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
I will have to shave my crack first.
Personally I think Dalton looks fantastic at 72, but I'll admit to a streak of bias a mile wide.
(apologies for not posting on here for a while).
Good to have you back Bain !!
No, you're right. Dalton does look fantastic for his age.
I never thought Lazenby was a very attractive man to begin with, so I guess I can't comment on him too much. As much as I love Moore, he's the one that's probably aged the worst. Craig we'll have to wait and see.
Oh I know :( I wasn't meaning to speak ill of the dead or anything. However, out of all of them he was the one that didn't age the best.
Channel 9 in Sydney, Australia is currently running all Bond films and Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies have been aired with The World Is Not Enough playing tonight, which is my least favourite Bond film. I've noticed more then ever Brosnan mugging at the camera in an attempt to look cool and other nuances in his performance I find unnecessary and irritating. Goldeneye is #9 in my rankings but I find his performance to be the weakest attribute of the film. GE remains in my top 10 due to an element of nostalgia, but also because there are many characteristics that make it a strong entry in the Bond cannon, IMO. Eric Serra's truly unique score that completely embodies the Cold War tone of the film, Sean Bean's ruthless villain and being a true James Bond equal, Xenia Onatopp has to be a top femmale fatale in the series, Martin Campbell and the plot itself are all what makes this film worthy of being considered great, IMO. While I find Die Another Day to be Brosnan's best film, I think he's passable in this film as he's fair more restrained then what followed after. I'd argue it's his least self-assured performance, personally.
At the risk of being accused of Brosnan bashing, this is a good point in that a lot of Brosnan defenders portray him as a hybrid Bond with the main characteristics of his predecessors, but just reminds me they did it first and better.
On the plus side, his "Bond, James Bond" is always confident and assured, much better than Dalton or Craig. I also agree he got better as he went along, if we skip straight from TND to DAD. TWINE is painful all around. For what he had to do, it was a juggling act and I'm sure there was added pressure to DAD with all of the callbacks to previous films.
Another weakness to that era is the creation of characters with a Bond past such as Trevelyan, Zukovsky and Paris Carver. We've got a new Bond and we're supposed to just take it he and another 00 are not just co-workers but friends. It would've worked so much better with Dalton instead of Brosnan in this way, especially when retconning their mission together back in '86 pre-Dalton.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Although I liked the colder yet vulnerable side we saw in TWINE, which called back to how Fleming originally portrayed him.
Brosnan rejuvenated the franchise; sales went from stagnating to record numbers not achieved since Thunderball. He introduced a whole new generation to Bond. He re-established a charisma and sex appeal to Bond that the series hasn't seen in decades.
While there is a stark difference in tone between his movies and Craig, I don't think a Craig would exist without a Brosnan.
In all seriousness, I like Pierce as Bond and it's a shame he can't watch himself in the role
Nailed it mate, I think this as well
I have to disagree there. Brosnan handled the dark and serious moments of his films perfectly. In spite of the scripts he was given, he’s had plenty of scenes where he proved that he could’ve played that dark, Fleming type Bond wonderfully, but he wasn’t afforded that opportunity, so it is what it is.
Pierce's issue was two-fold:
1) He was unfortunate enough to be sandwiched between the two best actors (by some distance) to portray 007. Brosnan is an okay actor, but nothing more. He can't 'lift' average or poor material.
2) He LOVED the character too much. He was so emotionally invested in it, to get it right, to DO right by his heroes Sean and Roger, that it partially paralyzed his ability to approach the role objectively and prevented him from doing his OWN thing with 007.
It’s funny I touched upon something like this in the “Brosnan Era is more fun” thread just now, but I can respect your view on the matter, I just can’t say I agree with it. The comparisons to Dalton and Craig don’t make much sense considering the type of Bond Brosnan was going for. It makes much more sense to compare him to Connery/Moore than Dalton/Craig, and even then, when compared to Connery/Moore, Brosnan brings his own elements, personality, and gravitas to the role. Plus you bring up his supposed “lack of acting abilities”, for one thing, films like Thomas Crown Affair, Tailor of Panama, Fourth Protocol, The Matador, and November Man all prove those abilities were there within Pierce, so again, it’s not Brosnan’s fault he was given poor material to work with most of the time.
I’ve always felt Brosnan was the perfect fusion of the previous actors, but have also felt the elements he brings during his tenure. My hope is that with the Craig era behind us, the trend of being overly harsh on Brosnan ends because he really doesn’t deserve any of it.