Brosnan's Last 3 Bond Films: The Problem?

1234689

Comments

  • Posts: 59
    I really enjoyed Tomorrow Never Dies (owe it a lot too, coz as a longtime HK movie fan I got to meet Michelle Yeoh when she was here making it, as well as the HK stunt team and chorographer, and one of my favourite Shaw Brothers Kung Fu actors, Phillip Kwok Choy (General Chang in the film) ) and also World is Not Enough too....the scene where Brosnan shoots Sophie Marceau and snarls "I NEVER miss!!" is my fave Brosnan Bond moment.

    It's Die Another Day that is terrible, ranking just above View to a Kill as my worst Bond movie, invisible car my ARSE!!!
  • Posts: 6,432
    think one of the fundamental problems, this is excluding GE was the choice of directors. Spotiswoode was all action and very little meat to chew on, definitely a good example of style over content for me. Apted attempted to make a more emotional drama and had very little experience in the action. the action sequences felt forced and shoe horned. the scene in the caviar factory always reminds me of a universal studios ride. Tamahori just made carry on bond, which i do find entertaining for all the wrong reasons. As bad as DAD was you could argue in periods of the film Brosnan was at his most convincing playing bond.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Spotiswoode, Tamahori, Purvis and Wade. Problems eliminated.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Brosnan's first three were as good as Connery's last few, and all of Moore's- I don't get this hating on the films at all...
  • edited January 2013 Posts: 546
    I don't have a problem with Pierce Bronsan's Bond films. Goldeneye & Tomorrow Never Dies get the most credit. But The World is Not Enough & Die Another Day get so much hate. It's the scripts that most people have a problem with. Now Pierce Bronsan's first three Bond films were great. And I have always been a vocal defender for 2002's Die Another Day. But yes, it did have a lot of flaws. But it still was an entertianing Bond film. Blame Purvis & Wade.
  • Posts: 686
    Here is an example of part of the problem:

    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".
  • Posts: 6,396
    GoldenEye was a really good film but was clearly a product of it's time. The 6 year gap since LTK, during which the Cold War ended and the Berlin Wall came down, meant that GE could only have been made at that particular point.

    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.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Purvis and Wade.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I like Brosnan's worst Bond better than Moore's or Connery's. HA! Find fault with THAT!
  • chrisisall wrote:
    I like Brosnan's worst Bond better than Moore's or Connery's. HA! Find fault with THAT!

    I'd still take DAF and MR over DAD because Connery and Moore were still better Bonds :P

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Definately TWINE and DAD, TND was mediocre. I don't hate anything about Brosnan or Bond as a whole (but DAD came close to it) but I've never been the biggest Brosnan fan. GE was fantastic, however.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    I'd still take DAF and MR over DAD
    Well, I love DAF- I was thinking NSNA in this instance... :))
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 135
    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)
    Agreed. I have no qualms with your opinion.

    As for me, I'd take DAD over DAF, TWINE over YOLT, and GE over TB.
  • Posts: 5,745
    What was wrong:

    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.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 78
    chrisM wrote:
    It's Die Another Day that is terrible, ranking just above View to a Kill as my worst Bond movie, invisible car my ARSE!!!
    I'm not so sure what is wrong with the invisible car? Anyone? Group think.
  • Posts: 686
    chrisM wrote:
    It's Die Another Day that is terrible, ranking just above View to a Kill as my worst Bond movie, invisible car my ARSE!!!
    I'm not so sure what is wrong with the invisible car? Anyone? Group think.

    Everything is wrong with an invisible car.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 78
    Not that I can see. It's based on a reality and yet it is fun, imaginative, and escapist.

    Now what do they give us? Bond jumping around like a horny toad on crack. Not so fun as such.
  • Posts: 30
    It's actually not in any way imaginative.

    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.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 78
    The ski-doo hit and flip? and the way Bond kills Zao with it, invisibly?

    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.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    i think that Die Another day was bad because it felt so dull- i mean look at the contrast of that and Casino Royale- Casino Royale looked vibrant, alive with many colours while Die Another Day had grey murkey look in its visuals- like they added the wrong colour filter

    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
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 6,396
    Not that I can see. It's based on a reality and yet it is fun, imaginative, and escapist.

    Now what do they give us? Bond jumping around like a horny toad on crack. Not so fun as such.

    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.

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    002 wrote:
    i think that Die Another day was bad because it felt so dull- i mean look at the contrast of that and Casino Royale- Casino Royale looked vibrant, alive with many colours while Die Another Day had grey murkey look in its visuals- like they added the wrong colour filter

    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

    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.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 78
    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,
    Based on a reality WillyGalore, is not the same as a total reality. I take it you also take great issue with Fleming's novels, for stretching truth in the name of happy funtimes?
  • Posts: 6,396
    "Stretching the truth in the name of happy fun times"?

    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.
  • edited August 2013 Posts: 78
    You'll be hard stretched to find more than three people on this forum who agree with you.
    An opinion's worth has nothing to do with it's popularity. What is this kindergarden?

    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. ;;)
  • Posts: 533



    Brosnan's last three movies were still better than most of Connery's films (aside from "THUNDERBALL" and "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE").
  • No he was NOT!! Brosnan is loved by the fans... True fans, anyway.
    DRush76 wrote:


    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
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    JWESTBROOK wrote: »
    The problem was the writing.

    I think it sunk Brosnan's ship. Perhaps he would've been more motivated to act if he actually had a character to play.

    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.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I agree with the weak scripts, and in fact ( I do like Brosnan) think although
    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. :)
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,425
    DrGorner wrote: »
    I agree with the weak scripts, and in fact ( I do like Brosnan) think although
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.