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
Goldeneye:
I sat in the theatre in 1995 hoping for a great Bond film, and by the end I rejoiced in the fact that I'd gotten it. It was my man Remington Steele morphed into Bond up there. A bit of a hard edge, the funny quips (except the "Forgot to knock" line- I didn't like it much even back then), the adjustment for the PC era (misogynist dinosaur & all that), the sensitive Eighties Guy hold over in moments with Natalia... and a fight to rival Grants' in FRWL. With the exception of too much Boreeeesss, I couldn't have been happier.
Until...
Tomorrow Never Dies:
I'll never forget using my first real computer to look up news on this one. The first pic I saw was of Bond & Lin in the skiff in Kowloon Bay. My favourite HK female action star with my favourite Bond?? NO WAY!!!
The film was big, like YOLT, funny, like DAF, and unexpectedly moving with the killing of his former love threat, Paris.
I had the big cardboard Heinekin cut-out of Bond & Lin I swiped from the local 7-11 on my wall. Good times.
My #3 movie today.
The World Is Not Enough:
That was around the time my Wife was birthing my Son, so needless to say, I wasn't in the theatre much. I saw the movie on VHS first, and thought it was good, but it had somehow lost the charm of the previous two. It looked a bit dark & drab, but it was good to see Valentin Zukovsky again. Then he got wasted (That's a bad thing, btw). The final Christmas joke was funny IMO. 5 or 6 repeat viewings warmed me up to it considerably. I still consider this a fairly strong Bond entry.
Die Another Day:
The timing of this messy flick was rather perfect for my post 9-11 sombre. A big stupid MR-like film to make me forget reality. No wonder it made so much money. Pierce was pitch-perfect all the way though; it may even have been his best Bond performance, but that's hard to see amongst all the cartoon mayhem & Stephens hamming up & chewing scenery. Rosamund Pikes' brilliance balanced out Halle Berrys' Your Momma schtick. The Moneypenny VR joke was an extremely sour note, but not a dealbreaker for me back then. All in all, just what the doctor ordered.
At the time.
It has not aged well. No fault of Pierces'. I can still enjoy it as the comic book nonsense Bond movie it is. Roughly equal to DAF for me now.
Why the decision to use a fictitious location of Isthmus? I once read (I can recall where) that Franz Sanchez is loosely based on Manuel Noriega and the name Isthmus brings up thoughts of a canal= Panama.
I have to agree that it was unnecessary to use a fictitious country. At the time Colombian drug lords were in the news and nowadays no one has any hesitation conjuring up Mexican Cartels so why the problem with using an actual location?
I also understand that the original idea was to involve a Chinese drug lord and the idea of switching to Latin America came up later. The use of Asian drug lords making deals with Sanchez harkens back to their original idea about Asian drug dealers.
Pierce Brosnan is an above-average Bond, in my opinion. He looked the part, and he did well with all the action sequences. His "Bond, James Bond" moments were solid, and he was also great with the ladies. Doesn't sound like too much is wrong, right? I have just one major problem with Brosnan, and that is this: he wasn't innovative enough.
He nailed pretty much every aspect of Bond, from serious to humorous and lethal to misogynist. But for me at least, he brought the least to the table of all 6 Bond actors; Connery was the first and very well-rounded, Lazenby was the most human, Moore was the funniest, Dalton was the most straight-forward and serious, and Craig was the most lethal and rugged. Brosnan is well-rounded and a very serviceable Bond, but just lacks the originality I would have liked. Anyways, onto the films of Brosnan's era:
GoldenEye (1995)
Like many others, Brosnan's debut film is easily my favorite of his tenure as 007. Brosnan himself seemed excited to play the role, and I had fun watching him quip one-liners and swerve his way through St. Petersburg in a tank. Alec Trevelyan, agent-turned-villain made for one of the series' best foes; he was cool, to-the-point, and a perfect physical match for Bond himself. Natalya Simonova was my favorite Bond girl of the Brosnan era as well. Side characters like Valentin Zukovsky and Xenia Onatopp were also good, and let's not forget Judi Dench's brilliant introduction as M. From the action-packed PTS to the epic finale at the satellite, GE is loads of fun for me. Overall it is one of my favorite Bond films in the whole series; always a pleasure to watch.
