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
Watch Broz in November man & tell me he couldn't have handled a Craig-like Bond.
And TLD is my third favourite Bond movie in any case.
*turning green, better stop now*
CR :x
SF :x
I didn't see The November Man. I planned to but then all those abysmal reviews came out and I decided I didn't feel like parting with $14.50 (NYC theater prices are pretty absurd) plus $5.00 for subway fare to watch an actor I don't particularly care for in a kind of role that he should've left behind ten years ago. I'll definitely check it out if it's on demand but I won't pay more than a few bucks to see it given all the bad things I've heard about the movie.
BTW nice The Incredible Hulk reference. I know I'm in the minority but I would've preferred Norton in The Avengers.
In Brosnan's defence I don't think he was allowed to. His Bond films were made using a winning formula that kept Bond relevant, popular and financially sound. Sure, he wasn't perfect and he excelled at the whole box-ticking, by the numbers strategy but with what's cone to light recently with Babs still in this day and age having to fight hard against MGM to keep the integrity of these movies; it makes you wonder what kind of crap the producers were facing during the Brosnan era.
I disagree. Both GE and TWINE provided Brosnan with several opportunities to break the mold. If you want a Bond who the producers kept rooted firmly within the formula that'd be Roger Moore.
From a directorial standpoint they were pretty generic. Aside from GE all of Brosnan's films felt like they were directed by 2nd unit. But then again the Bond films have always been very producer driven. Mendes has been a rare exception of a director being given more freedom to do what he wants.
Such a shame Saltzman sold his share to MGM. It was a pretty petty thing to do.
Saw November Man on the plane the other day. Not awful by any means, but also hardly a classic. I only watched it because Brosnan was in it and out of interest. I think Brosnan has definitely improved with age, but he is still not on the same level as Craig IMO, and never will be. November Man was serviceable, I'd say, but nothing more. Brosnan retains some of his annoying tics, such as the gurning and grunting and kissing and nuzzling female corprses.
So I think, while Pierce is not the best actor in the world, he's shown lately he does have some big strenghts, and I'm sure if EON had more confidence in those strenght and given them more importance, Brosnan could have been much better as Bond (but in his defense I really like him as Bond already). So I don't know who's to blame for his tenure. Sure he didn't write or directed his Bond movies, but as for his acting... I am tempted to put the blame on EON for not putting forward's Brosnan strenghts. They pretty much wrote a generic Bond with emotions, which doesn't work. I'm sure even a good actor would have been lost with the same scripts. 'So guys, am I supposed to play a generic Bond, or a complex Bond?'
He has done good work in a lot of roles, including the previously mentioned Ghost Writer, The Tailor of Panama, After the Sunset, Dante's Peak, & the little known Butterfly (also known as Shattered) with Gerard Butler, where he plays a grieving psycho very well. He was even great in the Noble House tv series from the 80's.
However, he has always been the weakest James Bond actor IMO. Roger Moore, who he is often compared to, was very comfortable in his skin in the role of Bond, because he was actually playing Roger Moore as Bond. However, when Moore actually chose to act as Bond, he did a phenomenal Fleminesque job (discussed on another active thread here). It's a pity he chose not to do it more often.
Brosnan was just uncomfortable demonstrating range as Bond. Whenever he was asked to go outside the generic, suave action robot man situation (epitomised in TND & GE) & required to provide some depth (whether it be anger, fear, emotional range) he fell very flat. In fact, he more than anyone demonstrated to me that the actor chosen for James Bond has to be an 'excellent' actor with range, particularly with the direction the producers have chosen to go in the past two decades. I think they themselves realized this, and that's why Babs insisted on Craig, despite his other shortcomings.
He was given ample opportunities to demonstrate range as Bond during TWINE, and he 'cocked it up' in my view. He was a little better in DAD, if still unbalanced, but that movie's failures sealed his fate as Bond. It was TWINE where his failings as Bond were most apparent, and most damning.
I saw November Man. As @Getaflix has said, it's serviceable. Nothing more. Brosnan doesn't do emotionally hurt very well, and that is again apparent here. I'd say that Liam Neeson is far superior in a similar capacity in Taken.
