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
It’s understandable. We each have our favorites and least favorites. I think Brosnan was let down by poor scripts for at least half his era, yet somehow his first three films work for me. For me I think Goldeneye is a masterpiece of the series, in my top 5 favorites of the franchise. It has such a unique tone and atmosphere to it that really isn’t found in any other Bond film. I used to find TND incredibly generic, but it’s climbed its way up to my top 10. I think it’s a really fun film, with a brilliant premise, the idea that perhaps we can’t trust our news sources and that they have their own agenda I think speaks true even to this day, and that plays a huge part as to why that film has gone up with me. I’ve always been a defender of TWINE, I can understand people’s criticisms, but I can’t bring myself to agree with their overall assessment on the film, I think it’s great.
As for his acting, I have no issues with it at all. It’s easy for people to bring up specific examples of his acting and point too it as being “bad”, but the thing with that is when you look at all of the films with a fine tooth comb, each actor whose played Bond has those moments. I’ll go ahead and say it, I think Brosnan’s pain face is funny, and his groans are too, but it’s not as ridiculous as Connery dry humping a table in Thunderball because it’s used as a torture device, nor does it come close to Roger Moore looking as if he sucks the souls out of his leading ladies whenever he kisses them. Those kinds of examples are littered throughout each actors tenure.
I think the issue is that people like to think of James Bond as a modern day Heathcliff, which that image of Bond has certainly gone up in popularity thanks to Craig and the reappraisal of Dalton. That’s not an invalid take on the character, by all means it’s more in line with what Fleming wrote, but different strokes for different folks. I prefer a Bond who can be emotional, can be dark, but isn’t always in a state of anger or depression. That’s why I think Brosnan was great because he could do all of that, and I think he balanced all of the crucial elements of Bond perfectly. Lazenby never grew into the role, Moore went too far into the comedic aspects, Dalton was very brooding, Craig was very brooding at first, but over time his character was allowed to lighten up more as his films went on, which I quite liked. I’ve always said it, but I think Brosnan is the only actor besides Connery to successfully blend all of those elements together and make it work. Even then, Brosnan at least had great performances consistently throughout his tenure even if the films weren’t too great, whereas Connery just stopped caring after Thunderball, and it affects his final two entries because he’s either bored or out of shape. I’ll be honest and say that if it weren’t for Connery’s first 4 Bond Films, I’d have Brosnan as my overall favorite. But man, you just can’t top early Connery.
Saying that, Brosnan was the perfect casting for that time. It was because of his casting that the series successfully continued after the six year hiatus. For that I will forever be grateful and I understand how important he was and is to the history of EoN’s James Bond (I do love Dalton, but no matter what script came out for his third, I just can’t see audiences returning to 007 as they did for Brozz. No matter what: Brosnan put bums in seats)
Thank you @peter, I certainly could never do the same for anyone who prefers anyone else in the role over Brosnan. I suppose I’ve been very fortunate to have grown up with each actor during my formative years. Goldeneye was the very first Bond film I saw and it blew me away, and for that reason I’ll admit that a lot of my admiration for Brosnan is rooted in nostalgia, but then again a lot of my admiration for films like FRWL, and CR are also rooted in heavy nostalgia as well, because one of them was the film that really blew the doors wide open and had me instantly hooked, and the other was the very first Bond film I saw in theaters.
I’ll always lament the fact that Brosnan never really had an opportunity to go darker with his take and do a more Fleming inspired film for his final outing, but I also understand the position EON was in, and in hindsight, Brosnan leaving was probably for the best. Dalton not being able to do a third is another huge shame, or at least him not taking the role sooner. Seeing Dalton battling Christopher Walken on the Golden Gate Bridge would’ve been awesome.
Right?
In GE he feels too calculated, like Brosnan’s was so intimidated by his part that he tried to make his Bond too cool if that makes sense. It’s the same in TND, though he’s a bit looser. I just couldn’t connect with him as a kid the way I did with other film heroes I grew up watching like Reeve’s Superman, Keaton’s Batman, Indiana Jones, etc.