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
It has its supporters, but I've never been a big fan of TND. The action was great, the main Bond girl was solid, and Brosnan turned in another good performance, but there wasn't much else for me. In my opinion, it's the most generic and forgettable film in the series. I wasn't a fan of the main villain Elliot Carver or most of the minor characters (mostly because I forget them). I simply thought it had one the series' weakest stories, and it just felt pale in comparison to GE for me. I liked the PTS, car and motorcycle chases, but it just fell flat for me and came out as one of the series' weakest entries in my opinion.
The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Though TND was a let-down for me, TWINE, in my opinion, is a superior follow-up and probably the most underrated Bond film in the whole series. Brosnan gives what is possibly his best Bond performance, and the supporting cast is good too, especially Valentin's return. I wasn't too fond of Renard (could have been better), but Elektra King was a good villain for the series to add. Also, Desmond Llewelyn's last appearance as Q, though unintentional, was a great way to finish his canon. Granted I didn't like Christmas Jones and a few scenes, it's my second-favorite Brosnan Bond film. There's a lot to enjoy for me here (PTS is also great I should mention).
Die Another Day (2002)
Ah, yes; DAD must be the most hated Bond film of all, but it's not without reason. The PTS was great, and the story seemed all right, but somewhere around the half-way mark, the film just loses my interest and doesn't seem good at all. The best parts of the film include Brosnan's acting, the PTS, and the fencing match between Bond and Graves. Speaking of Gustav Graves, I didn't like him much at all as a villain. I also didn't like the main Bond girl Jinx or most of the other characters. The film kind of seems liked wasted potential for me - a few good merits, but too much CGI and lack of compelling story in my opinion. To say the least, DAD could have been better.
In the end I love GE, like TWINE, and am 'meh' about TND and DAD. Brosnan was indeed a fine Bond, and is not responsible for really any negativity in his films. Overall a mixed bag, but an acceptable era for me thanks to the odd-numbered entries.
I find Carver to be far from a simple, stereotyped bad guy.
"Soon I'll have reached out to and influenced more people than anybody in the history of this planet, save God himself. And the best he ever managed was the Sermon on the Mount."
THAT'S what it was all about. God complex. Being able to outdo anyone who's ever lived. Not sheer greed or lust for power. The need to be worshipped.
Not so generic IMHO.
B-)
Ok I get it you like him. But I never said Elliot himself was generic, just the film in general.
:-??
I'll read all the details in your posts later. Nice to see such a quick response.
Briefly, my fav Brosnan films in order are:
1) TND ... slightly edging his debut in ...
2) GE
3) TWINE
4) DAD (of course it is last)
Keep up the good commenting, and I'll chime in more much later today!
Cheers! :)>-
(I think Birdleson was not quite finished; we shall see.)
What went wrong?
Pierce Brosnan was an immensely popular Bond to most of the general public. His films made truckloads of cash. But I for one just found something lacking during his tenure. EON had an obsession to turn Bond into a shootout with lots of machine guns and OTT CGI extravaganza.
I had almost zilch interest in seeing any more Bond films during this time. I watched all the specials that aired prior to GE (in my opinion, Brosnan's best film.) Brosnan had the looks, he moved well on screen but he just never showed me anything new or inventive to the character. EON was playing it too safe and I think this dragged the Brosnan era down for me.
After GE, his films take a nosedive and they progressively got worst finally culminating in that train wreck of a movie, DAD. After GE, EON went into stunt casting, using popular actresses of the day in the hopes that it would sell more tickets. The strategy must have worked but at the expense of teaming Brosnan with main Bond women who had zero chemistry with Brosnan. The women are physically appealing but their acting is just so subpar and unbelievable. As bad as Terri Hatcher was, Denise Richards was much worst and Halle Berry was so bad it was a crying shame to listen to her dialogue and be brutalized by having to watch her trying to play an NSA agent.
To use a sports comparison, I would say that Pierce Brosnan is the Dallas Cowboys of the Bond actors. For sports fans, the Dallas Cowboys are America's team. Popular and loved and hated by millions. They sell more merchandise than any other sports team in America. On paper, they look like a formidable team but when they line up following kick off, they are quickly exposed as just a mediocre average football team. I would say the same thing about Brosnan.
