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
I mean, if I think Brosnan was a weak Bond and he happened to star in that Crown Prince of Shit, DAD, then I am going to call it like I see it.
Well, I do agree with OHMSS that Brosnan was a bit weak for my personal taste, but unlike him I enjoy TND like I enjoy YOLT- it's a big, fun, romping popcorn Bond film that doesn't insult my intelligence (well, not too much anyway), and I don't mind those. It's the last two, like he says, that I want to beat with a tire iron, especially DAD.
I'd say Brosnan was more of a literary Bond than Sir Roger, but not a better popcorn Bond.
Nothing beats YOLT for big fun.
The thing is that Brosnan is such a polarizing James Bond. I mean here this great looking guy who was greeted with thunderous applause when he got the role, whose films made truck loads of money, but for a number of reasons the films fall short. There's a whole generation of fans who were introduced to the world of James Bond by the Brosnan films but for us "Originals" Brosnan does not hold much water for us.
There are some who like him but I think with Brosnan it is either "love or Haight".
=D>
But to be on topic, LTK blows all of Brosnan's & many of Connery's films out of said water IMO.
I enjoy Brosnan's Bond very much, even when the last 2 films went downhill, to put it mildly. I'd prefer to discuss him with Goldeneye when that arrives for reviews. Although I guess it is too late for that; folks cannot wait.
I used to think Dalton was a polarizing Bond (which was true in my world in the 80's); times change. I had no idea of the scathing views and some genuine hatred of his Bond until I joined this forum.
As for LTK, you can read my review. Far from my favorite film although a few things were quite good (especially Dalton).
Your reviews are always wonderful, and it's even sweeter to know that Brosnan will be getting some much-needed (and deserved) love.
I agree with liking his first two, thought he did a good job until TWINE. Too much psychobabble and overacting on his part. Only marginally better in DAD, I don't fault him for that mess, no one could have saved that from going down like the Titanic.
Overall, I rarely if ever bought him as being a dangerous man, and found Moore more entertaining for being a similar, popcorn type of Bond. But he was the right hire for the time, GQ looks in a Bondian way, name recognition, and a genuine love for the films. The latter I genuinely respect him for. It's just a shame that he seemed to rest on his laurels and not grow the role like we're seeing now and with the past Bonds, Lazenby excluded.
Now if you'll excuse me, while you ready your next review and I ready myself for another round of trivia and thesis questions, I must fortify myself and scan the pages for any trolls deserving of slaying ;)
Maybe they felt that Brosnan was forced on them, and were not too fond of him and the decision to "play it safe" after GE dominated their thinking.
I find this strange when one considers that they were involved with the films dating back three decades.
Keep in mind that TND was the first film that Cubby had almost nothing to do with. He was in poor health and passed away about this time.
Now with the Craig films they seem to have just cut loose, DC was handpicked by Babs and EON was very happy (thrilled) with the choice.
From what I have read here and there, my impression is that Barbara and Michael liked Brosnan just fine but really wanted to play it safe with the franchise. That was (obviously in hindsight) too restricting and a mistake. I think Brosnan chafed at several, or many, things that were foisted upon the last 2 films. I feel that he wanted to do a more serious Bond but was not given that freedom or the scripts. He for sure wanted to do another one after the dud that was DAD. That is a shame he didn't get a fifth one to round out his tenure.
