Brosnan's Last 3 Bond Films: The Problem?

1246789

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    I'd add TSWLM and perhaps YOLT.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Grant wrote:
    There is a lot of criticism, on this board, of Brosnan's films. For me I do not feel the 'hate' for Brosnan that many appear to have here but I do not rate his last three entries though DAD is growing on me.

    They all have some good scenes, Bond in Cuba (DAD), Bond with his Blue glasses (TWINE) and Bond at the launch of the paper thingy in (TND) to name a few but there is something about these entries that is 'off'. I just wonder if people have any views what it might be. Is it one specific item or a combination of several.

    I would not include Brosnan's portrayal in this. He is Bondian on so many levels that I feel I have to defend him whenever his name is brought up here. For me there is something 'off' about the 1990's in general. It seems to be a decade without direction or defining themes. There is certainly an early aggressive PC that impedes on the plots. The stories are not 'epic'. They are quite personal in my view and uninteresting. A nutty Murdoch does not do it for me and the whole revenge element in TWINE feels 'not thought out'.

    Any ideas?

    i have chosen not to read through the other comments - only because i dont want to dilute my own personal feelings towards Brosnan as Bond.... so here it goes..

    during the time, I loved Brosnan as Bond - GE was my first Bond movie experience, and TND was my first Bond film in theaters... if it wasn't for Brosnan opening the door to this wondeful world of 007 to me, I quite possibly could have not become a Bond fan - i mean, who knows...

    but now looking back, and knowing almost all the films by heart, i find his films 'average' at best - they are decent in a way that i compare to a well cooked steak from a high end restaurant versus a steak cooked by a cheap grease house..... you can eat the cheap steak, and still enjoy it - but there is no comparison to a well cooked steak that melts in your mouth when you eat it (god, typing that just made me hungry for steak.. lol).... Brosnan was okay, and enjoyable in the role - and i can sit back and enjoy his films (well most of them).. but there is no comparison when watching films like FRWL, CR, TB, TLD, or TSWLM.....

    it's interesting that you mention that the 90's on the whole were a decade that was indefinable - except for maybe the surge in being 'PC'..... but that comment is interesting nonetheless, because thats how I view Brosnan as Bond - so maybe it's fitting that an indefinable period, brought out an indefinable James Bond, with only transcending characteristic being the political correctness..... each Bond actor, was the definition of his era - all the way down the line, from Craig to Connery - they each embodied their generation, or their time period... so maybe thats part of the reason why we got the Bond we did from Brosnan..... his films were 'sprinkled' with good Bond moments, but those moments weren't enough to define his films, or HIS James Bond.... people will often bring up the fact that what he brought to Bond was a "cocky sense of over confidence" ... while his portrayal was certainly that, and thus could be looked at as his defining characteristic - it's hardly new for the role - i mean, isn't that what Bond is supposed to be anyway? Am I the only one that sees that in both Connery and Moore?..... that is why I feel Brosnan brought nothing new to the table - he just sort of smirked and sashayed from scene to scene - like a man trying his hardest to be a caricature of Bond....

    now, in terms of the films themselves..... i think they reached this weird transition in time where they didn't know where to take the films... should they be superficial, or should they explore Bond as a character himself... it's like they approached each film with no definitive plan for direction of the character - instead it's like they threw a bunch of crap at the wall, and took whatever stuck and mashed them into a film.. - which is the only way i can explain certain scenes from TND, TWINE, and DAD... normally, you play to the strengths of your lead actor - but (and this brings us back to the indefinable thing).. Brosnan didn't really grasp ahold of anything that made his Bond standout - so do they go serious? emotional? lighthearted?... again, it's like they just said "F it!" and blended them all together, and whatever came out, came out.... thats why, as hard as the producers tried to make each film stand out on it's own by bringing in different directors, they all kind of ran together - because there was nothing that stood out.... in an effort to constantly bring in a fresh change, they made the films more alike....

    .... and that is what i think is the bane of Brosnan's tenure.

  • Posts: 5,745
    My biggest problem with Brosnan were his comments outside of the films.

    Everytime he talked/talks to the press, whether its the Goldeneye press conference, or a modern interview, he sounds like he's in a job interview.

    "Well.. well.... well, well.... I think Bond is.... well... he's a very complex man. He has a sense of adventure, but also, I feel, questions his job at times, and just what he's doing." (That's not an actual quote, but that sums up basically how he talks to the press about Bond).

