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
All I can say is, look at his work in that film and ask yourself, "is that really Bond?".
I suspect Brosnan himself would not be proud of his emoting in TWINE. In fact, Brosnan has, already, alluded to feelings that he did not achieve what he wanted in the Bond role.
I do like both TWINE and Brosnan's performance in it. Yet he is too animated in the dramatic scenes. Brosnan was over confident by this time in his Bond tenure. And as such, his acting foibles are brought to the fore.
Compare this to his dramatic scenes in GE. Brosnan himself admitted that he was nervous in GE. And this nervousness serves him well, he more restrained and flinty, akin to Fleming's novels, in which he describes Bond as economical with his movements.
Shame, in DAD Bronsan may well have delivered his best performance, yet the general woe in that film, kind of obscures it. Brosnan may have said he was dissatisfied with his tenure, but in DAD at least, I though he knocked it out of the park.
I do agree, Brosnan is very good in DAD. I wonder if he knew he over-cooked his performance in TWINE, and he then strived to draw back in DAD. I suspect he did.
Shame that, after the first half of DAD, which I think supported Brosnan well, the rest of the film turned into OTT action CRAP!
Well, to me, yes. As I wrote, it's not perfect, but overall I find it his best performance. I think his performance in DAD is just as good in certain scenes, but then again, that film isn't the best. Still enjoy it for what it is though.
Maybe it was Tamahori that encouraged Brosnan too rein it in a tad. And maybe Apted encouraged Brosnan too go full ham.
(No sources to back this up. Just pure conjecture from my part)
Yeah, I'm glad I don't feel that way about the performances either. I never found anything too jarring or emotive in them. There is a few bits of dialogue in TWINE afforded to Bond that are cringeworthy, even on paper, and my only criticism is that Brosnan didn't do enough to save them. But some of the small moments, such as watching Elektra on the monitor, I never had an issue with.
To answer the initial question, though: I don’t think Pierce Brosnan offered a true definitive version of 007. He did help bring the character into the more modern era, and as much as I enjoy his outings - particularly GE and TWINE - his performance overall as the character was uneven. Not his fault, I blame a lot of it on Purvis and Wade, lack of direction... the elements surrounding him. But Brosnan made good with what little he had, and it’s a shame he had to go out on such a low note with DAD - for me, he had found his real groove with that film.
I agree with you and would rank his performances thusly:
GE > DAD > TND > TWINE
For the record, Brosnan was also the first Bond I got to see at the cinema at age 13 , but I too was never really enamored with him the way my generation seemed to be.
GE is Brosnan’s best film by far. But he and the film are average in the canon.
He is an ok Bond. But he is the worst Bond out of the 6 so far. Not helped by the fact (IMO) that 3 of his films are the weakest in the series.
I preferred Lazenby as the film was very close to Fleming’s novel. At the end of the day OHMSS is one of the best films in the series and Lazenby was at the centre of that.
Brosnan did not bring anything new to the table, he played it safe. It feels like they just took a handsome model, put a Tuxedo on him, gave him a martini and said: "Go and look cool". Brosnan's take on Bond feels very artificial, and any attempt to add his own take on it is disrupted or ruined by the awful movie scripts he has to work with (bar GE).
With Connery, Moore, Dalton and Craig you really notice them naturally taking on the role of Bond and adding something new, whereas Brosnan more feels like the "icon" of Bond. What we expect of Bond, he seems a bit too perfect. Brosnan's James Bond was lackadaisical and smug – what once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as laziness. The 90's action-packed Bond did not age well compared to the classic 60's Connery era or the refined 80's Dalton hits. Only GoldenEye is better than average (just), the three films after that are mediocre, with his last one being an absolute trainwreck.
Ever since Craig's Casino Royale, Brosnan's Bond films decidedly Un-Flemingesque.
I had friends on TWINE'S editing team and they said there were concerns from the editor, and I think the producers too, about Brosnan's tendency to overplay. Anyway, it's in the film for all to see. I do think Tamahori got a better balanced and more muscular performance from Brosnan in DAD.
I never had an issue with the monitor scene either – if anything I've been a bit surprised it even gets a mention. It' OK and nothing too memorable, but nothing I'd be critical of.
Same here, and thankfully nothing has really been written that has convinced me otherwise yet. On the flipside, I can't think of anything definitive from him either, even though I don't think "definitive" is a measure of quality. It would be fair to say that Moore gave a definitive take on Bond by his eyebrow raising and tongue-in-cheek approach, but I still see less of the original character of Bond in him than I do in Brosnan. So, it's an interesting barometer.
