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 do appreciate, however, you finding some good points to say about Brosnan's Bond as I know that overall you do not enjoy his era. I respect your opinion as your opinion; people do see things different at times, sure. I enjoy every bit of the PTS in TND. :)
Thanks, BAIN123, for posting the Dr. Kaufman scene; it is so very good.
Brosnan's hair? Oh, how refreshing that we are not talking about Craig's hair (well, that time will come!). I really disliked Brosnan's hair in TWINE actually, too boring and "businessman's haircut" for me.
Murdock, no Bond actor should have to go to that extreme, I hope! (the Kim Jong Un haircut - ugh!!) @-)
I will say that he should have been far thinner if he had been in a N. Korean prison for so long. But the acting is fine, in my opinion.
Is it just me, or was it really not Dr Kauffman that steals the scene.
No, its just you. Both are very good and I think Brosnan holds himself well.
I do think it it's a little more Brosnan than Schiavelli, who carries that scene. Brosnan restrains himself, and comes off all the better for it.
"I might as well ask you if all those vodka martinis ever silence the screams of all the men you've killed... or if you find forgiveness in the arms of all those willing women for all the dead ones you failed to protect. "
I love the way Pierce just puts his face on her hair, like he's taking the last bit of her unique essence he can, giving his last peace and love to her as he leaves.
Like I said earlier, Brosnan's films are haunted by the blown opportunities and good ideas that get tossed aside. Take the character of Renaud.
They make a big deal about this bad guy who cannot feel pain. The idea that he is terminal, adds to his suicidal, don't give a shytt attitude.
Now when he fights Bond, he seems to feel pain from Bond's punches. Did the writers just forget about this? Hell, Stamper withstood more pain than Renaud during his fight with Bond. I could probably kick Renaud's ass while Stamper scares the crap out of me.
Then there's the 14 months spent in a North Korea prison. After Bond gets to Hong Kong and takes a shower and gets a haircut they just forget all about this detail. I would think the film could have explored the pyschological and physical traumas of his imprisonment/torture. It might have given Pierce a chance to show us what he could do with the Bond character. But no. Why would they just cast this aside? I guess they had more important things to show us: Halle in a bikini.
This really bugs me about the Brosnan films and Brosnan in general. EON had a popular Bond that the majority of the movie public loved. This was the time to really dive deep into his character and let Brosnan do some real acting. Spread his wings and run with the character. For Brosnan's part, he had waited so long to be Bond, why didn't he just dive in and give it his all. Show us something we had not seen from Bond. All his predesscors did in their own way and admirably. But Brozza just went thru the motions.
That is unforgivable.
Nope.
As I stated before, Brosnan is no Dalton or Craig. He's a good actor, and that's it. Dalton & Craig are forces to be reckoned with. It's not unforgivable when a man does his job. It's just amazing when a man can go far beyond the call, competently.
This really bugs me about the Brosnan films and Brosnan in general. EON had a popular Bond that the majority of the movie public loved. This was the time to really dive deep into his character and let Brosnan do some real acting. Spread his wings and run with the character. For Brosnan's part, he had waited so long to be Bond, why didn't he just dive in and give it his all. Show us something we had not seen from Bond. All his predesscors did in their own way and admirably. But Brozza just went thru the motions."
I agree with some of this, because I feel the tone of DAD is just way out of whack. It did not have to be Casino Royale level gritty and real, but I was well and truly bugged by him just walking into the hotel dripping wet, back to a quip, and on we go. The film started out being more than that. It got ridiculous quickly. Could Brosnan have done more with his films with a more serious script? Yes, I think he could have. I didn't need for his films to be the same tone or style as CR or any of Craig's. But I would have appreciated cutting out some of the humor and most especially the sometimes lousy casting in his films.
All we have in the end, though, is some fine moments and two (or three depending upon your preference) good Bond films, with (most of us, not all, can agree) GE being an all around fine Bond film.
