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
It's Die Another Day that is terrible, ranking just above View to a Kill as my worst Bond movie, invisible car my ARSE!!!
Tomorrow Never Dies:
Bond - (to Paris Carver) "I can get you out of the country in 48 Hours"
Paris - "No one can protect me from him James, not even you."
The World is Not Enough:
Bond - (to cigar girl) "I can protect you."
Cigar Girl - "Not from him".
It was a film that gave several knowing winks to the classic Bond's of the 60's and 70's (without wandering into parody) whilst at the same time had an eye on the future. It was retro, yet it felt fresh (a first ever reference to the death of Bond's parents hinted at real character development).
It should have been the perfect stepping stone to evolve the series but, instead, given the enormous success of GE, it felt like the decision was taken to continue in the same manner, which ultimately led to the next film becoming more spectacular, more outlandish than the last before eventually reached a critical mass with DAD, hence the decision to replace Brosnan with Craig and reboot the series with CR.
This was obviously not the first time in the series history that this happened (MR was so over the top that they could only go in one direction with FYEO) but I felt they missed a trick in taking Bond in a new direction with Brosnan. It does seem however that they are finally going this route with Craig.
The irony in all this is whilst I think GE is his best film, I think Brosnan is at his weakest here. He is outstanding in TWINE but the film fades badly in the second half. TND and DAD are just poor films full stop.
I'd still take DAF and MR over DAD because Connery and Moore were still better Bonds :P
As for me, I'd take DAD over DAF, TWINE over YOLT, and GE over TB.
The actor: The only think I had problems with from Brosnan was his infamous 'pain-face' acting at certain points. I couldn't imagine him in the CR torture scene without laughing.
The producers: I feel like Broccoli and Wilson felt they had to continue where Dad left off. They spent Brosnan's last three films trying to copy and imitate what their Dad and co. had been doing because it worked before, and not because they wanted to. With CR, they made Bond their own, and I feel like they finally did what THEY wanted, and not trying to carry on an ageing film formula.
The writers: GoldenEye is seen by most fans, and even more of the general population, as one of the best Bond films. Why? A fantastic script that built on every character, offered fantastic villains, and stayed focused. After that, starting with TND and especially with TWINE and DAD, the schemes got campy, the characters grew under-developed, and the dialogue was at times extremely painful. To me, the writing was the biggest let-down of the Brosnan era.
Everything is wrong with an invisible car.
Now what do they give us? Bond jumping around like a horny toad on crack. Not so fun as such.
Imaginative would be Bond rolling up to one of Graves' outdoor hot tubs to ogle the women. Dirty and sophomoric, but it's not like the series hasn't gone there before.
Imaginative would be Bond flicking on the invisibility switch to avoid a traffic warden as he leaves Blades. Ridiculous, to be sure, but Christ, at least it's something to give the audience a smile.
Because, wow, the use of the invisible car in Die Another Day is just so mundane. Dodging missiles and machine gun fire. Woo. How is it escapist if it can't suggest the pleasures of having one? It's Moore-level insanity without any of the passion or playfulness.
But, it looks like someone's got a penchant for breaking traffic laws, and perverting innocent women.
No offense, but, take your contrarian fetish for contrarianism elsewhere, please.
Another thing is that Die Another Day was made for 3D- the film woud have been better regarded had it been in 3D i mean imagine the windsurfing scene in 3D with brosnan coming at you or the CGI bullet...but ofcourse because DAD was not made in 3D it looked utter crap
You've been on another thread slaughtering CR for how it doesn't stay faithful to Fleming, and here you on this thread defending an invisible car!
And just for the record an 'invisible car' is not based on reality, certainly not now and especially not in 2002. It was based on what is theoretically possible, which is why so many people have a problem with it. If it can't be done for real, it shouldn't be done at all.
I wouldn't say DAD was murky as such. Aside from the pre-titles, which were graded to within an inch of their life, I felt it had quite a cartoonish palette. I didn't care much for the cinematography, but it wasn't helped by some terrible production design decisions, which tended to give the film a very two-dimensional cheap look. At no point other than a few car-chase cutaways do you ever really feel like you're in Iceland. It's just feels like a generic video-game location.
As for the 3D I think you're being very kind. No film can made 'better' by 3D.
You'll be hard stretched to find more than three people on this forum who agree with you.
You love invisible cars and hate Casino Royale. Says it all really.
I'll let others have the right to reply to you because I won't be engaging with you in any further conversation.
Invisibility is an army technology, in the works, and Fleming may very well have used it in a novel, had he lived on that long enough. Do you know a thing about escapism, WillyGalore, or what makes Fleming so popular? He writes fantasy, but? with a journalistic verisimilitude. Have you even read him?
Don't worry, I don't want to engage with someone who's so incapable of real debate, either. ;;)
Brosnan's last three movies were still better than most of Connery's films (aside from "THUNDERBALL" and "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE").
Quoted for muthertruckin truth
This is true. The writing was bad and the character wasn't really there on the page. But that's still making excuses for Brosnan. He didn't need to pain face but he did it any way. He was dealt a bad hand and played it poorly... The decent scenes he was given he didn't make the most off. Dalton and Craig would have made more of what were pretty bad scripts, as they are better actors.
Given the right material and better direction, I still think Brosnan could have turned in some decent performances. His portrayal should have been a bit darker and edgier. They were reacting against the perceived failure of the Dalton era. However, hindsight shows that Dalton was moving in the right direction after all, and on this site histwo films tend to be ranked above most of Brosnan's four.
Brosnan is a nice guy but not (IMO) a naturally gifted or particularly hard-working actor. I don't get the sense he's ever given much thought to who Bond is. He always complains that his scripts were awful (which they were), but with a character like Bond, where there is literary source material to draw on, there is really no excuse for saying 'I didn't have anything to work with'. Had he wanted to, Brosnan could have projected a much stronger character than he did - a missed opportunity. In a sense, Brosnan was treated a bit like Lazenby - no one thought he could act, and so no one really bothered directing him. The difference is that Laz turned in a classic performance, whereas Brosnan never did. I suppose in Brosnan's defence, you could say he never got a Diana Rigg to make him raise his game or make him look better than he was. If you're a not great actor and you're being cast opposite Teri Hatcher and that American bimbo from TWINE, then it's never gonna end well.
The Taylor of Panama and The Ghost Writer show what Brosnan is capable of, when given proper direction and a great female lead like Jamie Lee Curtis or Olivia Williams. I actually think it's a shame he never got to work with Tarantino as Bond - that would actually have been a really interesting combination.
A good actor. Brosnan doesn't really have a great range as an actor. With
The likes of The November man he has improved, but his skill is as a light
Comedian. :)
He's not bad at comedy, but he also does a nice line in the morally bancrupt/weak and fallen man. There is a take on Bond (Tarrantino would have been perfect to direct) where Brosnan's strengths would actually have worked with the character rather than against it.
Saw the November Man and agree that his performance was better than as Bond. He just seems to have more gravitas now he's older. His face looks better as well - a bit lived in and less catalogue model.
I like Pierce. He's often watchable. Not huge range or talent, but he's a decent bloke.