Brosnan is at his best playing either super cool suave or nasty (Tailor of Panama or Shattered/Butterfly). Not in between and certainly not complex 'emotional'.
Craig is a far more accomplished actor. The best part of CR in my view was just when they focused on his eyes when he sees Vesper in the shower. When I saw that scene, I knew EON had nailed it with Craig. This was further clarified in SF during the psychology test when the word 'Skyfall' is mentioned and you see his look. Craig can do more with his eyes (and likely his little finger, as boasted to Vesper in CR) than Brosnan could do with with all his strained facial contortions. Interestingly, so could Moore, when he chose to do so (see the end of TSWLM when he thinks he's going to be shot by Anya in the submersible).
-the suave spy
-the caring family man.
I enjoy him too as a star but as an "actor" he's very hit and miss to me. I didnt find him very convincing in Butterfly as I thought he overplayed the anger (a pattern I've noticed with him) BUT I liked him a lot more in Love is All You Need as that seemed to play to his "troubled father figure" strength.
At least I think that's how the scene played out. ;)
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of Brosnan hate, I will fear no denigration: for Pierce art with me; his Bond and non-Bond films they comfort me.
;;)
There's no hate here. None whatsoever. Just thoughtful but opinionated discussion of the pros and cons. I don't believe in hate. Bad for the soul.
If you like him that's fine.
All Bond actors have their pros and cons.
and PS: Next time don't selectively quote to denigrate. It removes context and is insulting.
Sorry.
Anyway, it was not my intention to turn this thread into a Brosnan critique. That wasn't my intention but I could not help myself. I can appreciate how my critical assessments may be jarring to fans of his.
Moving on.....
Totally agree with everything you have said. Makes me laugh that Dalts is always described as RADA trained when actually he dropped out and Rog also went there and actually finished.
Pierce has strengths as an actor but is often miscast.
I think part of the problem was, that Brosnan really never was that demanding. Pierce Brosnan always seemed quite happy about the screenplay. He could have fought a bit harder for more emotionally complex screenplays. He didn't really.
Especially when I heard him talk during press conferences, I always thought he's just sitting there to enjoy the stuff he's doing. His answers always felt kinda flat, were usually quite "blablabla", and also felt a bit fake.
Daniel Craig is very different IMO. During press conferences he IS actually very down-to-earth, whereas Brosnan always seemed that he was acting being down-to-earth. Craig has a lot more contents in his answers during press conferences.
Ooowh, and let us not forget that Daniel Craig IS really a huge creative force behind the Bond films now. He's basically an uncredited co-executive consultant on many aspects. He helped with the actual screenplay's, he suggested directors to Babs and Michael. The list is endless really. Brosnan never did that. Brosnan was IMO always way too soon demanding about his paycheck, whereas Craig seems more natural, and really REALLY loves investing in the franchise from a creative point of view.
Also, don't forget, Daniel, Michael and Barbara get along very well, are also big friends.
@Gustav_Graves, I know you're avoiding some of the spoiler threads, but if you hear some of the latest points of view, I think you may be upset. Some are speculating that Craig may not be with Bond for long based on the SPECTRE leaks.....
I would have liked you NOT to say that @bondjames [-( . I'm pretty sure they drag him to stay for a 5th or even a 6th. I don't want him to go.
Sorry @Gustav_Graves, I said it in the context of your comments regarding Craig's large involvement in the films during his tenure, including his impact on choice of directors etc. It's just speculation based on plot leaks. By no means is it verified.
At the end of the day, money talks, and if SP is considered a big enough success the execs will get Craig and Mendes back again, even if it means we have to wait 5 yrs this time. In a way, Mendes has been a problem for Bond, because when they got him, they became to some extent dependant on him, as evidenced by the long 3 yr wait this time.
@BAIN123, it's more about Craig wanting to stay rather than being let go. He has a lot of options, & I'm sure at some point he'll be thinking about his legacy, and a possible Oscar.
I like that! "I know you try to avoid spoilers... so here's a spoiler right for you"! >:)