    He studders, and sort of avoids any questions about the character of Bond. And what usually comes out is utter nonsense, that completely contradicts Brosnan's films as Bond. His films hardly explore the character of Bond. Yes, there's 006 and the girl in TWINE, but I don't believe Brosnan's performance. He's back to business right away.

    I feel like for all of Brosnan's films, no one on the team had a grasp on Bond. Not the writers, not the producers, and definitely not the actor. None of them gave a straight answer on what they were going for, and none of them could tell you what they were trying to explore.

    The films were a mesh of half-hearted, under-developed ideas with great potential but poor execution.

    Like @Getafix said, you can't shift the blame from Brosnan. A stronger actor would have drastically changed the four outings. But blame has to be given to the writers, the producers, and essentially anyone involved who convinced themselves they could agree with what they were making.
  • Posts: 251
    And the Brosnan bashing goes on....and on....and on......
    I know he is the sacraficial cow around here, but come on people...

    Haven`t all the Bond actors had good and dodgy moment? Tou could argue "What happend to Connerys last three films" too, as YOLT and DAF are a very big step down from TB in my book.
    And what about Craig? CR brilliant, QOS utter dross.

    There was nothing wrong with Brosnans last three films, some were better than others, that`s all. You don`t have to like them all......
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 5,745
    Shoreline wrote:
    And the Brosnan bashing goes on....and on....and on......
    I know he is the sacraficial cow around here, but come on people...

    Haven`t all the Bond actors had good and dodgy moment? Tou could argue "What happend to Connerys last three films" too, as YOLT and DAF are a very big step down from TB in my book.
    And what about Craig? CR brilliant, QOS utter dross.

    There was nothing wrong with Brosnans last three films, some were better than others, that`s all. You don`t have to like them all......

    And we don't like them all. That's why we're discussing what is wrong with them.

    How could you not anticipate Brosnan bashing from the title of this thread?
    If you don't like a television show, you don't watch it.
    If you don't like Brosnan 'bashing' don't click on threads about Brosnan bashing. :)

    And not all of it is bashing. In almost all of these posts, people are going into detail about their opinions on what went wrong. We should all be able to respect that.

    And the other actor's 'dodgy moments' didn't span three films.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    Shoreline wrote:
    And the Brosnan bashing goes on....and on....and on......
    I know he is the sacraficial cow around here, but come on people...

    Haven`t all the Bond actors had good and dodgy moment? Tou could argue "What happend to Connerys last three films" too, as YOLT and DAF are a very big step down from TB in my book.
    And what about Craig? CR brilliant, QOS utter dross.

    There was nothing wrong with Brosnans last three films, some were better than others, that`s all. You don`t have to like them all......

    I disagree that 'it's all relative'. Yes, all the actors had high and low points, but the lows during the Brosnan era were unlike anything experienced previously. This was mainly because the central actor was so awful. Even LALD and TMWTGG are redeemed on some level by Roger and (in the former's case) some good music and (with the latter) a good villain. YOLT and QoS are like vintage Dom Perignon when compared to the Asti Martini of DAD, GE and TWINE. It is actually completely unfair to even compare them. To paraphrase what someone else said, prior to Brosnan we had beautifully tender, rare steak and then with Brosnan we got Spam from a can.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited May 2012 Posts: 4,399
    Shoreline wrote:
    And the Brosnan bashing goes on....and on....and on......
    I know he is the sacraficial cow around here, but come on people...

    Haven`t all the Bond actors had good and dodgy moment? Tou could argue "What happend to Connerys last three films" too, as YOLT and DAF are a very big step down from TB in my book.
    And what about Craig? CR brilliant, QOS utter dross.

    There was nothing wrong with Brosnans last three films, some were better than others, that`s all. You don`t have to like them all......

    haven't all the actors had goofy or dodgey moments?..... Yes..... but in three straight films - and not just brief moments, but large scenes that make up the majority of the films?.. No..

    as far as the first comment goes....... accept the fact that in a topic, that openly questions Brosnan's films, namely his last 3 - some bashing might occur.... no one asked you to open the thread and start reading... if it bothers you that much, then move on.....

    now in terms of QOS... was it a step down from CR? yes.... but it wasn't utter cow flop like DAD - there is far more good that can be pulled out of QOS than in Brosnan's last 2 Bond films. - especially that last one.



  • Posts: 6,709
    Getafix wrote:
    A good choice, apart from TB and GE, IMO.

