›

Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1…4647495152…60

Comments

  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    I always feel sorry for Brosnan... he was or is such a Bond fan.

    True he defined his own destiny in many regards. Can't blame everything on the directors and writers.

    But still I wish history was playing better in PB's favor.
  • mepal1mepal1
    edited November 2015 Posts: 1,098
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    We all joke about PB, but its not meant to be nasty.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I joke about PB too, and I don't intend to be nasty either, but I really think they did give him some opportunity to show his acting chops....particularly in TWINE. I was certainly not impressed (far from it actually) in this instance, although I'm sure others may have been.

    So it's not all down to scripts, although they were pretty poor during his tenure.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    mepal1 wrote: »
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    We all joke about PB, but its not meant to be nasty.

    Oh I know. Brosnan himself admits he never nailed the part.

    I mean I don't really feel sorry for him ..it's not like he's struggling paycheck to paycheck.
  • GHettoblasterGHettoblaster New York, USA
    Posts: 15
    Hard to give him fair judgement. Three out of his four scripts were just plain bad. The franchise just became hard to take seriously after GoldenEye. Pierce is a team player though and I respect his tenure in the role because of that.
  • CowleyCowley
    Posts: 486
    I'd take the script of TND over the OTT dialogue of GE any day.

    I do regularly bash Brosnan but in truth he wasn't a bad Bond. He was just a style of Bond I didn't want at the time after Dalton and wouldn't want to see again.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'd take the script of TND over the OTT dialogue of GE any day.

    I do regularly bash Brosnan but in truth he wasn't a bad Bond. He was just a style of Bond I didn't want at the time after Dalton and wouldn't want to see again.

    TND was gold. I feel badly for those that can have no fun with it... :))
  • mepal1mepal1
    Posts: 1,098
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'd take the script of TND over the OTT dialogue of GE any day.

    I do regularly bash Brosnan but in truth he wasn't a bad Bond. He was just a style of Bond I didn't want at the time after Dalton and wouldn't want to see again.

    TND was gold. I feel badly for those that can have no fun with it... :))

    Initially i wasn't too impressed with TND, but i have since really enjoyed the film with later viewings.

    I look at TND this way.........its not a great Bond film, with action in it.

    ................ but its a great action film, starring Bond.

    If anyone understands what i just wrote, please reply back and explain to me what i mean, coz i'am not sure! :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    mepal1 wrote: »
    ................ but its a great action film, starring Bond.
    I agree with this. It did what it set out to do very well. I don't rank it very highly for the reason that I don't think it's a great Bond film, but if you ask me to rank Bond films in order of pure fun or action spectacle done well, TND will be near the top.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    mepal1 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Cowley wrote: »
    I'd take the script of TND over the OTT dialogue of GE any day.

    I do regularly bash Brosnan but in truth he wasn't a bad Bond. He was just a style of Bond I didn't want at the time after Dalton and wouldn't want to see again.

    TND was gold. I feel badly for those that can have no fun with it... :))

    Initially i wasn't too impressed with TND, but i have since really enjoyed the film with later viewings.

    I look at TND this way.........its not a great Bond film, with action in it.

    ................ but its a great action film, starring Bond.

    If anyone understands what i just wrote, please reply back and explain to me what i mean, coz i'am not sure! :)

    Yeah I was really surprised by how much I enjoyed TND when I did a Blu-Ray Bondathon, I always considered it to be Brosnan's 3rd best and then re-evaluated it to be his second. It still has problems, the 2nd half is just action - which I also enjoyed with it being a rewatch actually - just letting it all just happen without thinking about it too much. It also seemed very contemporary still with all the phone hackings - i,e, the Murdoch empire.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Brosnan's decline had much more to do with the material than with the man himself. He has proved in his post-Bond career that he can play a heavier, darker spy. Had that been the direction that EON had chosen to go in with Brosnan, at some point between '96 and '03, we probably gotten some great Bond films out of the guy. Another missed opportunity.

    Yeah I agree, I don't think that PB is the best actor in the world, but they could have given him better material. The problem with the PB films for me, sans GoldenEye, is they're so generic and samey. The PTS especially became very uninventive and just went for the same style of action sequence.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    The new team (Babs/Michael) were figuring out how to make Bond films that appealed to the US market. Generic action fare was what they thought that market wanted and Brosnan fit in with that template. Dalton's relatively 'intelligent' spy didn't catch on even when filmed in US locations, and they were burnt/hurt.

    Bourne showed them that the US market could accept slightly more intelligent spy genre fare (even filmed predominantly in Europe), and things changed rather rapidly from there on.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    mepal1 wrote: »
    I look at TND this way.........its not a great Bond film, with action in it.

    ................ but its a great action film, starring Bond.

    If anyone understands what i just wrote, please reply back and explain to me what i mean, coz i'am not sure! :)
    You summed it up well.
    It's Bond in amazing action!
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,362
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Murdock wrote: »
    Answer to the thread title has been given. I believe this is the extended version as well. Case closed.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,362
    Brosnan is the Best Bond. Triple B!
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,991
    Brosnan saved/resurrected the franchise from its 6 year death bed. IMO no one could have done it but him
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,991
    mepal1 wrote: »
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    Hey every he film made more money then any other Bond film ever made. Brosnan pretty much went out on top.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,835
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    Hey every he film made more money then any other Bond film ever made. Brosnan pretty much went out on top.
    And his next film featured Salma Hayek (a sure-fire Bond girl if there ever was one)! He's da MAN!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,222
    I'm a Dalton fan, but I never thought of Brosnan as a bad Bond. In fact, I think he suited the job just fine.