He looks good, he carries himself adequately but when you get right down to it he is just a good looking guy strutting around saying, "My name is...", firing machine guns, etc. And after GE, his films like the Dallas Cowboys, don't amount to much of anything. The final three films appeared promising but too often a good idea is not fully utilized and tossed aside for some wild explosive shoot-em-up with loads of CGI thrown in for good measure.
I also think your point - and @Birdleson's - about arming up Bond with machine guns is a good one. Brosnan blew away more people, sprayed with machine guns, far more like a regular action flick than any other Bond. I could have done without so much of that, yes. For one thing, it smacked too much of all the other action films. Bond was supposed to be different, no?
But overall, I really liked Brosnan's James Bond - his portrayal, his style, and attitude as Bond. So we just don't see the same things in his films. I like Brosnan's films mainly because of him, although GE was quite an enjoyable film overall with very good supporting cast all around. TND is pretty much my favorite though simply because Brosnan was even better as Bond in that one - really confident, smooth, charming, appropriately serious at times, overall just excellent as James Bond in that one for me. He and Michele kicked ass together. And the music was better; we got some of the Bond theme back, thank goodness. (Heck, yes, "Surrender" should have been the main theme song. But we can delve into that mess in a bit ...)
TND also has some scenes I especially enjoyed: the PTS, Bond waiting for Paris to show up in his hotel room, the motorbike race with Michele (all of it and culminating with the outdoor shower scene), Bond's finding Paris dead (I thought he was pitch perfect in that, so believable) and dealing with Dr. Kaufman, and all of his wonderful scenes with Q. I think Brosnan had outstanding chemistry with Desmond, and at least the scripts in his films gave the two of them some wonderful, lengthier scenes. Pierce may not have been paired with great Bond women a good deal, but he sure was given some golden scenes with Q, and the warm chemistry between those two really shows. I enjoy Q and Bond very much in the Brosnan era.
In 1992, in connection with the 30th anniversary of the franchise, several newspapers wrote that the Bond series was dead and there would be no more films. That was a bit sad to read, but I thought that 16 films was quite an acchievement and accepted the "fact". Various rumours still started to surface about another Dalton film, located in China, but nothing happened for a while. When they announced GE and Brosnan, I was happy to see the series resurrected. When I saw it I thought it was not all that bad even if it was the weakest entry yet. And I wished Dalton had stayed on.Things got progressively worse since then. Brosnan may have been slightly more Bondian in the next, but not sufficiently so for my taste.
I will not analyze his whole era, but want to say that Roger Moore had an equal amount of silly films and cringeworthy moments. Moore still managed to elevate those films with his sheer persona, charm and star quality. Brosnan, who was terribly miscast, managed to drag those awful films further down due to his lack of the same.
The period 1995-2002 might have been better if they had a) given us better films or b)cast a better Bond. Or preferably both, but alas. Him being Bond and his four terrible films does not bother me in the slightest. To those who enjoy his era: Do that. Enjoy. I can not, but I have a whole bunch of other films for my own enjoyment, so it is all good.
I can watch and enjoy them but am left with a "meh" feeling afterwards.
But I really didn't. :)
Thank you, @Thunderfinger, for reigning in your wording about your distaste for Brosnan's Bond, because I know you truly cannot stand him as Bond. :)>-
We are lucky to have so many different kinds of Bond films over these many years, and different kinds of Bonds. You're right about that, Thunderfinger.
Yes, I'd take Pierce as Bond any day; I totally buy him as Bond and I enjoy his Bond. But I realize others do not enjoy his portrayal, sometimes a little, sometimes not at all. I agree sometimes the scripts had issues. Anyway, I do thank everybody for their very civil posts, even when you completely disagree with me. That's fine.
And @BAIN123, just "meh" ...? Really? We all cannot stand the mess that was DAD (that one would be the one you label "terrible", right?). However, I I honestly cannot relate when people feel blah about Goldeneye or don't enjoy TND. I can understand not enjoying parts of TND, and for me parts of TWINE were a letdown, but I don't see much to dislike in GE. Not looking at you directly at this point, BAIN123, because you didn't say you disliked GE, you just mentioned TND and TWINE.
