›

Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1…5455565860

Comments

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    So why do Brosnan fans think that only Brosnan gets criticized? Brosnan fans never attack Dalton... " He runs funny", "He looks like a geography teacher", "He's too theatrical", "He would turn up at the opening of an envelope" and not forgetting his accent slip in LTK. I'm sure with his millions and millions of dollars in the bank, Brosnan isn't fretting about what us 'angry & bitter' Dalton fans think of him.

    Bottom line, the greatest hits Bond was successful, but looking back, it now looks so bland. As for this fantasy of revisionism, that is a load of old cobblers. Looking back through previous posts, not one person has tried to re-write Bond history.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Can all the Dalton fans bog off ? ;)

    Correction - I'm a Bond fan. ;)
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    edited August 2019 Posts: 3,327
    Getafix wrote: »
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    Brosnan was unfortunate in that he starred in some of the worst films of the franchise, not to mention appearing in the rock bottom 100% solid worst film of the franchise (DAD).

    Had the directors taken a different approach with his movies, or Brosnan himself taken a different approach to the character (he plays tough far better in movies outside of Bond), then he may have been a great Bond.

    As it is, for me it will always feel like a sadly missed opportunity. He looked the part, exactly how Fleming wrote him, yet never really acted how Fleming wrote him. Hammy, animated, over-emotional, trying that little bit too hard to look cool when the camera was on him. That was never Fleming Bond.

    We caught occasional glimpses of what his Bond could look like throughout the 4 films, but it never really came to the surface, hidden away behind a slightly feminine velvety voice, rapid machine gun fire, ridiculous animated running, smarmy smiles and squints, theatrical yells and silly grimaces, badly done CGI effects, OTT villains that lacked any menace, and implausible storylines that strayed way too far from the Fleming books.

    Yet this was a great pity, because watching Brosnan in Tailor of Panoma, or The Ghost Writer, and he could easily play characters with an inner menace, danger lurking within, someone to be feared. It's just that we never saw this when he played Bond - yet that is exactly how Brozza should have played him.

    110% agree. Its not that he wasn't capable but rather that as an actor he and his directors never hit the right note. Not sure what EON were playing at either. He's said as much himself in interviews.

    Totally agree about TTOP and the Ghost Writer too. Love his performance in both films.

    Only thing I'd question - like all the actors (apart from Craig?) wasn't he much better looking than Fleming described?

    I think in the books its been generally described that he was an extraordinarily good looking, handsome man, but with a danger quality lurking beneath. Probably Dalton fits the Fleming description closest, but Brosnan in second place - dark hair with a comma above the right brow, and blue eyes.

    Connery, Laz, Moore and Craig don't fit this description, either having the wrong eye colour, or the wrong hair colour.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,426
    MajorDSmythe wrote: »
    So why do Brosnan fans think that only Brosnan gets criticized? Brosnan fans never attack Dalton... " He runs funny", "He looks like a geography teacher", "He's too theatrical", "He would turn up at the opening of an envelope" and not forgetting his accent slip in LTK. I'm sure with his millions and millions of dollars in the bank, Brosnan isn't fretting about what us 'angry & bitter' Dalton fans think of him.

    Bottom line, the greatest hits Bond was successful, but looking back, it now looks so bland. As for this fantasy of revisionism, that is a load of old cobblers. Looking back through previous posts, not one person has tried to re-write Bond history.

    There tends to be a writing off of the Brosnan films on here. I have seen posts where people seem to think the films weren't successful that they didn't deliver. Fact is Brosnan was a successful James Bond. Though many on here will try to tell you otherwise. His four films stand up as far as I am concerned. They weren't all masterpieces but I can't see him phoning it in, I don't see him being too old for the part, I don't see him not caring about the character. To me he's embraced Bond and enjoyed the time in the role. Craig comes off like he's doing us the favour while playing Bond.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited August 2019 Posts: 17,795
    TND is my third favourite Bond behind Tim's two. Broz was great. One line on the beach in GE makes me cringe a little (you know the one), but all else was excellent. His Bond was more heroic, less conflicted or self destructive. He was the right Bond at the right time.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited September 2019 Posts: 2,641
    I always thought Brosnan was the best thing in is films. He made men want to be James Bond again and made women want to be with Bond again (Sorry Mr Dalton). He had a brilliant suaveness to him, that translated perfectly to Bond. If the writing in the films had been to the standard of Goldeneye throughout his 4 movies we could be talking about him being one of the best Bond's in the series.

