› ›

Brosnan Considered the "Deadliest" Bond

2»

Comments

  • 00Ed00Ed
    Posts: 140
    I guess it would make sense that Brosnan's Bond racked up the highest body count, considering the turn toward Schwarzenegger-style action that the series took at the time. The Broz was certainly a crowd pleaser, though his films generally aren't remembered as franchise masterpieces.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    00Ed wrote:
    I guess it would make sense that Brosnan's Bond racked up the highest body count, considering the turn toward Schwarzenegger-style action that the series took at the time. The Broz was certainly a crowd pleaser, though his films generally aren't remembered as franchise masterpieces.

    Except for GoldenEye, of course. Even though Brosnan is my favorite Bond, and his 4 movies are among the most entertaining and greatest Bond movies that we have, I do agree with you that they are not really recognized by many to be masterpieces, unfortunately. TND, TWINE, and DAD are the ones I'd be speaking of here. GoldenEye receives an exemption from this for an overwhelming majority of fans, probably because of its dark, ex-Cold War atmosphere and terrific cast of actors, including Pierce!
  • WaltherPPKWaltherPPK
    Posts: 50
    If by deadliest you mean making me commit suicide over watching one of his Bond flicks then yeah sure!
  • LicencedToKilt69007LicencedToKilt69007 Belgium, Wallonia
    Posts: 523
    Fact. He's the one. Excellent in massive kills, still a tough Bond whatever someone says. Better than Dalton and Moore at least. Not as hard as Craig and Lazenby, another fact, but as strong as Connery I believe.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Brosnan wasn't my favorite Bond by any measure, so maybe a license to berate, but I have to say not the 'deadliest Bond' for my money. Did well for the most part, but simply lacked menace or dark, that Dalton and Connery managed so well

    Too much emphasis on humor sometimes that simply wasn't needed didn't help also

    And you don't need a 'large body count' in order to be a dark or menacing Bond, the above names managed that by few kills, and even Moore sometimes, and simply by words alone or actions that Brosnan couldn't quite manage. Sorry
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    Brosnan the deadliest Bond? Are you havin' a giraffe mate?
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    Dalton had the deadliest demeanour. He was definitely the most intimidating Bond, and if I were confronted by him he would scare the living daylights out of me. But when it comes down to an actual kill, the bare, to the bones execution and use of his licence to kill, nobody does it better than Craig. Just watch the PTS of Casino Royale.

    Brosnan and Moore were a joke. Moore especially.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    By body count, @Dragonpol. By body count, he was - all those machine gun random deaths.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    HASEROT wrote:
    naturally - what with all his machine gun fire..

    though in a fist fight, he's only a notch above Rog as the weakest.

    This. And it's easy to rack up the body count with a machine gun. Only a Brozzer fanboy would consider him more deadly than the "holy trinity" of Connery, Dalton, and Craig, or Lazenby in the department of deadly. "Real men's men", all of them. I'd be nervous about meeting any of those guys in a dark alley. Brosnan or Moore Bond, uh, no.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    In terms of body count, yes, Brosnan is most certainly the deadliest.
  • AgentCalibosAgentCalibos Banned
    Posts: 46
    I guess surfing a CGI wave and starting a near death fist fight over one tiny little diamond is considered deadly to hollywood.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    4EverBonded wrote:
    By body count, @Dragonpol. By body count, he was - all those machine gun random deaths.

    I know, but that's all pretty anti-Bond and indeed anti-Fleming, which brings us back neatly to where this kind of all began - the senseless Zorin mine massacre.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    If you want to say deadliest demeanor, then not Brosnan.
    That would be Dalton, Connery and Craig for my money.

    Not Moore, Lazenby (just no ...), or Brosnan.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    4EverBonded wrote:
    If you want to say deadliest demeanor, then not Brosnan.
    That would be Dalton, Connery and Craig for my money.

    Not Moore, Lazenby (just no ...), or Brosnan.

    Agreed on those choices.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    I think Lazenby's fighting skills make him more like the trinity and less like Moore and Brosnan. Although he does seem to be a bit more jolly like them. I can understand the opposing view.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,344
    SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:
    I think Lazenby's fighting skills make him more like the trinity and less like Moore and Brosnan. Although he does seem to be a bit more jolly like them. I can understand the opposing view.