100% agree. Brosnan never quite made Bond his own. Connery did in spades, Lazenby did by making Bond more human and vulnerable, Sir Roger played to his own strengths, Dalton brought back realism and a darker energy, and then Brosnan kicked off pretty well with GE which suggested a return of the gentleman spy with a ruthless edge, but very quickly he fell into Bond cliches - a shallow mix of Connery and Sir Roger - he just never made Bond his own. I will say, in Brosnan's defence, he was hampered by the scripts which, I think, narrowed his scope and forced him to play Bond the way he did.
As I said earlier, I bet, if asked today, Brosnan himself would say, on careful reflection, he did not make his mark as Bond in the way he hoped he would.
For those reasons, Brosnan is my least favourite Bond.
Indeed, it's a very interesting barometer, and I can understand how you might feel that Moore portrayed less of the original character (even so, Moore is still my favourite Bond).
I see very little of Fleming's Bond in Brozza's portrayal. It's telling that every other actor to play Bond managed to act in proper Fleming adapted scenes (not BS hints and loose attempts from P&W), yet Brosnan never once appeared in anything written by Fleming.
The blame for some of this does lie at the producers feet though, for criminally ignoring the unused Fleming material to give us crap like TWINE and DAD instead. As if invisible cars and flying lasers are far better than anything Fleming wrote.
Brosnan had little to work with from what he was given, but not sure how much resistance he gave, and how much he insisted on wanting to return to the books.
I'm not sure whether Dalton would have gone along with some of the crap P&W churned out.
Outside of that god awful scene where he confronts Elektra in her villa, does he ever drop the ball on that one.
100%. The blame shouldn't fall solely on him. The writers are definitely part of the problem. P&W stepping in for The World Is Not Enough claiming they had written a more Fleming inspired 'fallible' Bond was laughable. I personally love Brosnan as an actor, but his tenure as Bond is by far the worst of the franchise overall, IMO. You get a sense that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton & Craig have actually read Fleming before, but I've never gotten that impression with Brosnan.
The only thing definitive about TWINE is its status as worst Bond film.
Pierce could have been a decent Bond but he was in dire films and I don't think any of his directors had the talent or perhaps respect for him as an actor, to bring out his best.
Tarrantino directing Brosnan in CR remains a tantalising "what if" scenario. Pierce definitely needs clear eyed and strong direction to bring out his best.
Correction. DAD is the worst Bond film. I think that is more recognised with the wider view. ;)
Either way, Brosnan's era having the undesirable status of 50% of his reign appearing in the worst ever Bond films summarises how bad he was as Bond, or at the very least, how bad his films were.
Which is a shame, because he's actually a much better actor than the franchise gave him credit for, yet he never got the chance to show it. I think even Brozza himself has voiced regrets now at the way his films fared, once he saw what could/should have been done with the character when Craig came on the scene.
Brozza tried to look more towards Moore and Connery as inspiration for the character, rather than Dalton or Fleming, and this is why he failed.
The World Is Not Enough is worse then Die Another Day as it attempted to bring back a more fallible Bond (according to P&W) and failed extremely. Die Another Day is undeniably a terrible film, but you never get the sense it was trying to be something it isn't. The sword fight between Bond and Graves alone is better then the entirety of TWINE.
Agreed that Brosnan is a great actor and that his era's shortcomings were not solely his fault, but as you've mentioned he attempted to emulate Connery and Moore rather then Fleming's original character. Brosnan definitely has voiced regrets regarding his films.
TWINE is the one Bond film I feel little joy during. After Bond leaves Scotland, it all just turns bland. I much prefer the more layered performance Brosnan gives in DAD.
The whole Bond-Elektra dynamic was like something out of a very special Young Bond novel. Bond is played in the film, plain and simple, as is M and that's not what I want out of James Bond. Connery's Bond would never have fallen for that. Renard is underdeveloped and underwhelming. It contains the least inspired action in the series and some of the least memorable characters.
And am I alone in thinking TWINE is the most colorless film of the series? Save for the skiing scenes, it seems it's always grey and overcast and the locations are far less interesting than the exotic ones we expect from a Bond film.
The film seems to be dominated by browns and blues. Gives the film a somber feel. It's why Electra's red dress is so striking (well apart from a couple of other obvious reasons).
I actually agree that TWINE is worse.
DAD is bonkers, cheesy and poor in many, many, ways, but one thing I can say for it, it's never boring. TWINE is, and that is the absolute cardinal sin for any Bond film.
At least the Location's where fairly good in TND, but I get what you mean.