    His best moment for me was his kill of Dr. Kaufman in TND, this is easily his greatest moment as Bond.
    The only small moment that comes near it for me is in Goldeneye when he is rigging the place to blow and they fire at him and he just tilts his head to the side like he's not bothered. Cool Bond moment

    I think what went against Brosnan mostly, was his movies were poorly written and too outlandish so it made his Bond less appreciated. One of the only criticism's I have of him personally is he doesn't seem that tough, compared with the other actors except Sir Roger. But if they had written the films better, he could have been less like an assassin and more like a spy, then it wouldn't be so apparent that he wasn't as tough.

    Also shout out to him having one of the best Bond moments of the series in TND, when he is sitting waiting for Paris, he just is Bond in that moment.
  • Mathis1Mathis1
    Posts: 7,418
    jetsetwilly wrote: »
    I don't think anyone doubts the success of the Brosnan films. It's whether his films were any good, and for me they are way down at the bottom of my list, along with the likes of AVTAK.

    They are generic in every way possible - even the titles. It's a part of the Bond history that I don't look back fondly on, like I do with the Dalton era, early Moore or the 60's Bonds.

    A bit of common sense. Well said. It's not about whether he's a nice guy, or saviour of the series, or they made a ton of money. Bottom line is whether he and his four films were good Bond movies, and the answer, imo, is No!
  • RyanRyan Canada
    Posts: 692
    I grew up with Pierce so for a long time he just simply was Bond to me. I have fond memories of going to the cinema to see The World Is Not Enough (my first Bond on the big screen), and I absolutely loved Die Another Day when it first came out. I was ten years old at the time so I preferred the more outlandish Bond films. It wasn't until my teen years that my interest in film changed and I found myself preferring the more serious entries.

    Now some two decades on and I find that his films just simply haven't aged well. Sure, many Bond films have dated elements but Pierce's as a whole just seem to fall under "generic nineties action" for me. Only GoldenEye seems to hold up well. That's still easily in my top favourites. Otherwise, the only time I really watch his films is when I'm doing a complete Bond marathon, whereas I'll still give many others a go at any given time.

    Pierce is a fine actor who did the best with what he was given. He hit the ground running in GoldenEye and was definitely a factor in reinvigorating the franchise. He was immensely popular in the role and ushered in a new era of Bond fans. So while these days I prefer Craig, Dalton, and Connery, the fact of the matter is I might not even be a fan if not for Pierce.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited August 2019 Posts: 4,043
    I don't ever hear anyone say that Pierce wasn't successful in the role from a popularity point or that his films didn't do well, so this revisionist comment is poppy cock.

    It's the only era where I felt non committed and not excited, I went to see them all on the big screen sometimes the first day but getting hyped up for them after GE not a chance.

    I just never bought him as Bond, he played an approximation to my eyes but never felt genuinely like Bond.

    I would have liked to see how he would have tackled the rebooted Bond without the elements. Then we would have seen if the actor and not his surroundings with all the bells and whistles convinced he was the character.

    I'm grateful he kept the series a float and he's a great guy who's got stronger as an actor as time has gone on but he wasn't my Bond and he's at the bottom for me.


  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,795
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I was very disappointed when Pierce was offered the role in ‘86. It seemed cheap and tacky to be going with a two-bit television Bond knock-off (to be fair, the same could have been said about Roger in ‘73, but I was too young at that point to know his history and accepted him readily). I was already a fan and backer of Timothy (mainly thanks to THE LION IN WINTER) and was very pleased when he took Pierce's place.

    This is not the first time I’ve written this on here, but despite all of that, I was surprised at how well Brosnan did in the role, right from the start (though I wasn’t too crazy about his installments themselves at the time; Dalton’s either, actually). There was no question that the pre-internet zeitgeist in 1995 was that Bond was back, and that he was coming back in strength.
    As a kid, I grew up with Connery. He was the ONLY bond. I hated Moore back then, and saw the movies only because of the name Bond. Dalton's films were too dark for me. Brosnan was my fave! Until I read all the Fleming novels in the 90's. Then I appreciated the early Connery & Dalton (AND Lazenby) films more. But Brosnan's Bond is still dear to me; a heroic version of the true messed-up character.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,426
    I think I have a new handle...poppycock! LOL!

    I am of a vintage where Moore was my Bond. The first film I saw in the cinema was MR (actually a drive-in). I saw all the films from OP through to SP in the movie theatre. I remember coming out of GE really pumped! I mean blasting the music in the car while I raced home. That movie was Bond to me. After TLD with Bond having just one love interest and not much in humour, then LTK with Bond being full of vengeance and not much of the suave secret agent that I knew. To see GE was a breath of fresh air. It made me excited to be a Bond fan and I was delighted with the movie as a whole.

