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
If Pierce had reined in the ironic smarm and over-acting, and delivered Bond with a bit more of a restrained hard edge, I have not doubt he could have turned in a decent performance. What Pierce actually does very well and which was inexplicably always missing from his Bond was that slight sense of moral dubiousness, suggesting a corrupted/damaged soul beneath the slick exterior. If he'd channelled even a tiny bit of this into Bond, and had a director who could bring out his best - like Polanski and Boorman - I'd have loved to have seen it.
Pierce was always better outside of Bond for me. But I still feel that without a restraining hand he has way too much of a tendency to overact. It's a shame he doesn't have that self-awareness/control to just rein it in and tighten everything up.
Precisely! This is what Brosnan is good at, but he never played it that way as Bond. He just went cardboard action hero.
What I'm saying is that Brosnan has other dimensions as an actor which we only ever see in his non-Bond performances. Had he brought just a little of that quality to his Bond performances, it would have elevated them massively and also given his Bond a more distinct identity, as opposed to the rather bland, greatest-hits Bond that he delivered.
I don't feel he appreciated what he could bring to the role. His public statements suggest he never actually gave the character all that much thought, and felt let down because the part was usually underwritten. It's obvious to me that he could have turned to the books for at least a bit of inspiration, but he didn't seem to do that either. Which leaves his directors. I don't think any of them really saw his value as an actor other than a handsome leading man. It's only been superior directors like Polanski and Boorman who've seen something in him and brought it out in their films.
It's a real shame. I don't think Brosnan would ever have been my favourite, but he could have been a lot better than he was. I actually think that part of it was that he was conscious that Dalton was deemed a 'failure' in the public narrative, and he almost set out to be the anti-Dalton, even though his own background was also as a dramatic stage actor. May be the years as Remmington Steele and his sneeking suspicion that he was really only being cast for his looks undermined his own confidence in his acting abilities. For me he never owned the part of Bond - he seemed overwhelmed and intimidated by it. By DAD he's just blustering and hamming his way through the whole thing - barely an attempt to deliver a character at all.
Sean came off as quite a hard man. One only has to look at DN and FRWL alone to see that, a guy with a "do anything for the job" spirit.
I wouldn't call Bond damaged or want an actor to convey that overtly, but he's seen things and a skilled Bond actor should allow you to see his history. Sean definitely did that, as did Tim and now Dan.
I agree with @Getafix that Pierce could've shined in a more hard-edged role, and it's a shame to look back and see the opportunity gone. He came around at the perfect time; he was just grown out of his boyish looks and resembled a man, but the mix of his own nervousness with the part and some bad creative moves resulted in a lesser turn from GE on.
The great thing about him being James Bond is that he's now being picked up for the kinds of rough spy roles he should've had at his prime. The November Man and his upcoming spy film as an Irish assassin are the kinds of spy movies he excels at, playing morally ambiguous bastards with past they are running from.
For me, Brosnan's Bond was perfect as it was and no matter how much the greatest hits aspects are despised among the many here, I personally love all the four installments as well as his portrayal of Bond, especially his last performance where he had that devilish arrogance in him when engaging with Gustav Graves and playing along with Miranda Frost (they did have some chemistry, despite the age difference). The only performance I'm not too keen on resides in his third outing where he seemed to be stressed (character, not the actor) and often on suspense. You could say he was somewhat morally driven in that film.
POST OF THE YEAR
So +1 from me !!
I think the greatest hits comments are compliments in a way. Brosnan never got scripts that handed him a fully formed character, they always had a bit of everything. And despite that his performances still feel really consistent, which I think shows how good he actually was. I also think there's plenty to distinguish him from the others. He's definitely the most emotional/passionate Bond we've had for example, and he also had that old school Hollywood star power resulting in the coolest/flashiest/cockiest Bond too. And again a lot of that was purely down to his performance, because there's little there in the scripts to distinguish him from any other Bond (whereas Moore, Dalton and Craig all got scripts that played to their specific strengths).
I disagree on TWINE because I think that's a brilliant underrated film with a lot of depth but I like how you singled out his DAD performance for praise. He's so good. No other Bond could make that film work. It shifts tones so jarringly and so often but Brosnan manages to anchor it and make you go along with the film despite that, again delivering a performance that feels consistent and believeable despite having to do angry and revenge driven one minute and Roger Moore one liners the next. He's a criminally underrated Bond imo. I loved SP but I'm sort of grateful for the backlash about it because it does seem to be leading to a reappraisal of Brosnan from many, which I think is long overdue.
I think he was saying that the negativity towards SP has made people revisit the old films and enjoy things like DAD more as a result (because some think it's at least fun somehow??)? That being said, when the only way a film is being reassessed is in comparison to another film rated badly, what does that say about said film? "This garbage makes this garbage stink less."
This all being said, I'm taking no part in the revisionism that DAD has something to offer the common viewer as a Bond film or otherwise. Something is in the water around here, and I think it's just the result of Thunderfinger peeing in the stream upriver. ;)
Let's just say DAD grew on me around 2014. I used to despise it for quite sometime too... Well, loved it as a kid, hated it in the prime of my teens, and had a renaissance in my mind as a young adult which brought me back to loving it.
Did anybody see the Around the World in 80 Days miniseries? Brosnan was solid as Phileas Fogg. I liked the music score, too.
New TV spot for The Foreigner:
1st actual (1 minute) clip of one of the action scenes in The Foreigner:
Trailer #3 for The Foreigner:
Hope it happens a few years down the line!