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

17576788081138

Comments

  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Just watched a review of The Foreigner from a guy that i very much trust and he said that this might be Brosnans best performance in years, and he almost stole the movie from Chan. Supposedly he has all the best scenes.

    I wasn't sure if i watch it in cinemas, but that settles it i guess.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'll be watching it next week. I read my review from The Action Elite website and they said pretty much the same.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm hoping to see it tomorrow. Quite looking forward to it. Campbell and Brosnan will bring back memories, and Chan hardly disappoints.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,837
    00Agent wrote: »
    Just watched a review of The Foreigner from a guy that i very much trust and he said that this might be Brosnans best performance in years, and he almost stole the movie from Chan. Supposedly he has all the best scenes.

    I wasn't sure if i watch it in cinemas, but that settles it i guess.

    From the interviews and reviews I've read it seems like Brosnan does have a good role. To be honest I was a bit disappointed because I thought a politician would make a fairly boring villain and I was picturing him going toe to toe with Jackie when I first heard about it, but it sounds like Brosnan is in a big chunk of the film and his character gets his own side story and has his own problems. I'm really excited for this one. Hope a UK release isn't far off.
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I watched a little film featuring Pierce the other night called Remember Me. I can't recommend it, its very melodramatic and cynical, the ending was extremely ill conceived, but it does have an interesting performance from Pierce, albeit in a small role.

    He acts with a kind of Brooklyn/Boston hybrid drawl. Its patchy, effective at some points but not in others.

    There is one good scene, when he gives his son (played by Robert Pattinson) a dressing down in a board room and Mr Broz acts his socks off in it.


    Brosnan's a weird one with accents. He never even tried with Bond but then in a few films I've seen him in lately he gives them a go. They're always patchy and you can always tell it's him but he does proper commit to them and it works really well when the character is colourful and OTT enough to match his performance.

    I really want to see him work with Tarantino or Guy Ritchie or someone because I think he'd nail it. Colourful, seedy, foul mouthed criminal types. Those are the sorts of characters he's great as (not that he isn't still cool as f--- as a suave leading man mind).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Speaking of seedy, foul-mouthed characters, I'd kill for a sequel to The Matador.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    Speaking of seedy, foul-mouthed characters, I'd kill for a sequel to The Matador.

    Same. That's my favourite film of his outside of Bond and I'd love to see more of him as that character. Love the bit where he wanders through the hotel in speedos sunglasses and cowboy boots, beer gut hanging out, straight into the pool. He's become a really good character actor since Bond imo. Doesn't know the meaning of the world subtlety but I find him really entertaining because of that. Here's hoping that The Foreigner leads to a Brosnanaissance, I want Thomas Crown 2 as well and I'd love for him to get his Taken moment with Campbell directing. He deserves a great badass action film with him as the lead (I found November Man disappointing).
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 12,837
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.

    Never mind though. We all know that Mama Mia 2 is when the Brosnan comeback is really going to kick into gear. Forget La La Land, Pierce is gonna show Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone how it's really done

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    Definitely better than the original.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.

    Hurley would have been a dream.
    Russo basically killed the movie for me when i was younger. i only learned to appreciate it years later
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited October 2017 Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
    The chess scene is awesome. I actually prefer the ending in the original as well. Not a happy one, but I thought it gave the film some depth.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,968
    Can't forget Russo's Pepsi One commercial smack dab in the middle of the film:

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
    The chess scene is awesome. I actually prefer the ending in the original as well. Not a happy one, but I thought it gave the film some depth.
    I actually didn't feel any sympathy towards either of the endings, really. I'm indifferent to them as I didn't feel any of the women's relationships with Thomas Crown was worthy and established. Their treason didn't come like a hammerblow for me, but the remake did the affectionate side at the climax worthier and more in depth. Made you feel both had something to lose. In original's ending, it didn't feel like losing at all despite what it tried to tell us. Just that Crown proved he could beat the system and get away with it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
    The chess scene is awesome. I actually prefer the ending in the original as well. Not a happy one, but I thought it gave the film some depth.
    I actually didn't feel any sympathy towards either of the endings, really. I'm indifferent to them as I didn't feel any of the women's relationships with Thomas Crown was worthy and established. Their treason didn't come like a hammerblow for me, but the remake did the affectionate side at the climax worthier and more in depth. Made you feel both had something to lose. In original's ending, it didn't feel like losing at all despite what it tried to tell us. Just that Crown proved he could beat the system and get away with it.
    I agree that the remake delved into the relationship more, but I liked the subtlety of the original in this respect. It wasn't so obvious but we could infer it. In a way, Crown is more of a cad in the first one. Someone who did what he had to despite the personal cost. In the remake it's a bit of a Hollywood style 'it all ends well' thing, which they built up to with all the mush.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
    The chess scene is awesome. I actually prefer the ending in the original as well. Not a happy one, but I thought it gave the film some depth.
    I actually didn't feel any sympathy towards either of the endings, really. I'm indifferent to them as I didn't feel any of the women's relationships with Thomas Crown was worthy and established. Their treason didn't come like a hammerblow for me, but the remake did the affectionate side at the climax worthier and more in depth. Made you feel both had something to lose. In original's ending, it didn't feel like losing at all despite what it tried to tell us. Just that Crown proved he could beat the system and get away with it.
    I agree that the remake delved into the relationship more, but I liked the subtlety of the original in this respect. It wasn't so obvious but we could infer it. In a way, Crown is more of a cad in the first one. Someone who did what he had to despite the personal cost. In the remake it's a bit of a Hollywood style 'it all ends well' thing, which they built up to with all the mush.
    Yes, many of the film critiques weren't pleased with the remake's ending. But, I didn't mind it. Then again, it wouldn't have made any difference to me if they kept the original ending intact with the remake. The original film's problem was that the storyline didn't really make us understand what was going on. It was all superficial whereas the remake narrated the events a lot better.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
    The chess scene is awesome. I actually prefer the ending in the original as well. Not a happy one, but I thought it gave the film some depth.
    I actually didn't feel any sympathy towards either of the endings, really. I'm indifferent to them as I didn't feel any of the women's relationships with Thomas Crown was worthy and established. Their treason didn't come like a hammerblow for me, but the remake did the affectionate side at the climax worthier and more in depth. Made you feel both had something to lose. In original's ending, it didn't feel like losing at all despite what it tried to tell us. Just that Crown proved he could beat the system and get away with it.
    I agree that the remake delved into the relationship more, but I liked the subtlety of the original in this respect. It wasn't so obvious but we could infer it. In a way, Crown is more of a cad in the first one. Someone who did what he had to despite the personal cost. In the remake it's a bit of a Hollywood style 'it all ends well' thing, which they built up to with all the mush.
    Yes, many of the film critiques weren't pleased with the remake's ending. But, I didn't mind it. Then again, it wouldn't have made any difference to me if they kept the original ending intact with the remake. The original film's problem was that the storyline didn't really make us understand what was going on. It was all superficial whereas the remake narrated the events a lot better.
    Yes, I definitely agree. The remake did a good job of filling in the blanks,
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Apparently, he never wanted to do a sequel to Thomas Crown.

