The PIERCE BROSNAN Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

16667697172138

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Good point..i might check that out..did you like it ?
    It was alright, mate. :)

    It's a $15 Million budget production, with a lot of aspects you could see in a TV movie. It could have been better to display better quality action like the Bourne films, but at the end of the day, and that's only in my opinion, feels like a ripoff. However, Pierce is THE one who carries it through and Olga gives it an outstanding push. I don't care about the other actors in it... well, maybe Luke Bracey who seems to be a great newcomer. So, it's a Brosnan vehicle, so go for it. Especially when it's a spy flick. :)

    Nice one @ClarkDevlin ,I will have a look and see what I can find,thanks matey !
    My pleasure, mate! Hope you enjoy what you find! :D
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Are we going to get November Man 2? C'mon!

    Shouldn t they call it The 2nd of November Man?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Are we going to get November Man 2? C'mon!

    Shouldn t they call it The 2nd of November Man?

    @Thunderfinger, or November Man 2: Season's Greetings.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited June 2017 Posts: 16,351
    I think The December Man would be ideal. ;)
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited June 2017 Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    I think The December Man would be ideal. ;)

    @Murdock, haha!

    They called him 'The November Man' because after he passed through, nothing lived. Now, he's an even bleaker motherf@#$er.

    Pierce Brosnan stars as Peter Devereaux in
    The December Man
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Murdock wrote: »
    I think The December Man would be ideal. ;)
    "You know we used to call you? The December Man. 'Cause after you passed through, every kid had a toy."
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I think The December Man would be ideal. ;)
    "You know we used to call you? The December Man. 'Cause after you passed through, every kid had a toy."

    "It was just standard operating procedure. Boys with toys."
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Then the December Man sequel will be called The January Boy and it will be a prequel. =))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    Then the December Man sequel will be called The January Boy and it will be a prequel. =))

    The other kids used to call him The January Boy because every time he spoke, he shared a New Year's Resolution.

    Pierce Brosnan stars as a young Peter Devereaux in...

    The January Boy
  • Posts: 170
    Not interested in watching November Man, but it does look better than the last few "Bond" films.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    @Robertson, it's not much of a thing if your expectations are high, but for Brosnan's sake alone, I'd say give it a try. It might surprise you.
  • Posts: 170
    It just looks like it's got the Bourne formula.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    It does, yes. Something I don't like because it's an overrated and overdone formula. However, Brosnan does it watchable for me. As does Olga. Luke Bracey has some Alec Trevelyan vibes into him, too.
  • Posts: 1,162
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Tight budget, mate. Tight budget.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Connery starred in Hunt for the Red October.

    Brosnan starred in The November Man.

    Maybe Daniel should star in The December Troubles.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.

    The human story was far more interesting than any of the political goings-on for me.
  • Posts: 1,162
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.

    The human story was far more interesting than any of the political goings-on for me.

    We just feel different then. Personally I happen to enjoy the spy genre that much for its interweaving with the political/real world (read the things that ultimately spell our present and future ).
    Also, nothing there it's really new or original if you ask me, while the premise of the movie is at least kind of.
    To tell you the truth, if I was that much into drama as you are I'd probably turn to another genre.
  • Posts: 1,162
    Tight budget, mate. Tight budget.

    The tighter your budget is the more reason you have to concentrate on the story development.
    And as I said, what makes me wonder is how are you can invent such a good premise and then become so yawn in moving the story along. Imagine Putin knew that someone is running around who's got proof he was behind that bombing. How do you think he would react? Do you really imagine things would go on the way as they do in the movie?
    I just happen to feel somehow sad whenever a good idea is wasted.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.

    The human story was far more interesting than any of the political goings-on for me.

    We just feel different then. Personally I happen to enjoy the spy genre that much for its interweaving with the political/real world (read the things that ultimately spell our present and future ).
    Also, nothing there it's really new or original if you ask me, while the premise of the movie is at least kind of.
    To tell you the truth, if I was that much into drama as you are I'd probably turn to another genre.

    @noSolaceleft, you say this a lot to me-"Find something else/Find another genre"-but that's never my hang-up with these things. Films, no matter what genre, live and die by character. Plots that are interesting can certainly improve a film, but without a basis of character I care about, I'll be left indifferent even if a screenwriter formulated the single greatest twist of all time or the most heart-stopping mystery. It's why I prefer the likes of Sherlock Holmes to the modern Law & Orders or the CSIs; I care for character, not plot, and the latter is all that most procedural shows have to support themselves on.

    When I was watching The November Man I was interested and invested in Pierce's spy, how he became so cold and how his own rules he told to his protege were ones he hypocritically soiled himself. I wanted to see how he'd act in opposition to his so-called only friend as the agent came after him, and how far he'd be willing to push himself to do the job without mercy. He was a cold, miserable, contradictory man that had me glued to the screen, and I couldn't get enough. Where Olga's character was concerned I had similar investment, and was fascinated by the human angle of her role in saving those who were silenced by a terrible war. Adding in all the corrupt government agents and the rogue fight Pierce's character has to mount over old allies, and I was quite engaged.

