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
My thoughts exactly. GE still remains (and always will be) my favorite Bond film, I just didn't think he could one-up his 90's directorial debut in the series.
Yeah, ok.....
To suggest Brosnan was not the right man for the role, and his films fell flat, is a clear statement of losing perspective, not to mention utter madness.
As for Lazenby, he made one to many Bond films. Thankfully his acting carreer moved to a level much more suited to his (lack of) talent.
I surely hope you weren't speaking of me: Brosnan is my favorite Bond, and my favorite actor, during Bond, pre-Bond, post-Bond, all of it. It's just a shame his films get a lot of flak on these forums; gives me a lot of defending to do. But, opinions are opinions, and I can only defend the man for so long. If someone doesn't like him, then they don't - nothing I can do to change that.
You my friend, have great taste, keep up the deffense! I`ll cover you!!
Thank you very much, I appreciate it!
I just have a love for all of the Bonds and all of the films - sure, some are leagues better than others, but I find great beauty in all of them, no matter how outlandish or hated they might be.
But I completely disagree about Brosnan not cutting it. He was a fine Bond and became Bond at the right time. GE is a classic and TND has some very fine scenes and another good performance by Brosnan.
The director of a film is far more responsible for the quality of the finished product than the lead actor is. He makes far more decisions that affect the production, and even has a hand in crafting the actor's performance as Bond if it's the actor's first kick at the role.
One thing that surprised me when rewatching GE for the first time in years is how Brosnan was convincingly tough in that film - and that's even though he was 15 pounds lighter than he was in any of his other films. He also was lacking the smug, smarmy attitude that grew with every film. I put a lot of that down to Campbell; he helped Brosnan become Bond just as Terence Young helped Connery (though to a lesser degree).
But Campbell also brought a bit of a classic feel to GE. While Brosnan's other films very much exist as products of their times GE seems to take place in that slightly timeless version of reality that is classier and more exotic than our real world.
I don't blame Brosnan for the quality of his later films; that's mostly the directors' faults (I'd be curious what a good director could have done with TWINE). I do think that Brosnan is responsible for his...somewhat limited performance abilities but a good director can give guidance and work around that. But the mawkish tone of TWINE, the lowbrow tone of the second half of DAD, the generic action film bent of TND - these are all the responsibilities of the director.
Personally, I still think that one of the best things that EON could do is show up at Martin Campbell's door with a wheelbarrow full of money to tie him down to the series. I know he's said in the past that he doesn't have much interest in doing another Bond but I'm hoping that the failure of Green Lantern makes him reconsider Bond - it's a "safe haven" for him and a chance to put another great film (one hopes!) on his CV again...and a good director is cheaper than a major star (*Halle Berry cough cough*).
Good piece, OHMSS69
So Brosnan fell flat because you and some others didn't like him, is basically what you're saying.
Falling flat would mean failing, and when you consider that his films made tons of money, most critics liked him even if they didn't like his films and that he has tons of fans even today, I wouldn't say he failed.
Oh, and I wasn't introduced to Bond through the n64 GE game (I always preferred Duke Nukem anyway), and I'm 29 years old, became a Bond fan in the 80s. Actually I know alot of Brosnan fans who weren't introduced through the n64 game. More than I do who actually were.
Brosnan as Bond is certainly devisive around here, to say the least, but it is plain silly to right his films off as failiers. Could be sour grapes from the Lazzer brigade? :P
Don`t get me wrong, I lOVE what Campbell did with his Bonds, and you made a really great point about Goldeneye coming across as "timeless..."
My point was that even when some people who hate the Brosnan Bonds say they like Goldeneye, they will give the credit to Martin Campbell, while on the same hand slag off the others due to Brosnan!
It seems he can do no right for some, oh well!
It won`t stop me trying to address the balance around here!
Exactly. I'm one of the oldsters on here. I have enjoyed Bond for more years than I care to realize, including Brosnan's Bond. Falling flat is too harsh a claim and I - along with many others - simply disagree with OHMSS69's statement about Brosnan.
It's a forum so there will always be disagreements; everyone is entitled to their opinion.
No body is beating up on Campbell. I wish he could have directed the rest of Brosnan's films. GE is quite good, not a classic but good. The problems with the Brosnan films really took off after GE. There were some headshaking moments (like Brosnan's intro, use of the blue screen, sloppy editing during the PST, Brosnan's haircut, etc) but for the most part the film was pretty good.
I disagree with you on GE. When I first saw it in the cinema I thought Bond had reached rock bottom - and then TWINE and DAD showed up.
However, I do agree that Brosnan does not carry ALL the blame for his movies being so awful - much of the blame has to go to the producers, writers, directors, production designers, casting directors and composers, who, most of the time, got it completely and utterly wrong. However, underlying all this was a truly awful performance from Brosnan. The shame is that Brosnan has shown in other films that he can (sometimes) turn in a decent performance. I do sometimes feel that if somone (a director?) had really molded Brosnan, he might perhaps have been able to deliver a more consistent and acceptable performance. Sadly, that never happened. Brosnan seems to have been left largely to his own devices with little or no guidance from those around him. His flippant, casual approach to the role comes over as lightweight and (as you say) smarmy, rather than the 'charming' and confident performance that he was presumably trying to achieve.
For me ultimately he was just the wrong man for the job. If he himself was not able to raise his game over 4 movies then he is the one who really has to take the blame.
