or so, and that's fine.
As for DAD which is called a failure if you tell yourself that often enough it might just happen, not really. Brosnan was a hit at the cinema with all his movies including DAD. Okay he did not sleep with prostitutes, did not get his own boss killed [he actually saved her], has a stepbrother called Blofeld or tangled with psychic baddies. His style is fairly different from the Craig movies but in the end both did become silly I admit that. But I am sorry Brosnan movies are somewhat more fun and he does not walk around with a constipated face the whole flipping movie.
The action in most Brosnan movies [heck even the Moore & Dalton movies] is better dome than in any of the last three Craig 007 movies. And indeed CR gets no real critism. except for the sinking house scene [in my humble opinion a bad leftover from the OTT endings from the Brosnan period} and it promised indeed a great new series that ended in Mendes and a shedload of pretensions and just poor movies that did action because it was supposed to be in a 007 movie but it was halfcocked {time for an eyebrow raise of a big Brossie grin] at best.
If you blame DAD for anything it should be excess. But a CR & Daniel Craig was due to 9/11 & the great Bourne movies which basically were better done, written and executed that Mendes could come up with. But I am quite sure that Broccoli Sr would have given Barbara a spanking on how she dropped Brosnan, which was so totally UN-EON in the loyalty they used to have towards their movies & actors.
We are now stuck with a cast of way too expensive actors playing parts that have been done better [Q, Moneypenny & M] which makes these movies too damn expensive and too many ego's onboard. The "car-chase in Rome" cost more than 20 million and it was so poorly done that it showed that the creative people when it comes to 007 franchise seem to run out of ideas or were overruled by Mendes or Craig.
Bondmovies were never great works of art but they were fun, and now they are not so much fun and not so re-watchable than the older guys are..
Back too Roger Moore a far more established and great actor than given credit for, he and that other old Fart Connery are still the best Bonds out there with the rest of them following. Dalton getting two 007 movies are enough, Lazenby should have gotten at least two [but he was a dick] and now with Craig probable out of the running we might get some new breath of air in the franchise with decent directors with a decent spy/action script and mission instead of more navelgazing.
Now I am off watching "Gold"" or "Shout at the devil".
I wouldn't be so quick to call old EON exactly loyal, either. Their greatest Bond actor and most profitable one by a large margin (Connery) was absolutely shafted for his massive contributions to the series by Cubby and co. He made 8 times more money on a random Hitchcock film than he did on a Bond film, even as famous as GF in that day, which is ridiculous. I wouldn't go so far to call it exploitation, but it wouldn't be too far off to define it as such. People can call Sean greedy, but all he wanted was his slice for the work he put in, and without him we likely wouldn't even be here talking about the 18 films that came after his.
Tell me more about the psychic baddies, please!
Apologies, I had never heard of that one and had to look it up. A movie starring Roger Moore that involves a mine being flooded? Sounds familiar...
If it's anything but a confused Bob Conley going "But Mayday...and ma men!", then I'll pass!
He's in bad stories, granted, but far too gentle afterward.
For my taste.
I was going to say, going from Brosnan to Grant as an insult doesn't work at all.
I agree with a lot of your sentiments here. In particular I do think the sense of fun has been largely lost. Yes Bond films often used to be a little OTT and camp, but everyone was in on the joke and it was, well fun.
Where I beg to differ is on the suggestion that the fun was lost when Craig came along. For me Cubby's stepping back from the franchise was the real watershed. With the exception of the first half of TND, the Brosnan films are (for me at least) some of the most dreary depressing hours I've ever spent in a cinema. TWINE was probably the absolute low point for me - at least DAD dials the stupidity upto 11 and has that so bad it's laughable quality.
For me the main issue is and has been for a long time the quality of the writing and direction.
Of course not. That was just an early draft.