    It had it all, but most of what it had was a Bond on screen who brought back a certain class and swagger. That moment you refer to @Jordo007 was totally Pierce's idea according to Martin Campbell's commentary on GE. To me Brosnan got the cinematic Bond. Yes, different then Dalton's take which was more the book Bond. As Bond says to Ling in YOLT "just like Russian caviar is different from Peking duck but I love them both." I enjoy Dalton for what he brought to the role. I enjoy Pierce for what he brought.

    If I am asked what Bond movie did I leave most excited about. It was GE. Brosnan made Bond cool and again and seemed to be embracing being Bond. Connery, Dalton and Craig to me either started to resent the character and the success it brought them. I think Brosnan and Moore embraced the character and seemed to understand the importance of the film.

    Some on here say it's not if the film is a box office success, it's that it's an artistic or creative one. I agree that Brosnan's films were uneven. I like TND up to the stealth boat then it becomes generic action. I really appreciate TWINE for what it was, an attempt to bring a human Bond to the screen. Some call it soap opera acting. I don't see that. I see a film trying to play with the elements of a Bond film. I give Pierce credit for wanting to take the character on a little differently.

  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    Shardlake wrote: »
    I don't ever hear anyone say that Pierce wasn't successful in the role from a popularity point or that his films didn't do well, so this revisionist comment is poppy cock.

    It's the only era where I felt non committed and not excited, I went to see them all on the big screen sometimes the first day but getting hyped up for them after GE not a chance.

    I just never bought him as Bond, he played an approximation to my eyes but never felt genuinely like Bond.

    I would have liked to see how he would have tackled the rebooted Bond without the elements. Then we would have seen if the actor and not his surroundings with all the bells and whistles convinced he was the character.

    I'm grateful he kept the series a float and he's a great guy who's got stronger as an actor as time has gone on but he wasn't my Bond and he's at the bottom for me.


    Spot on!!
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    edited August 2019 Posts: 623
    A while ago I made a thread where I argued that the Brosnan era was much more fun than the Craig era, for Bond fans. We had more films, more merch, more book-tie ins, computer games etc. Okay, the quality of the films might have improved with Craig, but how about the 'fun' aspect?
    From Die Another Day to Casino Royale was the biggest tonal shift of the series. It went from 'silly Bond' to 'serious Bond' in one fell swoop. And everyone applauded it, quite rightly. But we also lost something too. The scene where Bond is with the 'little Danish' at the start of Tomorrow Never Dies could have come from any Moore or Connery film. It's carrying that Spy Who Loved Me/You Only Live Twice tradition of Bond the dashing playboy. That went out the window when Craig started finger-sucking.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I only care about the films and the Brosnan films are essentially unwatchable from my perspective. I'm not a huge fan of the Craig entries but they are on a completely different level of bad to the Brosnan films.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    I thought Die Another Day played great at the cinema, actually. I remember coming out going 'wow', at the spectacle. Somehow, the outlandishness of it all was soaked up on the big screen. It was like they were trying to out-Bond all the other Bond films. I'd never argue that it was a great movie in the way FRWL is, but it certainly didn't seem half as bad as it's looked upon now.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I agree DAD is not the worst. That's TWINE.
  • shamanimalshamanimal
    Posts: 623
    TWINE is probably my least favourite Brozza, but again, at the time, it was well received by fans. I remember people being excited about the personal angle, with Electra. It was compared a lot to FYEO and OHMSS. I wasn't on-line then, but I read the fan magazines letters pages, (which admittedly gave a very narrow window compared to these days).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    You guys are cookoo for coco puffs. TWINE is fantastic. :D
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    Murdock wrote: »
    You guys are cookoo for coco puffs. TWINE is fantastic. :D

    TWINE is the second best Bond film of all time, right behind TND.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,795
    Murdock wrote: »
    You guys are cookoo for coco puffs. TWINE is fantastic. :D

    I concur!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    00Agent wrote: »
    But since it's always the usual suspects with Dalton avatars bashing him, i stopped caring.

    Funnily, I’ve noticed it’s Brozza fans that do the most Craig bashing.
    Murdock wrote: »
    You guys are cookoo for coco puffs. TWINE is fantastic. :D

    https://66.media.tumblr.com/0510ec18bc509e6c801fb7f93470503b/tumblr_prk81sTCQY1rn314mo1_400.gif
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,426
    I guess as Bond fans we all have our camps that we are passionate about.

    My favourite Bond is and probably always will be Sean Connery. That's rather funny since outside of NSNA and GF (classic movie night at the cinema) I never experienced him on the big screen.