    In GE and TND, he looks very comfortable in the role and most one-liners are actually rather good. However, TWINE and especially DAD gave him some poor dialogue and terrible co-stars in Denise Richards and Halle Berry.

    Nevertheless, there is a quality I really like about Pierce Brosnan. He knows how to wear a suit, he knows how to move and how to walk. If anything, Brosnan was an elegant Bond. Something which I think the current Bond is not. While Pierce looks comfortable wearing a suit, Daniel looks comfortable wearing a t-shirt.

    So if you ask me, Brosnan was quite good. He just had bad luck to be stuck with poor writing in his final two outings and that happened to be half of his tenure.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I'm a Dalton fan, but I never thought of Brosnan as a bad Bond. In fact, I think he suited the job just fine.

    In GE and TND, he looks very comfortable in the role and most one-liners are actually rather good. However, TWINE and especially DAD gave him some poor dialogue and terrible co-stars in Denise Richards and Halle Berry.

    Nevertheless, there is a quality I really like about Pierce Brosnan. He knows how to wear a suit, he knows how to move and how to walk. If anything, Brosnan was an elegant Bond. Something which I think the current Bond is not. While Pierce looks comfortable wearing a suit, Daniel looks comfortable wearing a t-shirt.

    So if you ask me, Brosnan was quite good. He just had bad luck to be stuck with poor writing in his final two outings and that happened to be half of his tenure.

    I completely agree with this.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Brosnan was a fine Bond. Every few months I revisit this or other threads just to state my view. I like Brosnan's Bond a lot. I especially love his Bond in TND; superb. GE and TND are both excellent, worthy, memorable Bond films. TWINE for me is a mixed bad, and DAD - after a very good first 45 minutes or so - stumbled badly; though I still enjoyed Pierce's portrayal throughout that one, too. I always enjoy Pierce Brosnan as Bond.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    Pierce was very very popular at the time he made his films in the late Nineties. He never did anything for me and as years have gone by his popularity seems to be fading. In all he is the most polarizing of the six Bonds. Moore's portrayal has been hotly debated but he does not seem to have the polarizing effect that Brozza has managed to leave on the world of Bond.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    OHMSS69 wrote: »
    Pierce was very very popular at the time he made his films in the late Nineties. He never did anything for me and as years have gone by his popularity seems to be fading. In all he is the most polarizing of the six Bonds. Moore's portrayal has been hotly debated but he does not seem to have the polarizing effect that Brozza has managed to leave on the world of Bond.

    I thinks it's because even those who are not huge Roger fans acknowledge that he did what he did very well. He also had a unique and distinctive take. Regardless of whether you like him, you can see that he had a fairly consostent approach. When he talks about Bond he also usually has something interesting/perceptive to say.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    chrisisall wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    Hey every he film made more money then any other Bond film ever made. Brosnan pretty much went out on top.
    And his next film featured Salma Hayek (a sure-fire Bond girl if there ever was one)! He's da MAN!

    ???? I'm confused? When did she feature?
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    suavejmf wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    Hey every he film made more money then any other Bond film ever made. Brosnan pretty much went out on top.
    And his next film featured Salma Hayek (a sure-fire Bond girl if there ever was one)! He's da MAN!

    ???? I'm confused? When did she feature?

    I assume they mean his first film after DAD? Not sure what that was, or whether it featured Salma Hayek. Matador?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Ah right. Hardly relevant to a strong tenure as Bond then.
  • JNOJNO Finland
    Posts: 137
    I don´t think Pierce himself was THAT bad. He had the looks and he could play that Connery/Moore-blend quite good.

    His films were the main problem. Given a truly good script I think he would´ve "made it."

    Now he´s just the poor man playing Bond in a cable-TV action films which had 007 as a leading character. That´s why he is my number 6.

    But don´t get me wrong! I like GE and TWINE. Those are good average Bond films.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    Getafix wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mepal1 wrote: »
    During his era, everyone seemed to enjoy the Pierce Brosnan Bond films.............it was just sad for him, that each subsequent film, declined plot and script wise, and that the writers never really gave anything challenging, acting wise for him to do, during his reign as Bond.

    Hey every he film made more money then any other Bond film ever made. Brosnan pretty much went out on top.
    And his next film featured Salma Hayek (a sure-fire Bond girl if there ever was one)! He's da MAN!

    ???? I'm confused? When did she feature?

    I assume they mean his first film after DAD? Not sure what that was, or whether it featured Salma Hayek. Matador?

    It was called After the Sunset and released in 2004.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited December 2015 Posts: 2,138
    No he could have really built on Goldeneye, but I often felt his films would always be up against it because Mike Myers Austin powers movies were out at the same time mocking everything Bond, and those films were super popular with the youth, I think this also led to a generation of Bond fans lost, because it was cooler to watch Mike Myers take the Mickey out of the Bond world. The films rest of Brosnan's films became silly and they tried to be overly futuristic to draw in the youth but it did not work. I think had Pearce gotten to do CR after Goldeneye he would have been very good and probably more respected, or CR before Goldeneye as that would make more sense story wise.

Sign In or Register to comment.