    Indeed - I'm all for "bigging up" Lazenby on these boards.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,829
    If we're going 'deadly' here, and not simply indiscriminate 'body count', then the Broz is certainly up there in any case. He and Craig would be the two, and not necessarily in that order. The rise of the cold-blooded flat-blast is of the newer Bonds IMO.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Whatever was said before, going over old territory perhaps in saying I never considered Brosnan to be a deadly bond. What, by picking up a machine-gun and blasting away a few bad individuals ? He's simply nowhere near Dalton or Connery for badness or a real presence of danger or intimidation. I'm watching a Bond movie now incidentally and I know which Bond, out of this one, and Brosnan, I'd rather not have as an enemy or out to get me. Calling Brosnan a 'deadly' Bond, is to a degree, rather humorous
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,829
    Baltimore_007 wrote:
    What, by picking up a machine-gun and blasting away a few bad individuals ?
    No, by doing someone with intent.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Some of you are really getting worked up over this. They just consider him the 'deadliest' because he has killed the most people. Now, might it have been better to say 'Pierce Brosnan was the Bond with the highest body count' instead of calling him the 'deadliest'? Yes. I think I would fear Connery, Dalton, and Craig coming after me more than Brosnan.
  • sromgromsromgrom
    Posts: 9
    It's too bad he didn't look the part as a "deadly" Bond. All I got from him was the Stuart Dunmeyer vibe from Mrs. Doubtfire, sadly. I will say the boat scene in Goldeneye was his best physical work though, as well as his facial expression too.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    sromgrom wrote:
    It's too bad he didn't look the part as a "deadly" Bond. All I got from him was the Stuart Dunmeyer vibe from Mrs. Doubtfire, sadly. I will say the boat scene in Goldeneye was his best physical work though, as well as his facial expression too.

    Personally, although it was a very short sequence physically (and barely physical at that), I was much more impressed with the Kauffmann killing than anything else Brosnan did during his tenure. These moments were too far and few in between.

    When you say he doesn't look the part of a deadly Bond, I can understand that. But that wasn't always necessarily his fault. I submit the satellite dish fight with Trevalyan. Past the fight on the ladder suspending belief (not even an Olympic gymnast could have done a back flip and still held on without at least smashing their face into the ladder), look at Brosnan's face. Bean is covered with blood, and Dalton or Craig in this premise would have looked like they were in a war. Instead we get GQ Brosnan Bond with hardly a scratch or blood on him. It looked like an even fight to me, how does one guy look worse than the other after a fight like this? Too Hollywood, not enough realism. Moore's Bond was pretty much the same way too. It's just not real enough for me to consider Brosnan as either tough nor deadly.
  • Villiers53Villiers53
    Posts: 802
    Brosnan directed by Sam Mendes could have been very deadly indeed. As it was, with the possible selection of GE he was directed to be a re-boot of Roger Moore.
    Charming, humorous, sexy — yes but about as deadly as a water pistol!
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Villiers53 wrote:
    Brosnan directed by Sam Mendes could have been very deadly indeed. As it was, with the possible selection of GE he was directed to be a re-boot of Roger Moore.
    Charming, humorous, sexy — yes but about as deadly as a water pistol!

    Mendes and Brosnan would have been interesting. I just don't know looking at Skyfall how it would work. Campbell is the linchpin between the eras as far as a director, and the movies couldn't be more (or Moore haha) different in terms of physicality and a degree of realism, even with the sinking house being a bit out there in left field. But then we have the below.

    GE was like watching a Dalton vehicle starring a much younger version of Moore Bond, if that's what you're getting at I agree. I definitely watch GE and TND much more than TWINE, and DAD maybe once a year if I'm in the mood to see the Cuba scenes and sword fight. None of Brosnan's films will ever be in my top 10, GE and TND usually wind up between 12-14 meaning I enjoy and mostly respect them as good entries, but GE could have been if the music had been at least somewhat Bondian, the PTS more sensible, and the rest I've discussed above.

  • RichardoRichardo
    Posts: 135
    Very glad to see all of my suspicions confirmed in this discussion.
    LicencedToKilt69007 wrote:
    Fact. He's the one. Excellent in massive kills, still a tough Bond whatever someone says. Better than Dalton and Moore at least. Not as hard as Craig and Lazenby, another fact, but as strong as Connery I believe.
    Too true. Massive kills are Brosnan's Bond, a la mode. Brosnan is tougher than anyone who says otherwise. Other Bonds need not apply.
  • Bertha_widehips420Bertha_widehips420
    edited August 2013 Posts: 19
    comment removed by moderator @NicNac
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,229
    In terms of body count, yes, Brosnan could be seen as deadly. But these deaths were so impersonal, so disincarnated (spelling?) That he did not come off as dangerous or lethal. He often looked like a foppish terminator wearing a tuxedo. To be deadly, you must feel the death. When the others made a kill, it has to count. Machine gunning a bunch of red shirts isn't the same. Not to say that Brosnan did not have some quality kills, but overall they were lost in a bunch of meaningless ones.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,231
    If we had been given a good director, someone more attuned to a conventional character thriller as opposed to a blockbuster type action adventure, I think Brosnan could have been the best Bond. I don't agree with people who question his acting ability, as I found him fantastic in many of the darker roles he was given - a subtle intensity like the one he showed in 'The Fourth Protocol' in particular. I think that after the first couple of films, Brosnan found himself stuck in a rut, caught between a fear of losing the role he had wanted for so long and what he wanted to do with it once he had it. Considering who EON were hiring as directors, there's possibly the idea that Brosnan was simply content with being there. That's why I personally will never question Brosnan's acting ability as Bond - untapped potentially is not the same as poor acting ability.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Yeah, he is a good actor overall but the constant shift in tone and directors hurt his ability to deliver a consistent performance as Bond for his four. I'm so glad for Craig that he gets Mendes again, hopefully three times. That continuity is huge for actor when they are crafting a role.
Sign In or Register to comment.