I think Brosnan's acting was fine in the first two, especially coming into his own in TND. I love everything about James Bond in TND. Exactly the right balance for me. For me, TWINE is up and down as a film, with a great PTS, and then it rather unravels slowly but surely. I hated M getting captured (was she that stupid?). I don't think Brosnan was on sure footing with the way to play Bond in TWINE. His acting is a bit uneven in it, though for the most part I enjoyed his Bond in TWINE, but not several other things about that movie. I'm not even that fond of Elektra, but Christmas Jones takes the cake as one of the worst ever Bond girls and a blot on the film. DAD gave Brosnan a very nice, and more serious toned, beginning - which the script then ruined by turning him into a sopping wet, well fed looking, just escaped from prison torture so let's go to a hotel and act silly kind of British agent. Ugh! It was downhill from there mostly. His scenes in Cuba were also good. And then along came Jinx, the rest of the dialog ensued, and - other than the fine sword fight - I think Brosnan sensed it was just Bond as usual and back to puns, etc. DAD is a crying shame of a mess. It had promise from the beginning and got totally sidetracked with inappropriate humor and stupid characters and lousy, embarrassing CGI. I always wanted another TND James Bond from Brosnan and did not get it. TWINE gave me a Bond who looked like a businessman with a bad, typical haircut, who was one Bond in part of the film, and another Bond in another part. Not evenly done.
But overall, do I like Brosnan as James Bond? Yes, I really do. Nobody can take Goldeneye or Tomorrow Never Dies away from me. They stand the test of time and he is a good Bond in GE and a great Bond in TND.
There, that is my piece for today. Hmm I was just adding in my post about Brosnan, from my review of TWINE and realized that needs to come up when we discuss TWINE.
See how easy it is to get distracted into just a Brosnan discussion? GE is next, but we have a bit more to wait. I'll save the rest of my reviews, comments about Brosnan until then.
Oh man, I love those two SO much, particularly TND for the ultimate Bond girl in Wai Lin. And GE is a pretty good follow up to LTK, story-wise, IMO.
Two of my personal top five Bond films. And Brosnan is no small part of the reason.
But I enjoy GE very much. And would have loved to see Broz do what he wanted to do. I've seen him in other movies and he's impressed me. I think it's clear that his hands were tied. Now, that may not have been his only limitation but it's clear it was a big one.
Pierce Brosnan is probably the most controversial actor ever to play Bond among the current crop of Bond fans. Daniel Craig is a piker in this regard and Brosnan the true champ: people either love him unreservedly or hate him with a passion. This isn’t surprising, given the circumstances under which Brosnan received the role: Pierce was originally set to replace Roger Moore as Bond…then prevented from doing so at the last moment due to his contractual obligation to the Remington Steele TV series. Timothy Dalton got the role instead, played Bond in only two films…and then the series went on hiatus for six years due to legal wrangling. When shooting was set to begin again, Dalton’s self-imposed window of opportunity for playing the character had closed. Let’s not forget that Dalton had originally declined the role for OHMSS, feeling that he was too young to play the part; and at this point, some twenty-five years later, Dalton probably felt himself too old. The man had always approached the role of Bond as a serious actor, taking Fleming’s source material very much to heart; and Fleming himself had once committed to print the idea that eight to ten years was about the total effective life-span of a 00 agent. Those of us who feel that Dalton should have been able to play Bond in a few more films can curse the legal process or blame Dalton’s own decision-making choices as an actor for the sad fact of his relatively few films portraying Bond, but it’s really not fair to fault Brosnan in this matter. But I think many of us do: we are either Dalton loyalists (in which case Brosnan shoulders some amount of the blame for stealing the coveted role) or Brosnan apologists (and think Dalton was a bit of a stuffed shirt that really wasn‘t a very popular Bond to begin with, in which case the series was better of without him anyway.) Guess what? This reviewer belongs to neither camp. I loved Dalton’s take on the character but acknowledge that it wasn’t exactly what the general public was expecting from the series at that point in time. For the long-term health of the franchise, Brosnan was the perfect choice. As with Moore, much of the audience was already primed to see him as Bond; they’d bought him as a pseudo-Bond for several years and were perfectly happy to see him don the tuxedo and pick up the Walther PPK. He was outrageously handsome, performed his actions scenes with gusto and delivered his one-liners quite skillfully. Here, let’s bungee-jump out of our introduction and into the review proper:
BOND 4/5 If Brosnan has one fault, it’s that he’s too much of a pro: he’s trying too hard to do everything a good Bond should do, and he ends up NOT doing the one thing the great Bonds make a POINT of doing. He’s following the scripts handed him too faithfully and not questioning the rationale handed him when it would be entirely appropriate for him to do so. Connery made the role his own by being the absolute Alpha of the series. When he left, there was a huge insecurity left behind in the franchise that took literally half a decade to evaporate. Moore eventually caused that insecurity to fade by remaking the character in his own image and Dalton immediately did the same upon taking the role. To a certain degree, Brosnan’s problem is that he is trying to be EveryBond… presenting to the best of his ability the charisma of Connery, the sly humor of Moore, and the intensity of Dalton. To a remarkable degree, he is successful in the attempt…but for some of us, he will never be entirely successful precisely because he never becomes the absolute Alpha that a Bond must be. Brosnan does bring one characteristic of his own to the role, though, and Jedi Dench’s M remarks upon it immediately: his “boyish charm” (which is lost on her.) We can discuss whether or not this aspect of Brosnan’s Bond is appropriate to the role another time, but it’s definitely there and takes center stage briefly in the very next film.