That's a huge generalisation. I've talked to older people who liked him at the time. I still remember him being given the "best since Connery" label.
Read the old radio times review of GE - it says as much.
If he was THAT bad in the role then surely he wouldn't have been as loved.
Funnily enough I was watching a bit of TWINE today. VERY average movie but Brosnan is quite charming and dare I say funny at times in it ("the story of our relationship? Close but no cigar" makes me smile). He's certainly more confident than he was in GE and there were times when I just accepted him as Bond.
Unfortunately the action (bar the boat chase which is fun) feels very...meh.
Please stop quoting the Radio Times as if it's some recognised source of wisdom on movies. It's a TV and radio listings mag...
I don't like him as much as I did. He's not a great actor but the man DOES have charisma and charm that translates well to the screen. He wouldn't have become such a popular figure if he didn't. Most of the roles he did outside of Bond he probably wouldn't have done had he not played 007.
Poor old Broz. Even you're not standing up for him these days.
I might start defending him just because he seems so unloved!
Brosnan is funny sometimes. Just watching him smirk his way through the casino in TWINE today actually made me smirk too without realising it.
If Getafix and the many other fans on Mi6 loathe him that much fine. All I can say is that he made me into the fan I am today. For that I'll love him if nothing else - but there WERE times in each of his films when he felt like Bond to me. The way he walked, the way he delivered certain lines ("me too"), the suits he wore and the yes "flippant" attitude.
You call the man you supposedly love a loser. That's worse than anything I've done ;)
Would have been great to see him in a FYEO type of Bond film.
Hey ho, on with the deffending then...!
Despite the fact that I , Getafix and others constantly slam Brosnan, for some reason he is always rated high among fans. I scratch my head.
But then some fans rank Halle Berry as one of the top Bond girls....nuff said.
Now, I will admit, I don't really know much about being 'in the moment' during Brosnan's tenure: DAD was the first Bond film I saw in theaters, and I was only 11 at the time. That, along with not really being old enough to follow Bond news articles, gossip, etc., I don't know how his time went.
But, what I can agree with is this: Halle Berry is incredibly far from being one of the top Bond girls. Ever.
I have to agree to all those saying Brosnan didn´t fall flat. I still like his films. It´s just that wedged between Dalton and Craig it becomes obvious how much Brosnan would have profited by just being himself more instead of trying to be like one or the other previous Bond actors all the time. When he played Remington Steele I always hoped that he would be Bond one day, because his manner would have made for a fun Bond. But when he did take over, he completely dropped what he was good at.
But nonetheless, he put Bond back on the screen and made huge amounts of cash. Without Pierce it´s not certain we would have any Bond now.
As for Lazenby, it´s incredibly sad he quit for whatever reason. He did a fairly good job without having any experience as an actor. If he would have taken acting lessons and the like he could have had a really cool run as Bond.
I think you and I would agree alot. Those are the only 2 Bonds I didn't care for aswell. But I give Lazenby a pass because his one film was one of the best. Brosnan turned Bond into a nostolgia act and wasted 10 good years and 4 films. And then complained after EON dumped his old ass.
Actually Cubby didn't want him. On the contrary he was never too keen on Brosnan. He very much wanted Timothy Dalton to return for GE but after he resigned James Purevoy was the top choice to be the next Bond. It was United Artists that insisted on Brosnan. What a stupid choice. Don't tell Cubby how to cast James Bond.
Err...not me. Hilariously bad Bond girl.
I do agree that with Brosnan there was a sense of "we've got a popular star, let's just churn stuff out".
As for turning Bond into a "nostalgia act" he can't get all the blame for that. Listen to the commentary between MGW and LT during the DAD dvd (especially the moment when Jinx comes out of the water). They (namely Tamahori) think they're hitting the ball out of the park. He's virtually saying "cooooaarrrr...this is what Bond's all about".
Having said that, as I've explained before, Brosnan has his merits. He does have screen charisma - probably more than a certain Mr Dalton (its the reason why Brosnan's had a fairly sucessful film career outside and post Bond, and Dalton...err...not so much). Perhaps I may not like him AS much as I once did but I can still see why he's popular. The way he walks, the little smiles he gives, the way he looks immaculately dressed when wearing a suit. These are little, perhaps shallow, things but they do count - its why the likes of Connery, Moore and even Craig also have a large following.
Indeed. This was the reason why it took me longer to get used to Craig as Bond because of the fact Brosnan never got his fifth and perhaps last film for 2005.
In 2005 Brosnan would have been 52 years old. Would you have accepted a 50+ year old James Bond? We've have the issues we had with an aging Moore--25 to 30 years older than his lead actresses and stretching of credibility that he could jump away from explosions and fight the bad guys henchmen.
I think four is a good number for any Bond actor. Brosnan was in his forties when he started so the most we could have expected from him was four films. Dalton would have been 49 had he done GE in 1995...
Connery, Laz, and Craig were all in their thirties so yes, they could do more than four but the others? I think not.
Brosnan today at 59 years of age looks better than Moore in AVTAK. So no, I have no problem with Brosnan making a 5th, even a 6th outing. And evidently the action would be tone down... and then I could really believe the new Bond films are made for 'mature adults' and not young pre-pubescent boys who need their daily fix of car chases, fist fights and gun fights.