I think Pierce did a fine job with the more serious moments in his films (with TWINE being the only possible exception, at times), and I think he was fine in injecting his own charm and style into his films. So I do feel that overall, he had his own style, yes. I never felt he "went through the motions" ... except perhaps with some of those awful quips he had to say in DAD. Maybe then. But overall, I liked the way he played Bond. I did not feel he was just copying another Bond. Pierce had his own looks, way he presented himself, and carried himself.
Then later his disgust that the 'dark side' had taken her over...
It was pretty dark stuff for Borosnan's era IMO.
Okay, then the Christmas joke... hahahahaha.
Bond films have been following current trends since the 1970's. Now, @Birdleson says the high body count and use of automatic weapons fire ala films like Lethal weapon etc.
Brosnan fires more machine guns than all the other Bonds combined.
Connery played Bond in seven pictures and he never once took up an automatic weapon. He let his trusty Walther do his "talking".
Lazenby fires one during the climatic battle at Piz Gloria
Moore takes up the automatic weapon during the big battle in OP and aboard the Liparius in TSWLM
Dalton grabs an AK74 and unleashes a burst on full automatic in TLD but he fires over the bad guys' heads at the airbase in Afganistan. He was using suppressive fire, and not really trying to kill anyone.
Craig uses one during the big battle at Skyfall in SF...
Then we have Brosnan running around shooting, killing and maiming. He probably kills and maims more people than the other 5 Bonds combined. Give him an automatic weapon and he turns into the Terminator or John McClane. It just gets to be too much.
Schiavelli was excellent as always. Why does Brosnan flap his arms like that the moment he has fired the gun? Watch at 3.48.
I just watched it. Just a disgusted reaction letting the body fall away from him, recoil and blood splattering. Nuff said.
Do not pick this apart.
Next! :)>-
Damn I sometimes hate being a hardcore fan and having to analyse scenes like this :p
Anyway, it was fine.
And it seems you posted it just to point out something odd or looked funny.
You can criticize his acting in words, of course, just keep it in line with the way this thread has always gone. Some of do enjoy analyzing scenes at times, yes.
Thank you, dear Thunderfinger. :) I refrained from giving my brutally honest opinion about Lazenby's performance and I really cannot stand him as Bond. I know you can manage; you've done mostly fine so far.
Back in about 10 hrs. Carry on, folks! I-)
1995, I was 15 and finally, finally i got to see Bond in the cinema. Brosnan was announced and I remember vaguely that I wasn't too sure. But who cared? Bond was Back! So my dad took me and my brother to a night viewing in one of the oldest cinema's in the country and way away from where we lived. I can't remember why. But Amsterdam's Tuchinsky theatre is something of a sight, so I was impressed. As I was impressed too by the amount of garbage still left between the seats, as this was the midnight viewing. Some things you just remember too well. Anyway, GoldenEye started with an impressive stunt that had me on the edge of my seat and the film kept me there. The titles were inspired, the tone dark but not too dark, and although there were some stupid jokes in there (falling cyclists) and not everything seemed that realistic (diving after the Russian painted but Swiss built Pilatus plane in the PTS) all in all it was a fairly gritty adventure in the world of espionage and intrigue.
Two years later, 17, and not too fond of the martial arts craze in which it seemed you could kick someone with your toes and apparently knock them out, and Bond comes along with his equal and empty Chinese sidekick. Whom even manages to kill her opponents clearly aiming two heavy machine guns at the ceiling of the stealth boat.
'gun toting hag' extraordinaire I'd say. With a technical mind too many of these things showed (as if an inflated boat would knock you out. Over, yes, out? no.
I'm afraid these things were all to distracting. As was terrible Terry. Carver I liked, but again, 'Stampfer' was too much and his name too silly. I still enjoyed the film but not as much as GE. It was just a medicre entry.
Then, just back from my 'overseas experience', just in love with a lovely, mysterious girl and managing to win tickets to the premiere of TWINE, the stars were set right for this film. Perhaps Denise Richards was a bad actress, but boy was she a student's wet dream, and boy was she went out of that submarine! Valentine's return was another highlight. I loved this film! Even stealing the cardboard poster which was set at the cinema's entrance, I had the Bond-evening of my dreams.