    Yeah, problem is, I love TB. I really do. And GE had an important timing in my life so I can´t really deny it, even if I wanted to. FYEO, TSWLM and, believe it or not, TMWTGG do make my top ten. My top three would be FRWL, OHMSS and TB.

    @CraigMooreOHMSS, good to know my friend.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2012 Posts: 15,713
    Yes in the Brosnan movies the cliches (Q/MP scenes) were getting stale and redundant... but IMO I still prefer redundant cliches to an absence of cliches like in the Craig movies...

    I always said : original ways of using cliches >>>>> redundant cliches >>>>> absence of cliches.

    It's like eating a hamburger... Q, MP, gadgets are the ingredients... the craig films are like a hamburger with only the bun and the meat..... while the Brosnan films fill the hamburger with tomatoes, onions, pickles, salad, mustard.... but these ingredients have been bought at the local supermarket.... tastes good, but could be better.... so I would prefer a Bond film with original ways of using the cliches : a hamburger with fresh tomatoes from your garden, home-made mustard.....
  • Posts: 1,052
    I agree with you DC007, it's the way the staple Bond elements are used that keeps it interesting!

    I could really do with a burger now though!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2012 Posts: 15,713
    I agree with you DC007, it's the way the staple Bond elements are used that keeps it interesting!

    While I understand the Craig movies had to put away with how redudant the cliches had become... I was hoping they'd find fresh new original ways to use the cliches, and not simply dispose of them.... I would have loved to see a new original take on Q and MP in CR.... I'm sure you can cut a few minutes here and there from over-long action scenes (especially the Miami airport scene) and have the 6 minutes necessary to introduce a new Q and MP.

    So as I said : yes I understand the cliches (Q, MP, gadgets...) were getting redundant, but I would have preferred an original take on this cliches instead of not having them in the films.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I love Craig as Bond, but Brosnan was a fine Bond, too.
    Cool, stylish, solid.

    Also, I just remembered: the audience did cheer in the theatres at the end of the PTS of TND.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    When details first began to leak re. CR I personally thought that the absence of MP and Q would have a detrimental effect. As it happened I didn't actually miss them at all. You could make the argument that they could have been background characters, or drop in a few visual references for Bond fans but the story didn't necessitate that.

    I'm interested to see how they use Q in Skyfall and very much hope they've given the role the twist it needs to avoid the possible mawkishness.

    One of the worst elements of Brosnan's Bond films was 'R' in TWINE and DAD. An awfully realised character that made me cringe, it was all far too Austin Powers.

    Aside from that I think there were multiple occasions during the Brosnan tenure that delivered some truly great Bond moments. I stand by my opinion that the Car Park chase in TND was and still is an original and brilliant sequence that felt fresh and uniquely 'Bond'.
  • Posts: 140
    Some interesting points. Firstly, I never bash Brosnan. I defend him if I have too. I do bash Craig but this thread is not about him.

    I have been thinking about his last three films and I have to revise my opinion a bit. I do not mind watching Die Another Day or I should say most of it. It is far more 'epic' than the middle two.

    However, I find The World is not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies to be just bland. As somebody mentioned before they are like mediocre steak. However, I can't even eat this steak. They are tasteless.

    Sorry but I am finding it difficult to string words together today.
  • Grant wrote:
    Some interesting points. Firstly, I never bash Brosnan. I defend him if I have too. I do bash Craig but this thread is not about him.

    I have been thinking about his last three films and I have to revise my opinion a bit. I do not mind watching Die Another Day or I should say most of it. It is far more 'epic' than the middle two.

    However, I find The World is not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies to be just bland. As somebody mentioned before they are like mediocre steak. However, I can't even eat this steak. They are tasteless.

    Sorry but I am finding it difficult to string words together today.

    Bland is a good word to describe these two outings, TND especially! At least DAD is an enjoyable romp, even if it is awful (by Bond standards)
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    My biggest problem with Brosnan were his comments outside of the films.

    Everytime he talked/talks to the press, whether its the Goldeneye press conference, or a modern interview, he sounds like he's in a job interview.

    "Well.. well.... well, well.... I think Bond is.... well... he's a very complex man. He has a sense of adventure, but also, I feel, questions his job at times, and just what he's doing." (That's not an actual quote, but that sums up basically how he talks to the press about Bond).

    He studders, and sort of avoids any questions about the character of Bond. And what usually comes out is utter nonsense, that completely contradicts Brosnan's films as Bond. His films hardly explore the character of Bond. Yes, there's 006 and the girl in TWINE, but I don't believe Brosnan's performance. He's back to business right away.