His performance is the worst in TWINE, but I put that all on the director because every actor is sort of hamming it up aside from Denise Richards (who I actually have no issue with).
With DAD, there’s a certain vitality in his performance that I realized was missing in his previous films. This time he’s no longer just trying to play it too cool but play it with no ****’s given. I dunno if that’s because of the script or direction, or just Brosnan having grown into a better actor in the 2000s than he was in the 80s/90s. Whatever the case, it WORKS. It would have perfectly suited a more grounded installment like FYEO. So it’s really too bad he left the part just when he was getting really good.
Jason would have been fantastic IMO.
And he looked too young to take on the role in 1987. It all worked out for the best....
Agreed. I'm not a fan of Dalton but he was also perfect for the late 80s, especially with the harder edge, gritty films that were prevalent
With Brosnan credit to the filmmakers to introduce concepts that would evolve further with the next Bond actor. And as rights to Fleming and Spectre came available over time. Timing can be everything on these things.
Y'know, there's a lot of truth in that, actually.
TWINE is a glaring example of the producers trying to take big risks but don't take them to the length they should to make them work. They tease things like Bond being injured, a woman as the villain and Bond's execution of her, a villain who can't feel pain and can supposedly push himself faster and longer and so on only to abandon them to accommodate the tropes the fans expect, so we get Denise Richards, comedy with the Zukovsky character, Bond miraculously recovering from injury with no apparent effects, Renard's unique characteristics and so on.
Craig's era at least took those chances. No, not always successful, but more often than not it didn't feel like giving in too much to fan service.
Well said.
I agree, and as you say it can be subjective. I do think there were some unforgivable errors of judgment in the Brosnan films with much of them being quite average, so overall not great. To me the invisible car and the wave ride were just not acceptable. Not to mention casting Madonna.
There was nonsense in previous Bond films too but they were somewhat believable and realistic enough/coherent with the tone of the film and at the time the film was made. Those Brosnan moments were completely inappropriate to me.
I still like Pierce very much.
You can see him trying and sometimes straining to do just that, but he was constantly let down by the scripts.
There was only one Connery, and one Moore. To copy their seeming effortlessness (and they were from a different generation) is a mistake.
That Said, I've only watched a couple of his films as I simply couldn't bear any more, so he may have improved (but I doubt it)
And that's what I've said for years about his take on Bond, if you take two actors who distinguished themselves in the role and played at the top of their game and blend that then you are still just a second-generation copy. Some people see that as a strength, but it only shines a light on him not being either of them.
No offense to Brosnan, but he's the only one of the actors who basically didn't do anything really original with the role. That's why I think people liked his version when he was current as he played to what people thought they wanted out of Bond, whereas I want something fresh that still echoes the character of Bond.
That's where I always found it interesting that some like Brosnan better than Craig in that he's dark and looks good in a tux, whereas Craig was considered inappropriate because he was a bit shorter, blond and didn't fit the idea of refined, although he was portraying the character as he evolved and was much more fascinating than one who did the expected.
Dalton is my personal favorite, but what did he do that was "new?" You might say he was the Bond that went on a mission of personal vengeance for the first time, but that's only because it was in the script. It wasn't necessarily intrinsic to his performance. I could say that Brosnan fell in love with a female villain and then killed her, fought a personal battle against a former ally of his, or endured a year's worth of imprisonment, but again, that's because that's what was written for him.
Dalton was certainly hard-edged compared to Moore, but that was basically a return to the style of Connery. The only two actors who drastically changed Bond's character, IMO, were Moore and Craig. Moore turned him into an international playboy and Craig turned him into a tragic, haunted figure. They made the role their own whereas Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan basically just played the character as-written and imbued it with their own quirks. At least that's how I view the issue.
I like this take, it’s incredibly easy to let ones perceptions of each actor inform how they view their performances as Bond. I get how some think Brosnan didn’t add anything new, but going by that king of logic, I could say the same of the other Bond’s. At face value, I love all the Bond actors, perhaps some more than others, but the idea of criticizing performances for not being “original” does not hold up at all when held to scrutiny.