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
Forget the 'bar', Bale set the 'bar' higher with his Batman trilogy, and I still like Keaton's two better... huh, funny, Keaton's TWO, like Dalton's TWO- creativity & art never last for long in the face of commercial success for the masses, eh?
But on to Brosnan:
He is the definitive shell of Bond, but doesn't bring a character along. We get the lines, which come from a script, we get the looks, which come from genetics, and we get the cockiness, which is about the only conscious thing Brosnan brings to his performances.
You could literally cut/paste any actor into Goldeneye as Bond, and it wouldn't play out any differently. TWINE isn't much different. But here Brosnan feels he has to be angry. But his anger comes off as sudden rage, and he reads his lines like he can't pronounce the words; "There's no point in living if you can't feel aliiiiiiiiiive"; "Isn't that your mah-to?"
Looking at his scripts, which in hindsight are rather poor compared to what has followed, it's obvious why they were a hit: ACTION. Impressive stunts and sets here and there, followed by thousands of machine gun rounds, a cheesy smile, and a finale of explosions. I've never heard a soul say 'Brosnan definitely carried this film" or "that film."
He got away with a big fat check (not big enough circa 2003 apparently) while giving a reading off the script to the camera.
Connery had charm, confidence (not to be confused with cockiness), and a cat like demeanor.
Lazenby was wooden, but is lucky enough to be in a spectacle of a film to blanket him.
Moore had humor and a natural screen presence.
Dalton had drama and emotion.
err..
Craig has drama, emotion, and confidence.
Brosnan has cockiness, pretty-boy looks, and a twinkle in his eye.
Objectively, all of his films are middle of the range in the Bond films. Enough to entertain, but nothing impressive.
Subjectively, while still middle of the range for me, Brosnan just didn't bring anything to the role to define a character. He's just the shell of cinema Bond, with no grasp of Fleming's, or any other, character.
Mileage varies- I find TWINE to be a good Bond flick, better than CR *OH, I'm in for it now!!!!*
Why? I'm not being rude, I'm just curious in the detail.
Honestly, Brosnan was the Bond I wanted to be as a kid, so how in the world can I not like his movies??
Bottom line, Dalton is the real Fleming Bond.
Not someone I'd want to be.
But, isn't that the point?
Well done!! Give this person a beer!!
That has to be the most definitive post I have seen on Brozza, which accurately portrays all his shortfalls as Bond, and sums it up far better than I have done why his performances never really worked.
:-bd
I'll have to take a rain check on that beer, for I'm not of drinking age here in the states. **==
And
I never said I don't enjoy Brosnan's films. I can sit through all of them and lose myself to the escapism of cinema very easily. I grew up with him too.
But you've just agreed right there in your post what the thread title asks, and what I argued.
Brosnan is not the definitive 'characterization' of 007. I don't think Brosnan wanted to be Fleming Bond either. I don't think he even wanted to try.
Dalton & Connery are the ultimate Bonds IMO.
I predicted SF could beat TB at the BO, and I'm also predicting SF may land a few Oscars too.
Craig is making history with his definitive cinema Bond, (which luckily also carries a lot of Fleming Bond too). He will be a very hard act to follow once he leaves. I think eventually you will find most people will look towards Craig as the definitive Bond.
Maybe not come 2014..
Should of been a teacher of history or something..
I was just being that guy who brings up a point with little correlation for no reason.
I'll digress.. :|
I think Chrisisall was just joking.
I fear you're missed the point entirely, Brosnan is unique within his performance. Your thoughts were very much my fears when Craig took over the role, that essentially Pierce was just a screensaver as we were all waiting for the reboot era to finally kick in. But what Brosnan brought to the role is clear to me after having watched his film's once more. He really injects a charisma into the role, his Bond has decidedly more swagger than any previous 007. Also I think Brosnan is an extremely affable bloke, and this shines in his performances especially when it comes to developing any on-screen chemistry with his leading ladies. The relationship with Natayla works because Brosnan works so well in crafting that chemistry between himself and Scorpuco. Furthermore in TND him and Yeoh work very well off each other and the pair seem very comfortable when together. Brosnan's chemistry with Marceau makes the movie work, think of that scene in the bed in TWINE and then juxtapose it with that underplayed moment in Electra’s room after the ski attack, there is an interplay there suggesting the pair are enjoying their time together. But this thread is about the TWINE in particular not Brosnan's entire run in the character. I feel he injected a decree of humanity and danger while playing Bond with all the charm and suavity which he has become associated with. There was an evolution to the character here in his hands which I feel has been underrated in the years that have passed.
Dalts set the bar a lot higher. That's exactly why people like me found Brozza such a let down.
Craig (although decent) is a poor man's Dalton IMO. Just like Brozza was the poor man's Rog.
One of the issues regarding Dalts is that despite the serious tone of TLD there is still a few holdover moments from Moore's era (sight gags, Q and MP and "ooohhh James"). At least with Craig the new tone is set straight away in the CR PTS.
Dalton is good but Craig is better.
Plus man eating lizards are even more ridiculous. I mean they don't even exist. I think George Lucas was advising on that sequence.
That was Komodo Lizard also called Komodo Dragon ... its natural habitat is Indonesia.
I meant the man-eating part.
As the dominant predators on the handful of islands they inhabit, they will eat almost anything, including carrion, deer, pigs, smaller dragons, and even large water buffalo and humans ! source : http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/komodo-dragon/
Oh Komodo dragons have been eating humans on their island since humans came to the island. They have been taking children quite recently and walk into the villages and go for people.
Their bite is highly poisonous. It can fell a buffalo. They are very quick as well. They might be the most dangerous creature Bond has faced after the Great white.
Yes, because seeing an impeccably suited man running along a train platform, during rush hour I might add and jumping on the back of a train, moments before it disappears into the tunnels of London's underground is a normal occurrence 8-|