    I feel like for all of Brosnan's films, no one on the team had a grasp on Bond. Not the writers, not the producers, and definitely not the actor. None of them gave a straight answer on what they were going for, and none of them could tell you what they were trying to explore.

    The films were a mesh of half-hearted, under-developed ideas with great potential but poor execution.

    Like @Getafix said, you can't shift the blame from Brosnan. A stronger actor would have drastically changed the four outings. But blame has to be given to the writers, the producers, and essentially anyone involved who convinced themselves they could agree with what they were making.

    Bingo! I keep referring to Brosnan's interviews also and you really hit the nail on the head. Two of his interviews for TWINE really had me gritting my teeth with such anger. In one he talks about how Apted really understood the Bond character and how they were exploring deep territory and that they got a definitive handle on who Bobd is. I almost picked up my tv and threw it out the window at the absurdity of his ludicrous comments. The other TWINE interview I think was on the red carpet and you should have seen him, making a complete fool of himself, daring any man to take on the role of, "Jimmy Bond" as he phrased it. Urgh! Then there are the hair-brained GE interviews but at least with that movie, they managed to accomplish something positive.

    In the end, Brosnan to me lacked conviction in the role as Bond and when talking about Bond I never got the impression he really knew what he was talking about, primarily because he was a movie Bond fanboy and I'm convinced he's never read any of the Fleming books at all.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    It's funny what a polarising effect a film can have on different people. I always find it intriguing. I guess that's the joy of film.

  • Posts: 1,092
    I agree with you DC007, it's the way the staple Bond elements are used that keeps it interesting!

    While I understand the Craig movies had to put away with how redudant the cliches had become... I was hoping they'd find fresh new original ways to use the cliches, and not simply dispose of them.... I would have loved to see a new original take on Q and MP in CR.... I'm sure you can cut a few minutes here and there from over-long action scenes (especially the Miami airport scene) and have the 6 minutes necessary to introduce a new Q and MP.

    So as I said : yes I understand the cliches (Q, MP, gadgets...) were getting redundant, but I would have preferred an original take on this cliches instead of not having them in the films.

    Yeah but they had to cleanse the series of MOST (not all) of them first. Now we can go back to some of the staples. You gotta take a breath before plunging back into the water or you drown.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 2,341
    Like Getafix says a lot of the blame can be laid at Brosnan's feet. sure the actresses changed, the directors changed but the production team (Babs and Mikey) and Brosnan remain the constant in TND, TWINE, and DAD.
    Brosnan was immensly popular at the time. Like the public was begging for him to get the role. After GE and with the loss of Cubby, Babs and Mikey could have really run with the series. they had a distributors dream in "Bond". they had a very beloved actor in the lead and what did they do? They resorted to "stunt casting" by hiring subpar actresses who were hot at the time (Hatcher, Richards, Berry) thinking they would help sell the movie (really?) I would think the name of "James Bond" was enough for most distributors, foreign and domestic. they resorted to doing Bond by the numbers and playing it "safe". Instead of taking the series and making it their own.

    They inherited Brosnan but DC is their "man". Babs was really high on him and with her own hand picked 007 in hand she and big brother were able to do their own thing. Hence the success of CR.

    Sure Brosnan has some great moments in the last three films: the scene with Kaufman, most scenes with Elektra, the first act of DAD but for the most part, the films failed to deliver and Brosnan did not help matters.
  • Posts: 25
    001 wrote:
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O

    Dench was a beacon of light in an otherwise dull acting decade from Brosnan.

    By beacon of light, I can only presume you refer to the tower/lighthouse she was locked up in in TWINE? ;)

    Seriously, Dench's M is awful imo. It has gone way too far and is harming the series. I accept, however, that in GE, her initial scene with Bond was sharp and very good and in TND, her scenes were akin to a more traditional M/bond relationship. TWINE just about stepped the mark and 'did something different'.

    After that, Dench goes on a power trip that harms the series


    I agree.
    Denchs portrayal of M is terrible and makes me cringe.
    Also Brosnan is not one of the best actors in the world and to play james bond well you have to be a very good actor.
    Anthony hopkins would make an awesome M
  • Posts: 1,497
    Getafix wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    I would say Brosnan was one of the best things going for his latter 3 films. He was a safe Bond, but nonetheless did the job with the material that was given to him. It was everything else that went wrong: direction, writing, production, the overall "product" feel of the films.