WOMEN 5/5 One thing that I think we can all agree on is that Izabella Scorupco is an exceptionally satisfying Bond Girl. Beautiful, intelligent, spirited, and above all else, believable. She is not a nuclear physicist -- “only a level 2 programmer!” She understands Bond almost instinctively, and her observations on his character -- “Boys with toys!” “What is it with you and moving vehicles?” and most compellingly “It’s what keeps you alone!” -- bring this film to a more emotionally truthful level than nearly any other offering in the series. Her travails early on in the movie -- making her the lone survivor of the attack on Severnaya -- give the audience an investment in this character that most Bond Girls never receive, and Scorupco makes the most of the opportunity. She routinely shows up in the Top 5 in rankings of the series’ favorite characters for this category, and it is a well deserved evaluation. We will forgive Serena Gordon, who plays the evaluator Caroline, for the simplicity of her character. Caroline is a plot device, if even that…she is the lead-in to a joke, set up to introduce “the next girl.”
VILLAINS 5/5 The “next girl,” of course, is Famke Janssen, who nearly steals every scene she’s in as…what? Xenia doesn’t qualify as a Bond Girl -- why?? And in this category I have to discuss Sean Bean first because -- huh? Oh, okay, if that‘s the way it‘s supposed to work… The concept of a villain as mirror image to the story’s hero is a solid one, and Sean Bean’s Alex Trevelyan is a classic Bond villain for that very reason. The history shared by 007 and Trevelyan/006 is unique and well played. Trevelyan’s mysterious criminal organization, Janus, is a tacit acknowledgment of both the intended betrayal of his former employer, and of his scarred visage. Trevelyan’s knowledge of Bond’s psyche allows him to score some solid verbal points in their confrontations, referencing the vodka martinis that fail to silence the screams of all the men he’s killed as well as the willing women that Bond has been unable to save. If Trevelyan’s motives echo those of the literary (but not cinematic) Hugo Drax, then that can only be a good thing; if his methods resemble those utilized in the cinematic YOLT, well hey, it’s been a couple of decades -- I can overlook the duplication this time around. I would have liked being given a more thorough sense of how precisely the former 006 had survived his supposed shooting in the PTS, and the timeline whereby Trevelyan would be the son of betrayed Cossack parentage doesn’t really hold together -- it’s off by at least a decade according to my reckoning -- but in the scheme of things in the Bond universe, these are a couple of minor issues. Also a minor issue is Gottfried John as General Arkady Ourumov, Trevelyan’s ally in the Russian army and accomplice in the theft of the Goldeneye satellite. Ourumov reminds me of General Orlov from Octopussy, but maybe it’s just the similarity in their names -- and their uniforms -- and their plot functions. And the fact that they’re both disposed of fairly quickly and the movie moves ahead just fine without them. Alan Cumming is much more interesting as Boris, the computer programmer who is the inside man at the Severnaya facility. He’s quirky and funny and annoying…and “invincible!” until he gets iced over. He’s also one of the first of the villainous scientist hirelings in the Bond series that actually has a personality, so good for him. Last but most definitely not least in this category, we have Famke Janssen as Xenia Onatopp, a femme fatale who’s so over-the-top that they had to put it in her name. Over-the-top femme fatales are always a plus in any Bond movie, and Xenia’s one of the best of the bunch. She’s beautiful and deadly, she smokes cigars and drives dangerously, she plays baccarat aggressively and challenges Bond every moment they share on-screen…and, oh yeah, she likes to kill men by squeezing them between her thighs when in the middle of sexual congress. Not that she’s averse to killing people with her clothes on -- she seems to be in the throes of an orgasm while machine-gunning the entire staff at Severnaya. Xenia is one twisted puppy, and as such, she’s one of my favorite henchpersons in the whole Bond series. So why doesn’t she qualify as a “Bond Girl”? If they didn’t actually consummate the act, they at least engaged in some energetic “foreplay…”