    ...which is a shame because when I read the script written in 2007 by Leverage creator John Rogers, I absolutely loved it. I don't think it had any plot holes to begin with.

    Such a shame that film was never materialized.

    I can see why he wouldn't because it is a great one off and a sequel could risk tarnishing its legacy but I agree it's a shame. I love that movie. I actually prefer it to the original.
    I preferred Dunaway to Russo, but thought Brosnan was a better fit for Crown than McQueen. Apparently Connery was the first choice for the original all those years ago, but he turned it down and regretted it.
    Yep! He regretted it alright! I also think Russo really wasn't the most attractive woman to fill in the role. I'd have preferred someone like Rebecca Romijn in the role. Or even Elizabeth Hurley.
    Now we're talking!. Seriously though, it wasn't so much her look but that I felt she was a bit emotional and overtheatrical. Dunaway was cooler, which I preferred.
    "Where's that sack of s#!t?! Where is he, right now?!"

    Agreed. She was overtheatrical, emotional and sometimes a bit too enraged. Faye's character didn't try to show off and she kept her cool composure in the entirety of the film you'd like her. That chess scene alone speaks volumes.
    The chess scene is awesome. I actually prefer the ending in the original as well. Not a happy one, but I thought it gave the film some depth.
    I actually didn't feel any sympathy towards either of the endings, really. I'm indifferent to them as I didn't feel any of the women's relationships with Thomas Crown was worthy and established. Their treason didn't come like a hammerblow for me, but the remake did the affectionate side at the climax worthier and more in depth. Made you feel both had something to lose. In original's ending, it didn't feel like losing at all despite what it tried to tell us. Just that Crown proved he could beat the system and get away with it.
    I agree that the remake delved into the relationship more, but I liked the subtlety of the original in this respect. It wasn't so obvious but we could infer it. In a way, Crown is more of a cad in the first one. Someone who did what he had to despite the personal cost. In the remake it's a bit of a Hollywood style 'it all ends well' thing, which they built up to with all the mush.
    Yes, many of the film critiques weren't pleased with the remake's ending. But, I didn't mind it. Then again, it wouldn't have made any difference to me if they kept the original ending intact with the remake. The original film's problem was that the storyline didn't really make us understand what was going on. It was all superficial whereas the remake narrated the events a lot better.
    Yes, I definitely agree. The remake did a good job of filling in the blanks,
    Indeed.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    00Agent wrote: »
    Just watched a review of The Foreigner from a guy that i very much trust and he said that this might be Brosnans best performance in years, and he almost stole the movie from Chan. Supposedly he has all the best scenes.

    I wasn't sure if i watch it in cinemas, but that settles it i guess.

    Great! I'll catch in theaters too.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    mattjoes wrote: »
    00Agent wrote: »
    Just watched a review of The Foreigner from a guy that i very much trust and he said that this might be Brosnans best performance in years, and he almost stole the movie from Chan. Supposedly he has all the best scenes.

    I wasn't sure if i watch it in cinemas, but that settles it i guess.

    Great! I'll catch in theaters too.
    @mattjoes Let your inner Brosnan shine. ;)
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    mattjoes
    Where the Brosnan does shine
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Strangely enough there is still no Release date for Germany. Maybe there are too many Brosnan haters here, what a shame.
    Hope they can sort that out, otherwise i'll have to wait for the bluray
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 1,162
    00Agent wrote: »
    Strangely enough there is still no Release date for Germany. Maybe there are too many Brosnan haters here, what a shame.
    Hope they can sort that out, otherwise i'll have to wait for the bluray

    Certainly not! I have yet to meet anyone who says something negative about him as Bond (or anyone else for that matter)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    That was obviously a joke ;)
    Only since i've been on this Forum i have realized that Brosnan-haters even exist.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    00Agent wrote: »
    That was obviously a joke ;)
    Only since i've been on this Forum i have realized that Brosnan-haters even exist.
    Welcome to MI6 Community. ;)
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Thanks, i feel right at home :D
    But there are plenty of Brosnan lovers as well here! ;)
    And we are strong!
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    00Agent wrote: »
    Thanks, i feel right at home :D
    But there are plenty of Brosnan lovers as well here! ;)
    And we are strong!
    Tennyson comes to mind. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.