    How come it's never Brosnan's fault? I don't understand how it's possible for 'everything else' to go wrong but somehow the main actor is totally blameless. This argument simply doesn't make sense. There are people who willingly acknowledge that his films were awful but that it somehow had nothing to do with Brosnan. It just doesn't make sense.

    Even when he was given scenarios that offered the chance to expand his range (TWINE for example), he totally blew it.

    Notice I didn't say he was totally blameless, nor that it had nothing to do with him. I also specifically called out his last 3 films. GE had a lot of other important contributions from different people. As far as the last three films, I can't think of many strong points other than Brosnan; and even with Brosnan, I'm not saying he was great, but he was at least serviceable. So therefore he was one of the best things about those films. He did a good enough job with what he was given. What doesn't make sense about that?

  • Posts: 1,092
    Can I just say GE is far from perfect? I know this thread is entitled "his last three" but c'mon, some of the problems that occured began in GE. I like the film a lot, there are some great moments and elements but it isn't in my top ten anymore. It was never that high.

    I can't stand Onatopp. Stupid, ridiculous villian and I want to gnash my teeth out when she is killing people. What's with all the orgasmic screaming? It's lame and ott and not needed. Brosnan's Bond gets owned by her and everyone else and only his gadgets save him.

    This gadgets saving him scenario (instead of his brawn or brains or quick thinking), started here and never stops his entire run. There are other drawbacks to GE but I don't wanna get into that here if we are only discussing his final three but I think it's important to mention there are issues here.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 5,767
    Getafix wrote:
    He looks like such an non-entity as Bond - this pathetic character lurking around the screen, desperate for attention.
    Harsh words, but I can´t find anything to deny the term "desperate for attention". I mean, just look at Craig for comparison: He completely ignored the previous actors and just did his thing. And he completely owns the role.

    And Brosnan can´t speak badass. When I listen to how each Bond speaks, Brosnan sticks out because he sounds pretentious. Maybe not all the way, but compared to the others, definitely.

  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Yes in the Brosnan movies the cliches (Q/MP scenes) were getting stale and redundant... but IMO I still prefer redundant cliches to an absence of cliches like in the Craig movies...

    I always said : original ways of using cliches >>>>> redundant cliches >>>>> absence of cliches.

    It's like eating a hamburger... Q, MP, gadgets are the ingredients... the craig films are like a hamburger with only the bun and the meat..... while the Brosnan films fill the hamburger with tomatoes, onions, pickles, salad, mustard.... but these ingredients have been bought at the local supermarket.... tastes good, but could be better.... so I would prefer a Bond film with original ways of using the cliches : a hamburger with fresh tomatoes from your garden, home-made mustard.....

    Just one little second here... You put tomatoes, onions and pickles on your burger, and then you put an entire salad on it?! An entire salad?! You could have stopped at lettuce!!!
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Totally disagree with that my friend. He'd eat that stuff up, why else would an actor take the role if he DIDN'T want to do it? He'll be more comfortable than a pig in s**t if EON gives him the traditional Bond script incorporating the normal Bond elements, he can do it and he's that good an actor. I'll predict here and now with full confidence and zero reservation that a lot of people who think he isn't Bond are gonna be eating some serious crow after watching Skyfall.

    I'm not gonna say he can't do it, but I'm not 100% sure he can yet either. That's why I'm looking forward to Skyfall, now I finally get to see if he can play the traditional Bond as well as he played the rookie Bond.
    Yes in the Brosnan movies the cliches (Q/MP scenes) were getting stale and redundant... but IMO I still prefer redundant cliches to an absence of cliches like in the Craig movies...

    I always said : original ways of using cliches >>>>> redundant cliches >>>>> absence of cliches.

    It's like eating a hamburger... Q, MP, gadgets are the ingredients... the craig films are like a hamburger with only the bun and the meat..... while the Brosnan films fill the hamburger with tomatoes, onions, pickles, salad, mustard.... but these ingredients have been bought at the local supermarket.... tastes good, but could be better.... so I would prefer a Bond film with original ways of using the cliches : a hamburger with fresh tomatoes from your garden, home-made mustard.....

    Just one little second here... You put tomatoes, onions and pickles on your burger, and then you put an entire salad on it?! An entire salad?! You could have stopped at lettuce!!!

    :))
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Yes in the Brosnan movies the cliches (Q/MP scenes) were getting stale and redundant... but IMO I still prefer redundant cliches to an absence of cliches like in the Craig movies...

    I always said : original ways of using cliches >>>>> redundant cliches >>>>> absence of cliches.