DAD came along and as my life was at the time in dire need of some positive input I really looked foreward to this picture. The posters looked cool enough. And though the PTS was as tense as tense could be, and the fencing was great (a sport I did practise at the time) I felt some nagging. My technical mind, even with its need for distraction, was claiming this could not be Bond, as it was too far off. From jumping off of the hovercraft and beeing still on it, to shooting at mines clearly in the open? to an invisible (though very cool) car. This was over the top and stupid. Though I saw it a couple of times, I knew something was wrong.
The aftermath was even more unfriendly, as I started reading Fleming. Looking back after that the Brosnan era failed to deliver. A feeling made stronger by DC's increadable performance.
A greatest hits Bond film that launched our venerable hero into the nineties, and just what was needed after the long hiatus - all the classic hallmarks are there, but given a modern twist. There really is a lot to enjoy with this one, namely a superb primary cast and a very strong script; indeed this script helps anchor GoldenEye’s more fantastical elements, allowing for some rare moments of introspection (think Bond and Alec in the graveyard/underground lair and Bond and Natalya on the beach.) The script also cleverly asks Bond to validate himself in the post cold war era, something he achieves with aplomb.
Despite his nerves, Brosnan came up with the ideal blend of humour and steel, with a little bit of dramatic stuff to keep things interesting. The script helps a lot with this; Brosnan would never get a script as strong as this in his subsequent adventures. Indeed I was quite impressed with Brosnan's performance in GoldenEye - more quiet and unassuming, than his later ones, full of the self confidence, the sense of purpose, that defined Fleming's Bond. I think it has something to do with Brosnan's nerves; it gave his performance a kind of "flinty" quality, which is somewhat lost, as Brosnan got more comfortable in the role. Think off the scene where Mishkin interrogates Bond and Natalya, where Bond is quiet and subtly menacing, as opposed to the scene in The World Is Not Enough, where Bond confronts Elektra, where he is too animated.
The Brosnan era always suffered from weak climaxes, too heavy an accent on bangs and not very good boner jokes, but not in the case of GoldenEye; the film reached a crescendo - in fact both Campbell and Brosnan got more assured as the film went on.
There are a few quibbles, however; the music is distracting for a large part of the film; Campbell's direction during the tank chase - some scenes required a bit of trimming; Boris gets far too much screentime, especially for such an annoying and superfluous character, and the screenplay was too erratic, at the beginning of the movie, flitting between the MI6 gang, Severnaya situation and Natalya's escape to St Petersburg. (Now then ITV, back in the day, used to edit the bit out where Boris, Natalya etc. are mucking about in the Severnaya control room. Instead the film picks off with Boris outside having a cigarette - I prefer this version, much more efficient, and effective.)
Tomorrow Never Dies
Sleek, explosive, hi-tech and pacy. Brosnan cements his role as the legendary 007, giving us a more complete, and composed performance. TND has a good cast, namely Michelle Yeoh, who is the best of Bond's "comrades in arms", although Teri Hatcher was disappointing - stunt casting.
Roger Spottiswoode does well in the directors chair; one can tell he was an editor, not one wasted shot. Other strengths include the plot, reworked from You Only Live Twice and Spy, but giving it a more modern twist to keep it relevant - more so today methinks- and the music by David Arnold. If there was a caveat to Arnold's work, is that he over-scored them, but not on TND; Arnold was almost perfect, and I was left humming the score for a while afterwards, especially "Surrender".
This is the perfect film for the 90's; superficial, and proud of it - not a scrap of pretentiousness anywhere.
The World Is Not Enough
I just don't why this film has such a bad reputation round these parts. Surely my sentimental feeling towards this film (it was my first time seeing Bond on the big screen), has blinded me to the obvious?
Sophie Marceau is sexy and seductive, Robert Carlyle evokes genuine pity, and The Brozz turns in a supremely elegant and dangerous performance as Bond, plus the overall premise is inspired and all the Bondian attributes abound and in novel fashion.
Now in light of objectivity, I shall point out some of the film's flaws...