HUMOR 3/5 Brosnan has a good sense of how to deliver a quip…if only the script-writers this time had a better sense of how to WRITE one! For instance: Xenia’s death scene…a moment tailor-made for a great quip…and they give Bond “She always did enjoy a good squeeze.” Huh? Weak sauce, guys! Six years to work on the script, and that’s the best you can do? Or Moneypenny’s response to Bond’s “What would I do without you?” being the poorly-considered, “As far as I know, James, you’ve never HAD me.” No, no, no (to quote Bond later in the film)…a well-written response to “What would I do without you?” should be more along the lines of “You’ve never done anything WITH me!” What the script-writers have given us in terms of humor for much of this film is 2/3 of the way to what it should have been, so a score of 3/5 is just my way of being generous with them.
ACTION 5/5 Now THIS the script-writers know how to do! From the bungee jump in the PTS and the (yes, physically improbable) airplane escape in same to the auto racing introduction of Xenia and her shipboard murder of the admiral…from the attack on Severnaya to the tank chase in the streets of St. Petersburg and the flaming collision between tank and train…oh heck, this whole film is one great action sequence after another! Bond’s battle with Trevelyan while hanging from the satellite dish at the Cuban Goldeneye base is just bone-rattling, one of the best such fight scenes since Connery and Robert Shaw threw down in FRWL. And if we absolutely HAVE TO have the villain’s lair explode again near the climax of a movie, let me just say that THIS is the way to do it! The set-up for the situation this time around was totally plausible, and actually satisfied the audience’s desire to see it happen, rather than just ticking off the box because the box was sitting there waiting to be ticked.
SADISM 5/5 And all because of Xenia. The expression on her face when Bond has set the tank on a collision course with the train says it all: even if her side is at a disadvantage, this girl just loves the rough stuff!
MUSIC 1/5 The theme song, written by Bono and the Edge, and sung by Tina Turner, is very good, and set to a great visual sequence by Daniel Kleinman that really ups the ante for the series. But the soundtrack for the movie itself…Ugh. Very, very weak effort here. Perhaps the composer was trying to “modernize” the Bond sound…but when something ain’t broke, you don’t try to fix it. John Barry’s classic sound has never been broken, and Eric Serra’s efforts for this movie are definitely no comparison to the work of the master. Even when the James Bond Theme is finally brought in, during the firefight in the archives and Bond’s theft of the tank, Serra is only flirting with satisfying the audience’s expectations. And his end credits song, “The Experience of Love” is one of the most forgetable offerings ever attached to any Bond film. Personally, I’d rather hear Minnie Driver strangling cats to the tune of “Stand By Your Man!”
LOCATIONS 4/5 Actual filming took place in Russia for this movie. The Cold War is indeed over! Plus Switzerland, Monte Carlo, Puerto Rico, and various places in England. The absence of Pinewood Studios for this production was only slightly felt. For me, the “graveyard of obsolete Soviet imagery” was one of the most striking locations in the film.