    I can appreciate Moore's portrayal as he made the character more in his image. I think Lazenby did a nice job but got saddled with a script that kept bringing up Sean's image of Bond and it just didn't work. Dalton was a great change of pace from Moore. I think LTK went a little too far to be honest from what a Bond movie should be. However I can appreciate that Dalton took a different tack from both Moore and Connery.

    Brosnan to me was a little bit of a hybrid of Connery and Moore. He had the confidence of Connery's Bond. He had the ability to deliver some comedic moments like Moore. Then we have Craig who really harkens to Dalton and maybe a bit of Connery.

    I do find that the passion rises in fans when any of Lazenby, Dalton or Brosnan are either held up as ideals or put down as lousy.

    I will state again that Brosnan wasn't that bad as some on here make him out to be. At least from my perspective he did a good job. His films were uneven to be sure but to me he was the last Bond to portray the classic Bond. The Bond that Craig is portraying is very far removed from the Bond character I knew and grew up with.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,183
    thedove wrote: »
    Then we have Craig who really harkens to Dalton and maybe a bit of Connery.

    I always saw him as a fusion of Fleming’s cynicism and Connery’s machismo. Dalton was very faithful to Fleming 100%, but by taking the more literary route I think he took away Bond’s sex appeal, which is why audiences couldn’t warm to him.
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    Then we have Craig who really harkens to Dalton and maybe a bit of Connery.

    I always saw him as a fusion of Fleming’s cynicism and Connery’s machismo. Dalton was very faithful to Fleming 100%, but by taking the more literary route I think he took away Bond’s sex appeal, which is why audiences couldn’t warm to him.

    Yes I agree with this. Fleming Bond was not that interesting or charismatic as a human being. A snobby introvert at best, even though it was great to be in his shoes when reading the books.

    The cinematic incarnations are far more witty and cool, yet Dalton's accurate portrayal of the literary Bond didn't translate that well with many audiences who grew up with Connery and Moore.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    @thedove Thanks mate, I didn't know that. Learn something new every day
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,255
    It's very hard to pinpoint exactly what happened in the dalton era. Perhaps it was the wrong bond for the times. But he took over at a moment when rogers films weren't doing that good either. Brosnan on the other hand had persistent box office hits, with dad the highest scoring of these.
    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,795
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    It's very hard to pinpoint exactly what happened in the dalton era. Perhaps it was the wrong bond for the times. But he took over at a moment when rogers films weren't doing that good either. Brosnan on the other hand had persistent box office hits, with dad the highest scoring of these.
    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
    Silly Bonds do well. Any movie in a series where a main character dies does too.
    FWIW...
  • BondStuBondStu Moonraker 6
    Posts: 373
    Funny the backlash against Brosnan... when Goldeneye came out nobody thought he could do any wrong. Brosnan was an awesome Bond and he deserved better than he got.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited September 2019 Posts: 16,383
    He’s very charismatic: he’s great at being the star of the Bond films. Dalton would have disappeared at the middle of something like Die Another Day But Brosnan has the movie star presence to stay on top of the whole thing. Is he as good an actor? No, but sometimes being a movie star is more important; look at Roger.
  • NS_writingsNS_writings Buenos Aires
    edited September 2019 Posts: 544
    We owe to Pierce Brosnan the fact we are now waiting for a 25th James Bond film. Without the success of GoldenEye, none of us would be here talking, let alone expecting Bond to return. MI6-HQ (formerly mi6.co.uk) would be now a group of middle-aged guys chatting about Bond as many gather to talk about Get Smart, Bewitched, Miami Vice and all the retro series that are well stuck in the past, where the only way to remember them is rewatching the old episodes/movies again or hope for a remake sometime. I'd go as far as saying that if LTK would have been the last Bond film and if GE would have flopped, there'd be no interest in making up a website for James Bond at all save for a small and quickly forgotten Geocities page.

    The ingratitude to Brosnan is really painful and misplaced.

    Also, the Craig films are fantastic now but people wouldn't have buy them in the 1990s. We needed style back. Style mixed with thrills, adventure and action. An exotic setting, the feeling of an Eurothriller once again. We got that in GE.

    It was thanks to GE that I got hooked into TND, TWINE and DAD, and the into TMWTGG, LALD, TLD, MR and the old ones. Honestly speaking, I very much doubt that if my first film was, let's say, YOLT or TLD or LTK I would have been into Bond at all.

    https://ultimateactionmovies.com/pierce-brosnan-james-bond/
Sign In or Register to comment.