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 wasn't the problem, just everything around him. Though I personally think that Toby Stephens / Graves was a great villain. Better than the villains of TWINE, which gets an overly harsh rap from many. It's not as bad as they make out I'm sure.
From best to worst the Brosnan films for me rate, GE, TND, TWINE, DAD. Lucky he didn't do a fifth film really. ;-)
the problem. It was all the absurdity going on around his latter two films. He wasn't given the fair chance he needed to fully promote his qualities as 007. GE and TND are in my Top Ten, and TWINE and DAD don't even come into the Top Fifteen, but once again, it's not Pierce that's the problem.
It doesnt measure up to the sheer awfulness of DAD though. And lets lay this myth to rest that it has a good first half. Its just as dire as the second. Its just that the second is more memorably awful. To me the film goes to hell when Bond stops his heart and walks out of that Hong Kong hospital.
I dont watch the Brosnan era much. In many ways I jump between Licence to Kill and Casino Royale. There is not much to love in between.
As I said before I would MUCH rather have a film that's formulaic but at least fun and has a bit of English "Bondian" escapism than one that is too dour and "different". Actually i rewatched LTK again recently (a pairing with OHMSS). I used to consider it one of my favourites but after watching it so soon after Service my opinion of it actually went down a little.
There's a reason people like Q, Moneypenny, naughty humour and the so called "cliches". It's because they can't see them in other films.
As for the first half of DAD being as bad as the second - nah. I'll admit it's got some awkward moments but it's at least to me more watchable and not AS sfx driven. I like the scene with Bond in the hotel room the most.
TND was ok but ended up falling back TOO much on all out action. The second half is pretty much just gun-fire with little intrigue or class. Price is enjoyably OTT though, as is Vincent Schiavelli.
TWINE was pretty good IMO and gets a bit too much flack around here if you ask me.
DAD is just...sad. Although last time I watched it I (gulp) actually enjoyed it a bit more through not expecting as much.
The World Is Not Enough
I love this film. It gets a real hiding around here and that stings deep man, stings deep.
Pierce Brosnan excels as Bond turning in an elegantly lethal performance. Backing him up are the supreme and fascinating double act of Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle.
Now then in the light of objectivity I shall point out some of the films flaws.
The more emotional nature of the script allows for some unintentional melodrama. (Primarily the scene between Bond and M in Scotland)
Casting a cheerleader as a nuclear physicist was either very naïve or very cynical. Richards dies when she has to share the screen with Marceau.
However the overall premise is inspired and all the Bondian attributes abound and in novel fashion.
Second
Tomorrow Never Dies
Sleek, sophisticated and thrilling. The accent is on high tech sleek thrills, and the film delivers it in spades. Kudos must go to Spottiswoode, who betrays his background as a film editor delivering a taut and pacy film.
Third
GoldenEye
A greatest hits Bond film that launched our venerable hero into the nineties. There really is a lot to enjoy with this one, namely a superb primary cast and a very strong script.
Indeed this script helps anchor GoldenEye’s more fantastical elements, allowing for some rare moments of introspection. The script also cleverly asks Bond to validate himself in the post cold war era, something he achieves with aplomb. A quick on Brosnan’s performance; although it isn’t perfect, he seemed too overawed by the project, I was impressed by his debut, I thought his nerves really benefited him in this film, and made him seem steely…
There are a few quibbles; some of the action scenes need trimming, while Boris gets far too much screentime, especially for such an annoying and superfluous character.
And fourth
Die Another Day
Brosnan looks brilliant and commands the screen, even pulling of some dodgy one- liners with panache, and everything prior to London is superb, at the very least on a par with the rest of the Brosnan tenure. The direction is assured and brusque, the action explosive, inventive and tinged with a little dirt and realism. Moreover the overall premise is very fresh; having Bond on the run trying to redeem himself is interesting and well executed.
Ironically as soon as Bond returns home it all goes tits up; all Bond fans everywhere die a little inside.
Brosnan was a damned fine Bond, whose tenure was undermined by too heavy an accent on action, and scripts that seemed to purposefully self destruct with an abundance of not very good boner gags.
Finally someone who has a grounded understanding of the Brosnan era. I much appreciate your love for TWINE because it is one of my favorites. So kudos to you for giving a fair, objective assessment of the four films, something most people around here can't seem to do. :)
But some members here give PB such a hard time. Just look at his pain in this interview whilst talking about his sacking as Bond - you can see him thinking about it throughout. The man, unlike SC, GL, has much love for Bond and I love him for that:
I for one really do not have a major problem with any of Pierce's 90's efforts. I'm a Bond fan from the 1960's and I feel I have as much if not more love than Pierce for the films. The films have been a part of my life for over 40 years. The Brosnan films just aren't my favorites in the series, and it appears that the general consensus share that opinion. There is just something about his portrayal that seems "off", something many here have also noticed and he has admitted himself. I give him kudos for effort and thank him for his contributions towards keeping the series alive and giving us some good moments, but if he's bitter or hurt it's because he wanted to do CR and EON felt it was time for a change.
Myself, I'm doing what I've done about my whole life. Enjoying the coolest character to ever grace the big screen, rolling with the changes as they happen and hoping to get treated to a few more classics in my lifetime.
I have absolutely no problem with your views. If you prefer the other Bonds to Brosnan, by all means go for it. I was just simply happy to see someone critique his films without completely trashing them in the process. Brosnan bashing seems to find it's way into just about every thread on here and it becomes tiresome for those of us who like his films.
Now, I have a bit of affection for them because the opening night anticipation is gone. When I saw TND after the 2 (?) year wait after the fantastic GE I felt a bit let down. But I rewatched it the other night and enjoyed it, even though I still think it's the weakest of Brosnan's films. While I don't agree with the idea of "one-man army" machine gun toting Bond and think that the dialogue was too on-the-nose and had bad humour I recognize there are enough different styles of Bond films to please everyone. And certainly there are some here who love TND the same way that I love CR, OHMSS, or FRWL. Neither of us is right or wrong.
Halle Berry, to me, will likely always be the worst Bond girl in the history of film...worse than Mary Goodnight, Stacey Sutton, Christmas Jones, you name 'em.
Die Another Day fails so much that I can safely say that my favorite characters in the film were the shotguns on the Aston's hood. Don't know why, but I've always thought those little buggars had minds of their own....
But at least my crazy theories can shift my attention away from what Die Another Day has to offer, which is next to nothing.
I will go on and add that I enjoy GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough to varying degrees...I give GoldenEye an 8/10 and place 10 on my overall list, I give Tomorrow Never Dies a 7/10 placed 13, and The World Is Not Enough gets another 7/10 sitting at 14.
One unexpected thing when I rewatched TND - a sense of nostaligia! It was surprising how 90s it looked to me, and I was filled with a rush of memories of that time. Very different from watching a Connery Bond film which seemed to take place in some exotic, unreachable time (the 60s).
I completely agree with you. TND is one of the most entertaining films and as you said there is never a dull moment.
@BAIN123, I've never seen it. Like I've stated many a time before, I'm psycho about Brosnan. Love all his films, he's my favorite actor, so of course I'm biased. But yes, Brosnan should not be seen as a scapegoat this heavily.
For the purposes of this thread thought I'm gonna have to go with DAD as the worst of his movies. The dodgy cgi, Halle Berry etc just spoiled it. Brosnan, however, was pretty good in it.
But, the way I see it - the guy looked like Bond wih his darkly handsome good looks and his wife was a former Bond girl. It almost seemed like he was destined to play the part.
I salute you!
So thrilled to finally see some appreciation for Brosnan and his Bond films! Keep up the good work! :-D