GADGETS 4/5 I wonder if the BMW people objected to the fact that their product placement money didn’t actually get any use in the film? Oh well, wait for the next few movies…it's always nice to see the Aston Martin, and Bond’s laser-firing wristwatch (plus the belt with piton & cable) got some decent use. The bungee jump in the PTS was also very enjoyable. But the star of the film gadget-wise was Bond’s explosive pen, teasing the audience as Boris unknowingly clicked it on & off again…and again…until finally…*!
SUPPORTING CAST 5/5 Judi Dench absolutely leads the field in her premiere outing as M. Her “stern mother” approach to the character is completely appropriate for Brosnan’s “boyish” Bond (although not as well-suited for the next actor to take the lead role.) Her early scene with Bond, defining her as a book-keeper and him as a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, is one of the subtle high points of Brosnan’s entire tenure as Bond. Michael Kitchen’s appearance here as Tanner is also quite welcome, and overlooked by too many. His reference to Dame Judi’s M as “the evil Queen of Numbers” is a significant point in the introduction of both characters. Samantha Bond is a much stronger Moneypenny than her predecessor, and a solid improvement for the cast as a whole in this regard. Desmond Llewelyn is always a welcome presence as Q -- and here he seems far more willing to josh around with Bond than has ever been the case before. Joe Don Baker is far more well cast here as CIA agent Jack Wade than he was as Brad Whitaker, and Wade is a lightly amusing replacement for Felix Leiter (who we can assume has retired after the events of LTK.) Finally, Robbie Coltraine is a substantial asset to this movie in the role of Valentin Zukovsky, making far more out of the role on screen than was probably called for in the written script. His teasing references to the Bond cliches went a long way towards establishing a slightly irreverent tone that suited this film very well, honoring the past while still looking toward a dangerous but potentially entertaining future.
TOTAL AND RECOLLECTIONS: 41/50 I thought this was a very strong introduction to a new actor in the role of James Bond, and a welcome return for a beloved series that looked to be in significant peril as the Cold War came to a close. It’s still one of my favorite films in the Bond canon…and I only wish that Pierce Brosnan had been able to grow with the part of Bond in his last few outings, rather than decline with the travesty that was DAD. Still, we still have at least one more solid outing ahead of us…and I look forward to what “Tomorrow” brings!
THE END of this review
But BeatlesSansEarmuffs will return
To review TOMORROW NEVER DIES
I feel Brosnan was fine in GE but came into his own as Bond in TND. But sadly, those are the only 2 gems from his canon of only 4 films.
I, too, think that Natalya is one of the very best Bond girls and Xenia one of the best villains.
GE is fun, it sparkles, it has great action, and Sean Bean! (I so love him ... )
I'm glad you enjoyed one of my favorite films. Let the Brosnan discussions flow like lava now ...!
Well, in my world at that time, no it wasn't a hot topic regarding Bond (having another 00 be the villain). I think that twist has been done often enough in literature and film before, but GE did a very good job with it.
The hot topic with my friends was: " What is taking so long to get the next Bond movie out? Is Dalton back? Is Dalton really gone? What are they going to do? The Remington guy? Well, he looks great. Geez, I don't want another downer like the last one (LTK - unanimous among my friends, by the way ). But nobody can play Bond like Dalton (mainly my lone voice and perhaps one other, less vocal friend chiming in for him)." and once word got out: " Hey, the guy who wrote the story is from St. Pete!" (my hometown)* Ad infinatum along those lines.
*Michael France wrote the initial story, but screenwriters are credited, I think, as: Jeffrey Caine, Kevin Wade, and Bruce Feirstein.
Hell, I agree with EVERYTHING he wrote! =D>
And more of the regular guitar Norman Bond theme. I remember missing it when I saw GE in the theatre.
:))