But again, that's me. And my main enjoyment of Brosnan's films is his portrayal. So if you do not care for him, that's well, a big chunk of the film, isn't it? Or you may like him but find heavy fault with the script and/or supporting cast. Anyway, we are discussing Brosnan's era this week, so let us continue.
Cheers!
And I am curious ... how many of you do not like Samantha's Moneypenny? I enjoyed her just fine, no problem. SirHenry couldn't stand her; he thought she was smutty. I'd like a vote count on that as we go along this week, please.
Like Brosnan's Moneypenny? Yay or nay. I really don't know how most people feel about her. Let's find out! :D
Brosnan's Moneypenny:
Yes - 1 (that would be me, 4EverBrosnanFan)
No - 2 (Birdleson and FoxRox, if I read the previous posts correctly)
with her "cunning linguist" line. Her delivery I think makes it funny.
Yes -2 (that would be me, 4EverBrosnanFan, and Bain123)
No - 2 (Birdleson and FoxRox, if I read the previous posts correctly)
I never minded that line either; boy some people hate it, though. I was surprised to begin with, that some people didn't like her Moneypenny. I thought she was quite enjoyable.
OK I'll stop putting out names, just the votes. ;)
I'll be sleeping soon, so I'll tally up in the morning folks. Thanks for casting your note, if you liked Brosnan's Moneypenny or not.
Yes - 2
No - 3
That's what I call condensed information. I almost did know nothing about all the things you tell about in your post, except a few of the Dalton bits. Thank you.
As for @4EverBonded's question, yes I did like Samantha's Moneypenny. She was no Lois Maxwell but who is?
Exactly, Pachazo. Once Connery was gone, who really COULD replace him? And who else could BE Monneypenny the way Lois Maxwell was? If the series is to continue -- which we all want to see, I expect -- then it's up to Moore, or Dalton, or now Brosnan. And Samantha. (Not to mention Dame Judi, but I'll take up her case a little later.) I thought SB was a much better Monneypenny than Caroline Bliss, and I far preferred Samantha's "cunning linguist" to Caroline's Barry Mannilow collection. So: 1 more + for Samantha as MP from this corner.
Thank you. I genuinely think that anyone who prefers Bliss's MP to Bond's is insane ;) Bliss is a pure 80s caricature with little personality. Bond at least had a personality and an acting ability.
Sorry to throw this into the midsts of the Brosnan era, but I found a Dalton interview the other day where Tim states that far from being enocuraged to leave, EON wanted him to commit to more than one more film. He claims this was part of the reason he left. He was up for one more but didn't want to commit to more than that. This kind of makes sense, and could have led to EON agreeing it was time for him to leave. They were trying to re-establish the series after a long break and needed the actor to commit to more than one film, otherwise they'd face the prospect of starting the rebuilding all over again with the next movie.
I just wanted to say that this pretty much sums up my views and I think is very well put. Like @Thunderfinger I had almost given up hope of another Bond movie by the early 90s. The break between movies spanned the period in my life between junior school and university - an eternity at that age. Although I was a Dalton fan, when they finally announced Bond was back with a new actor, I was just happy to know they were making another. But when I saw the film I felt Brosnan and the whole tone was just a huge step backwards. I felt Brosnan was attrociously miscast and the film was indeed the weakest so far.
I used to feel quite angry about Brosnan and what I saw as a wasted decade, after 6 lost years without a movie. And the other thing that grated throughout the Brosnan era was that I thought Dalton was so massively underappreciated - I couldn't get how people preferred Brosnan, who seemed such a lightweight actor. But time has moved on. We have a much better Bond now in Daniel Craig (although the films remain a bit patchy in my view) and Brosnan is the distant past. I think partly because of what Craig has done with the part, people have come to see Dalton's Bond as less leftfield and more of a trail-blazer.
I also agree with the comparisson between Moore and Brosnan above. I never really understood what Brosnan was trying to achieve with his portrayal. His acting seemed unconsidered and directionless. Not something I would ever say about Moore. Yes Sir Rog had perhaps too many slapstick moments, but when the scene required it, he brought deadly seriousness, gravitas and screen prescence. Not something I think Brosnan ever achieved. I would still never choose to rewatch any of the Brosnan films, but understand that many people still like him. I now find it amusing to hear people defending Brosnan, just as I used to have to defend Dalton.