    The plot underneath all that wasn't the greatest thing I've ever experienced, but I didn't have complaints either. And that's largely because all the events I saw developed were caused by the characters I actually gave a damn about.

    I guess we just have different ideas about what these genres mean, and how they are realized. Character reigns over everything, and that's why Bond was a success in his genre, and Holmes in his. Plot are secondary, because the interest of the reader or viewer is predicated on them caring about the characters that all the action is happening to. It's not a convention of genre, it's a convention of storytelling that all the successes are bound by.
  • Posts: 1,162
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.

    The human story was far more interesting than any of the political goings-on for me.

    We just feel different then. Personally I happen to enjoy the spy genre that much for its interweaving with the political/real world (read the things that ultimately spell our present and future ).
    Also, nothing there it's really new or original if you ask me, while the premise of the movie is at least kind of.
    To tell you the truth, if I was that much into drama as you are I'd probably turn to another genre.

    @noSolaceleft, you say this a lot to me-"Find something else/Find another genre"-but that's never my hang-up with these things. Films, no matter what genre, live and die by character. Plots that are interesting can certainly improve a film, but without a basis of character I care about, I'll be left indifferent even if a screenwriter formulated the single greatest twist of all time or the most heart-stopping mystery. It's why I prefer the likes of Sherlock Holmes to the modern Law & Orders or the CSIs; I care for character, not plot, and the latter is all that most procedural shows have to support themselves on.

    When I was watching The November Man I was interested and invested in Pierce's spy, how he became so cold and how his own rules he told to his protege were ones he hypocritically soiled himself. I wanted to see how he'd act in opposition to his so-called only friend as the agent came after him, and how far he'd be willing to push himself to do the job without mercy. He was a cold, miserable, contradictory man that had me glued to the screen, and I couldn't get enough. Where Olga's character was concerned I had similar investment, and was fascinated by the human angle of her role in saving those who were silenced by a terrible war. Adding in all the corrupt government agents and the rogue fight Pierce's character has to mount over old allies, and I was quite engaged.

    The plot underneath all that wasn't the greatest thing I've ever experienced, but I didn't have complaints either. And that's largely because all the events I saw developed were caused by the characters I actually gave a damn about.

    I guess we just have different ideas about what these genres mean, and how they are realized. Character reigns over everything, and that's why Bond was a success in his genre, and Holmes in his. Plot are secondary, because the interest of the reader or viewer is predicated on them caring about the characters that all the action is happening to. It's not a convention of genre, it's a convention of storytelling that all the successes are bound by.

    Plots are secondary? We really have very different ideas of what constitutes the genre. Come to think about it, make that any genre.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.

    The human story was far more interesting than any of the political goings-on for me.

    We just feel different then. Personally I happen to enjoy the spy genre that much for its interweaving with the political/real world (read the things that ultimately spell our present and future ).
    Also, nothing there it's really new or original if you ask me, while the premise of the movie is at least kind of.
    To tell you the truth, if I was that much into drama as you are I'd probably turn to another genre.

    @noSolaceleft, you say this a lot to me-"Find something else/Find another genre"-but that's never my hang-up with these things. Films, no matter what genre, live and die by character. Plots that are interesting can certainly improve a film, but without a basis of character I care about, I'll be left indifferent even if a screenwriter formulated the single greatest twist of all time or the most heart-stopping mystery. It's why I prefer the likes of Sherlock Holmes to the modern Law & Orders or the CSIs; I care for character, not plot, and the latter is all that most procedural shows have to support themselves on.

    When I was watching The November Man I was interested and invested in Pierce's spy, how he became so cold and how his own rules he told to his protege were ones he hypocritically soiled himself. I wanted to see how he'd act in opposition to his so-called only friend as the agent came after him, and how far he'd be willing to push himself to do the job without mercy. He was a cold, miserable, contradictory man that had me glued to the screen, and I couldn't get enough. Where Olga's character was concerned I had similar investment, and was fascinated by the human angle of her role in saving those who were silenced by a terrible war. Adding in all the corrupt government agents and the rogue fight Pierce's character has to mount over old allies, and I was quite engaged.

    The plot underneath all that wasn't the greatest thing I've ever experienced, but I didn't have complaints either. And that's largely because all the events I saw developed were caused by the characters I actually gave a damn about.

    I guess we just have different ideas about what these genres mean, and how they are realized. Character reigns over everything, and that's why Bond was a success in his genre, and Holmes in his. Plot are secondary, because the interest of the reader or viewer is predicated on them caring about the characters that all the action is happening to. It's not a convention of genre, it's a convention of storytelling that all the successes are bound by.

    Plots are secondary? We really have very different ideas of what constitutes the genre. Come to think about it, make that any genre.

    @noSolaceleft, plots are vital, but they do not trump character for me. Why you find this a shock to your system is puzzling. I don't find it a strange concept to prefer watching films and reading books that have characters in them that you actually care about, as opposed to ones with a decent plot and paper-thin cardboard cut-out characters. I don't finish a mystery novel and talk for hours or devote all my writing time to analyzing how cool it was that the gardner was the killer. It's the detective and supporting cast that it's built around that create that kind of passion and interest.

