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
The Kung-Fu stuff was risible, but other than that, I rather enjoyed Carver. He was a fun throwback to the Stromberg's and Drax's, but rather than underplay it like those two, Pryce decided to chew the scenery. That was a good choice in my opinion and fit the film well.
Agreed. I think TND is a pretty solid film.
Admittedly, this may be my own take, but I rather think that Bonds naval connection being touched on here, for the first time in awhile, feeds into the climax. Like I said I am probably adding my own subtext, but the much hated two gun rampage at the end, to me, is Bond getting cold revenge for fallen comrades on The Devonshire.
For me the best time being a Bond fan was 1987 to 1989 when Dalton came on the scene, then again in 2005 with the release of CR, although again like the Brosnan era, I've become gradually more disappointed with each new film since CR.
Indeed, and there Carlyle could've shined.
He does not at all now.
None of them comes close to Timmy D’s films though ;)
GE is good. TWINE is my second favorite Brosnan Bond, mind you. ;)
GE & the first hour of TND are decent Bond films.
Despite the above, I count myself a fan of Tomorrow Never Dies. It’s a lesser film than Goldeneye but a more rounded one.
Goldeneye was effectively a modern homage. After six years away, the series needed to update, not reboot. You had to reassure the audiences that, Cold War or no Cold War, this was essentially the same gig. Cue femme fatales, stunts, gadgets, multiple escapes, fast cars, seductions, casinos, etc etc. The problem? Trying to emerge fully formed didn’t leave much space to evolve. The debuts of Connery and Moore, while fine films, were actually fairly atypical of their stars. Dalton had two, very different, but you can see the seeds of Licence To Kill in The Living Daylights.
For many, Tomorrow Never Dies is the forgotten middle child of the Brosnan era. Neither as loved as Goldeneye, nor reviled as Die Another Day, and it doesn’t have Christmas Jones. A muscular, accomplished outing that certainly deserves the prefix 'action' before any mention of 'thriller', Tomorrow Never Dies is the moment Brosnan hit his stride and simultaneously fell over. Great chases, an amazing score and one of the brightest of Bond’s flames in Paris Carver keep this viewer happy. The over-explosive climax and reluctance to experiment hint at trouble ahead.
I doubt many people hate it, I doubt it’s the favourite of many people. A good, solid two hours of entertainment. Had Brosnan produced a great third film, I expect Tomorrow Never Dies would be viewed more kindly; instead, despite its many virtues, it seems to be either overlooked or pinpointed as the moment Things Went Wrong. Poor Pierce. A decent Bond searching for that great film. It seems so close! But the wave has crested. He’s barely arrived and already he’s halfway out the door into TWINE & DAD.
With exception of Goldeneye they felt like Bond tribute acts desperately trying to convince you they are the real thing.
The one era that I have no problem in almost totally ignoring.
Spot-on, sir... Couldn't agree more.
Wow, that's harsh. :-O
The "tribue to all gadgets" scene in DAD was so goddamn awful (not helped by John Cleese's irritating "R"). It's much worse than including the DB5 again imho.
It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.
I miss those days.
Every two years another movie is not a reason to dislike or like a franchise.
Just ask George Lucas, Rian Johnson & JJ Abrams.
Never said it was the reason to like the series; but it was certainly welcome.
Yeah but it was all very uneven, even more so than any other "Bondactor era".
Only in my humble opinion of course.
The Brosnan era's crime, I suppose, is that it's not as clever or 'deep' as the Craig era. But when you grew up with the Moore films, that shouldn't be a problem.
The Moore era had it's fair share of silliness but it never pretended to be anything other than that.
Even with Daniel Craig he had a great start with Royale and Quantum but the producers decided to go family drama and childhood trauma in the last two films. Baba loves Craig but Craig can't always have his way. Craig was against the whole brothergate thing, even he could not sway Babs to throw that idea out.
Even the great Connery could not wrestle away for more creative controls from the producers.
Other than that being a 90s teen, the games, Pierce, etc. It was a great time for me to be a Bond fan.
I'm the same. For me the Bond films end in 1989 after LTK, and start again in 2005 after a 16 year gap.
Pierce Brosnan's revelation that he doesn't rate his own performances as Bond, ought to be shocking stuff. Here is an actor who throughout his seven-year run as the suave British sleuth was regularly voted the public's second-favourite 007 after Sean Connery. Occasionally, he even came out ahead.
But it is not just Craig's portrayal of the secret agent that has cast 1990s Bond into shadow. Rewatching the films now, Brosnan's performance is flat and lackadaisical to the point of blandness. What once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as sheer laziness.
Even in GoldenEye, generally considered to be the best of Brosnan's films, his 007 is smug and smarmy in a way Connery and Roger Moore never were. The movie is only saved by a decent storyline, strong direction from Martin Campbell (later to take the reins for Casino Royale) and a decent villain in Sean Bean's multi-layered Alec Trevelyan.
Worse still, in an era where adult themes had re-permeated mainstream Hollywood to the greatest extent since the 1970s, the Brosnan Bond carries little or no physical threat. Even early Roger Moore was steely and cold-blooded enough to threaten Gloria Hendry's double-crossing Rosie Carver with her life in the underrated Live and Let Die. Brosnan 007 is a purring pussycat by comparison.
By the time 2002's Die Another Day had rolled around, with its ridiculous invisible car, video-game style special effects and terrible Madonna cameo, Bond had lost all credibility. Other crimes of the Brosnan era include The World Is Not Enough's Christmas Jones, Denise Richards' crop-topped nuclear physicist, or the not-so terrifying threat in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies: a media baron (played by Jonathan Pryce) who mounts a cunning scheme to provoke world war three using the power of newspapers and GPS. Even Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice had a better plan than that.
The sad thing is that Brosnan has proven himself a more than capable actor over the years, turning in a Cary Grant-esque performance as a gentlemanly art thief in the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair and a bravura turn as a Blair-like former British PM in Roman Polanski's The Ghost in 2010. As he himself partially admits, maybe he struggled to work out why anyone was still making Bond movies long, long after the initial thrill of the series' 1960s success had dissipated.
Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades.
Pierce Canberra was the better choice.
100% agree with everything here. Great post.
I felt Brozza became more like Bond outside of Bond. His performances in Thomas Crown, Tailor of Panama and The Ghost gave us a glimpse of what he could and should have been as 007.
Dalton and Craig got it right in their performances as they treated the character as a flawed human being, a cold-blooded killer, an introvert.
Brozza's portrayal was more all-round good guy super hero, yet also too vulnerable, too emotional, too extrovert, which is not really what the Fleming character was.
But I disagree with the notion that Brosnan posed no physical threat. He's not the most intimidating looking guy (to say the least) but he was plenty physical. Just look at the Kaufmann scene, or the Bilbao bankers scene. It's just that Craig leaves him for dust in the cold blooded killing department, so he looks inevitably worse as his immediate predecessor.
In comparison, I didn't buy Moore as a menacing Bond in the slightest. Even some of his more lauded moments where he is a bit more "cold blooded" are still a bit hokey. But that's not what made his Bond fun to watch, so it never bothered me all that much.