The more emotional nature of the script allows for some unintentional melodrama. (Primarily the scene between Bond and M in Scotland and the scene where Bond confronts Elektra.). I always imagined Bond being more still, in the two aforementioned scenes. Brosnan is too animated in those particular scenes. Fleming wrote that Bond is precise in his movements, decisive and economical. He wouldn’t have acted like that. Just my two cents worth.
It sounds like I'm being too hard on The Brozz, but he's my childhood Bond, and he carries a special place in my heart. To balance out, then, here are some moments in which Pierce Brosnan is just so smegging cool;
The ways he takes out the goons in the Banker's office
Sorting out the heavy, gaining access to Zukovsky's office
During the buzz-saw helicopter attack, Bond opens a trap-door, pushes a goon away, and fires straight up, through the floor, to a second goon.
The other major weakness is the staid direction of Michael Apted - this is the first time I was not overly impressed by the director - even Lee Tamahori, in the first part of Die Another Day anyway, showed more drive and inventiveness. Also I can't believe that Apted didn't, in the two aforementioned scenes, call Brosnan to rein it in a bit.
Die Another Day
Up until the Antonov climax this is a rip-roaring action adventure, excluding the "stop motion" effect when the ice dragster goes over the cliff, anyway. My sentiments have mellowed over the years, I was a very serious child, and even back then I was put off by comedic excess and sci-fi nonsense.
So the good;
The action is where the film really stands out; even the ice chase between the two spy cars - the height of ridiculousness, I know, but, gosh darn it, it's just so much fun. Like I was 14 all over again.
David Arnold comes up with the goodies for his action scores (although I was less than impressed with his villains motif, especially when Col. Moon is kicking his anger manger.)
Lee Tamahori's direction is brisk and brusque in the first half.
The Pikelet
The production values
Bond going rogue in a novel fashion, trying to redeem himself.
Main titles given us a glimpse of Bond's torture.
Raoul is a great little ally, and General Moon brings some gravitas to his one dimensional character.
The scenes with Bond and M crackle with tension.
Graves’ sneering villainy.
The Moonraker novel provided inspiration for the screenplay.
Bond attempting to kill Frost after she was exposed.
The segue into the main titles.
I have to disagree with Pierce Brosnan's assessment; he really did nail it on his fourth go.
"Maybe you've been down here to long..."
And the bad;
CGI parasurfing
Plot circa 1971
Zao
Jinx (good up until Cuba, then Berry becomes hammy as hell)
Corny dialogue in the second half
Woeful punning.
Aston Martin Vanish. (granted it may be applicable nowadays, but not this good. Bond films are meant to show the technology 2 minutes into the futures, not 20 years...)
OK, I admit it. I love the Brozz. He was my first introduction to James Bond. As I sat in the movies theatres gazing up at TWINE, and Brosnan, I was mesmerised. Bond is so sure of himself. Full of grace, presence and self awareness, and sense of purpose. And to a boy on the cusp of man-hood, both Brosnan and James Bond made an indelible impression.
With time, the films of Brosnan started slipping down my rankings. But I always enjoy them primarily because of Pierce Brosnan. When Casino Royale came out, I was struck by the similarities between that and TWINE. The romantic angle of The World Is Not Enough pales into comparison with Casino Royale, and massive Pierce Brosnan fan that I am, it upsets me, to think that CR outdoes TWINE in almost every aspect. I suddenly realised when I was watching CR for the first time in the cinema, that this how to do a love story, and not TWINE. I think that CR woke up Bond fans, to the idea that a Bond movie could be superior, and that it could be relevant, and it could deal with real, emotional stuff. We didn't have to settle for second best.
The performances of Brosnan as Bond, I believe, grew stronger as they went on, from GE to DAD. Despite Brosnan's melodramatic tendency in TWINE, and the general mess that was DAD. Some say that Brosnan was a greatest hit Bond, channelling Moore's humour and Dalton's emotion. But the nineties Bond film were perfect for that. (BTW I feel that Brosnan brought much more to the Bond table than just an amalgamation of previous Bonds). They were meant to be safe and somewhat predicable. After what happened with Licence To Kill, can you blame the producers? And if the nineties Bond films weren't successful, I doubt we'd have the universally praised Craig films.