    Who things happen to will always be more impactful and salient than the things that happen to them. That's all down to events or happenings being absolutes and characters themselves being relative. The same event or tragedy can happen to a bunch of characters, like a betrayal or a type of crime, but how the different characters deal with it makes it interesting because they aren't all the same. It's the characters that give the variety and life to the events that they are put under. It's why people finish books and films and, even if they forget literally every plot development or story of the thing, they'll be able to pick out a character they liked. We engage more readily with the human story, because we are one.
  • Posts: 1,162
    What I will never understand about it, is how you can have a movie with such a great premise (Connect the bombing the Moscow apartment block that started the chechnyan war with the present president of Russia. If that sounds familiar to you it's probably because that's probably how it played in reality) and let it dwindle down to such a mediocre story development and subsequently generic final.

    The human story was far more interesting than any of the political goings-on for me.

    We just feel different then. Personally I happen to enjoy the spy genre that much for its interweaving with the political/real world (read the things that ultimately spell our present and future ).
    Also, nothing there it's really new or original if you ask me, while the premise of the movie is at least kind of.
    To tell you the truth, if I was that much into drama as you are I'd probably turn to another genre.

    @noSolaceleft, you say this a lot to me-"Find something else/Find another genre"-but that's never my hang-up with these things. Films, no matter what genre, live and die by character. Plots that are interesting can certainly improve a film, but without a basis of character I care about, I'll be left indifferent even if a screenwriter formulated the single greatest twist of all time or the most heart-stopping mystery. It's why I prefer the likes of Sherlock Holmes to the modern Law & Orders or the CSIs; I care for character, not plot, and the latter is all that most procedural shows have to support themselves on.

    When I was watching The November Man I was interested and invested in Pierce's spy, how he became so cold and how his own rules he told to his protege were ones he hypocritically soiled himself. I wanted to see how he'd act in opposition to his so-called only friend as the agent came after him, and how far he'd be willing to push himself to do the job without mercy. He was a cold, miserable, contradictory man that had me glued to the screen, and I couldn't get enough. Where Olga's character was concerned I had similar investment, and was fascinated by the human angle of her role in saving those who were silenced by a terrible war. Adding in all the corrupt government agents and the rogue fight Pierce's character has to mount over old allies, and I was quite engaged.

    The plot underneath all that wasn't the greatest thing I've ever experienced, but I didn't have complaints either. And that's largely because all the events I saw developed were caused by the characters I actually gave a damn about.

    I guess we just have different ideas about what these genres mean, and how they are realized. Character reigns over everything, and that's why Bond was a success in his genre, and Holmes in his. Plot are secondary, because the interest of the reader or viewer is predicated on them caring about the characters that all the action is happening to. It's not a convention of genre, it's a convention of storytelling that all the successes are bound by.

    Plots are secondary? We really have very different ideas of what constitutes the genre. Come to think about it, make that any genre.

    @noSolaceleft, plots are vital, but they do not trump character for me. Why you find this a shock to your system is puzzling. I don't find it a strange concept to prefer watching films and reading books that have characters in them that you actually care about, as opposed to ones with a decent plot and paper-thin cardboard cut-out characters.

    The caring for and investing in the protagonists comes with careful and thorough development of the story. If they act believable and somehow logical this is almost inevitable.
    You see, if they had followed that rule in SF it might have been even believable that Bond weeps because of M's dead.
    If you really like insightful psychological development written in the best possible language I would really advise you to read the works of Stefan Zweig and the classic Greek mythology.
    It really doesn't get any better than that! Why spend time with chicken feed if you can have a gourmet feast?
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited June 2017 Posts: 5,185
    Trailer for a new movie just got released, featuring the almighty Brozzas, Jeff Bridges and Kate Beckinsale.



    I am starting to think that Pierce is going after all those beautiful women that he couldn't get as Bond, like he's scratching off a list or something :))
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,716
    @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 @bondjames @MajorDSmythe @DarthDimi @doubleoego @ClarkDevlin @Creasy47

    It's finally happening: The Foreigner with Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan, directed by Martin Campbell:

    DC637SaVYAIEPQg.jpg
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    Can't wait for this.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    So good to see "From the Director of Casino Royale" as part of that poster. It certainly raises the anticipation.

    Hopefully it's released before we're all gone. The gestation period on this thing seems like forever.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    Been waiting for this since 2015, but back then nobody knew about the film so I couldn't even talk about it. I do hope that this film delivers. Then Campbell will be back on the Bond radar for sure.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,116
    Sounds great. They might as well have said "From the director of GoldenEye and Casino Royale".The former is after all a succesful collaboration between Campbell and Pierce.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Sounds great. They might as well have said "From the director of GoldenEye and Casino Royale".The former is after all a succesful collaboration between Campbell and Pierce.

    Well it certainly says something that, despite having Pierce in the film, the teaser line mentions the latter instead.
Sign In or Register to comment.