    It's like eating a hamburger... Q, MP, gadgets are the ingredients... the craig films are like a hamburger with only the bun and the meat..... while the Brosnan films fill the hamburger with tomatoes, onions, pickles, salad, mustard.... but these ingredients have been bought at the local supermarket.... tastes good, but could be better.... so I would prefer a Bond film with original ways of using the cliches : a hamburger with fresh tomatoes from your garden, home-made mustard.....

    Just one little second here... You put tomatoes, onions and pickles on your burger, and then you put an entire salad on it?! An entire salad?! You could have stopped at lettuce!!!

    :))

    Go ahead, laugh at me... LAUGH AT MY HAMBURGER RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And then go to your neighborhood Wendy's, and have an Old Fashioned.
  • Posts: 11,425
    The_Reaper wrote:
    Can I just say GE is far from perfect? I know this thread is entitled "his last three" but c'mon, some of the problems that occured began in GE. I like the film a lot, there are some great moments and elements but it isn't in my top ten anymore. It was never that high.

    I can't stand Onatopp. Stupid, ridiculous villian and I want to gnash my teeth out when she is killing people. What's with all the orgasmic screaming? It's lame and ott and not needed. Brosnan's Bond gets owned by her and everyone else and only his gadgets save him.

    This gadgets saving him scenario (instead of his brawn or brains or quick thinking), started here and never stops his entire run. There are other drawbacks to GE but I don't wanna get into that here if we are only discussing his final three but I think it's important to mention there are issues here.

    I do feel Bond lost his intelligence with Brosnan and has never fully recovered it. Connery of course oozed a malevolent, violent intelligence. Moore was wily and Dalts was nobody's fool. They all had great opportunities to demonstrate the way in which Bond thinks on his feet and uses his wits and not just his fists and gadgets to win the day. Early Connery actually did 'spy' stuff like the hair on the cupboard door and checking for bugs. These little touches have become increasingly rare.

  • Posts: 6,709
    Getafix wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    Can I just say GE is far from perfect? I know this thread is entitled "his last three" but c'mon, some of the problems that occured began in GE. I like the film a lot, there are some great moments and elements but it isn't in my top ten anymore. It was never that high.

    I can't stand Onatopp. Stupid, ridiculous villian and I want to gnash my teeth out when she is killing people. What's with all the orgasmic screaming? It's lame and ott and not needed. Brosnan's Bond gets owned by her and everyone else and only his gadgets save him.

    This gadgets saving him scenario (instead of his brawn or brains or quick thinking), started here and never stops his entire run. There are other drawbacks to GE but I don't wanna get into that here if we are only discussing his final three but I think it's important to mention there are issues here.

    I do feel Bond lost his intelligence with Brosnan and has never fully recovered it. Connery of course oozed a malevolent, violent intelligence. Moore was wily and Dalts was nobody's fool. They all had great opportunities to demonstrate the way in which Bond thinks on his feet and uses his wits and not just his fists and gadgets to win the day. Early Connery actually did 'spy' stuff like the hair on the cupboard door and checking for bugs. These little touches have become increasingly rare.

    Very true. I´m really sick of the "blunt instrument" approach to the Bond character.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    i think more of the problem in Brosnan's films, is that he became less spy, and more of wrecking ball - its like they sat around and said, how many things can we destroy, and make go BOOM in this scene.... i find it funny that Craig is often times referred to as the "blunt instrument" - when an argument could be made that Brosnan was just as bad, if not worse - considering the amount of innocent lives he's potentially put in danger with his level of public destruction..
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2012 Posts: 15,713
    Yes in the Brosnan movies the cliches (Q/MP scenes) were getting stale and redundant... but IMO I still prefer redundant cliches to an absence of cliches like in the Craig movies...

    I always said : original ways of using cliches >>>>> redundant cliches >>>>> absence of cliches.

    It's like eating a hamburger... Q, MP, gadgets are the ingredients... the craig films are like a hamburger with only the bun and the meat..... while the Brosnan films fill the hamburger with tomatoes, onions, pickles, salad, mustard.... but these ingredients have been bought at the local supermarket.... tastes good, but could be better.... so I would prefer a Bond film with original ways of using the cliches : a hamburger with fresh tomatoes from your garden, home-made mustard.....

    Just one little second here... You put tomatoes, onions and pickles on your burger, and then you put an entire salad on it?! An entire salad?! You could have stopped at lettuce!!!

    Sorry, I couldn't remember the word 'lettuce' :-S
Sign In or Register to comment.