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
He's sure as hell convincing to me. That beach scene in Goldeneye, the scene in the hotel in TND, the other scene in TND where he finds Paris Carver dead, or where he had to shoot Elektra King point blank. Let's also not forget how bruised and beat up the man was at the beginning of Die Another Day too, he pulled that off pretty well. Brosnan handles those 'dramatic' scenes very well I'd say. It's ridiculous to say the man doesn't have what it's takes to 'act and bring the character to life.'
Lazy, mate.
At the time of DAD the attempt was to push Bond into new territory; there was a heavy focus on the battered and bruised Bond, post-credits, that we hadn't seen before. The problems beyond that are numerous and well documented and the execution slovenly, but their intentions weren't to make a CGI fantasy. They were trapped in a trajectory of expectation and DAD was caught slap bang in the middle of wants and needs. That's why they needed the clean break for CR.
This is just more lazy Broz digging.
+1
I agree that overall EON played it fairly safe. But TWINE was clearly an attempt to add a bit more dramatic weight and I'd argue Brosnan just makes those scenes rather dull and/or embarassing
That's 100% your opinion. Brosnan is good with what he was given, and he just wasn't given good material. That doesn't mean he's a bad actor by any means.
I get what you're saying but he obviously did resonate with at least some of that wider demographic. I talked with many older people who liked him.
I'm not saying Brosnan in incapable of a good performance. I've seen him in stuff where I think he's decent.
I really do think EON didn't see his real potential. Someone above gave quite a good analysis saying he was a character actor trapped in a leading man's body. It's quite an interesting take.
It definitley feels like he coasted on his looks a lot and never gave much thought to 'who' his Bond was.
Even Rog had a 'take' on the character and was able to articulate - wittily of course- who he felt Bond was.
Rog saw Bond as essentially absurd but realised you needed to maintain an element of seriousness/believability
Nothing more embarrassing than your attempts to slam him 6+ years and still going on fumes.
It's more than just his opinion - Brosnan himself said as much. If you read the article, it's Brosnan's contention that his era was "tame" and "surface." Many on here agree in those specific terms.
Exactly. People are going to disagree about this sort of thing. I have no problems with any of the actors l, in fact I love all their performances. Maybe I'm just optimistic about it all.
Yes his era was tame and surface. But once again, that's not his fault. He did what he was given and weather people liked it is down to them.
+2
DAD is still one of the worst in the series but from a certain perspective, it wasn't really going to be a good few years for Bond with certain realities and the emergence of other franchises.
There's no question that they blew it with the execution but I definitely think that it's very easy to be harsh on the team through eyes that know what we know now. At the time, not so much.
I have already look at that thread, today, and I disagree. E
I would agree with him but then I think of the fire engine chase in AVTAK.
+2
Those scenes were what immediately came to mind. I felt the emotion he was feeling. Unfortunately TND was quickly followed up by a bit of humor with the assassin. GE handled it well though. It was followed up by a sex scene which only added to the drama leading up to it.
Exactly, I always bring up those scenes whenever I see somebody bashing on Brosnan's acting chops. Even in his non Bond films, he's a very good actor. For people to say he's somewhat a hack is ridiculous. I will fight the corner for Brosnan to the death if I have too.
And I say that as someone who likes him.
The TND liquor scene was the first time I felt uncomfortable with him as Bond. This continued and became more emphasized in TWINE. Thankfully, he restored my faith in him with DAD where he played a tougher Bond.
I've thought more about this, and for me there is something a bit metro about Brosnan. He lacks toughness in my eyes. So when he turns on the drama, it accentuates this feature to me, to his detriment.
Light weight actor yes, I can agree with you on that. But I just don't get the notion that people perceive him as a hack.
I remember my uncle telling me at some point in the late 90s that Brosnan is more of a pool lifeguard than a 007.
After years of avoiding his films, I look forward to soon revisiting Brosnan's stuff. I've never been a huge fan, but as with Moore, that's no reflection on the men themselves. I would love to sit and chat each other's ears off during a dinner, as I think they're stand up men and it makes me very proud that people with their character and outlooks on life are a part of the Bond franchise. They give a good reputation to what we discuss here.
Though some of my impressions may no doubt change, I've always felt GE was far and away Brosnan's best film and performance. The script gave something deeper and slightly dustier for him to grab on to as Bond faces a past enemy who knows him backwards and forwards. I think he was able to play the danger element well, and one of my favorite moments in the series is his, "For me" moment. It had the action and fun, but also had times where Bond was shown to have an inner life and dimensionality. In short, GE felt like Dalton was carrying over into Brosnan's intro the same way Moore carried into Dalton's.
I think the big issue many feel with Brosnan's era afterward, myself included, is that it fails to live up to the visible promise in GE. In TND, TWINE and DAD there felt like there was a distinct lack of emphasis on the things GE did so well, including fully formed characters (especially villains!), great atmosphere and mood (the dam and that gravesite!) and a vision of Bond that could be entertaining, but also deadly and complicated with an inner life we were promised to see more of. The post-GE films can certainly have their supporters and I'm sure they can be a nice thing to turn your brain off to and enjoy at any day you'd need them in true popcorn flick fashion, but there is an apparent lack of the artistry, depth and dedication to a vision we saw in GE.
It's hard to describe where I stand on Brosnan. He certainly got no help from some of the writing, as the wacky moments really lost any sense of Bond within its tone. When 007 is surfing off glacial masses there's not really an opportunity to stop and show him reacting with depth to it all. So these very loud scripts, much like YOLT did for Sean, really gave the lead very little to add when they weren't disappearing under the noise, and at bare minimum they could only do a lot of surface stuff that felt hollow because it wasn't grounded in any feeling of genuine character. When Brosnan had moments to give something, I think he didn't do as well as many would hope. The scene with Elektra comes to mind, where his facial expressions and body language just feel all wrong. Further, his handling of the action was also less than stellar, with the constant spamming of those faces we are now so familiar with alongside a lack of genuine athletic energy, much like Dalton in some ways.
So right now, Brosnan for me was a man who started off with promise, and through some fault of his own and a lot of fault to the vision that didn't really care to do what he wanted Bond to be, we have a very conflicted and strange era that goes from a high all the way to the biggest low ever in the franchise. He certainly didn't deserve any of it, but that's how I see it at the moment.
I agree. Although I don't feel that GE was an improvement on TLD and License to Kill, in terms of quality of script. Production values were the only notable improvement.
Your uncle obviously didn't know that a former lifeguard became the original definitive 007 ;)
HA! That's funny, I didn't even think of that.
I can see why these scenes are divisive but I also think they work as a good counterpoint to those who think Brosnan didn't bring anything new to the role. There was definitely an emotional wounded side to him that he doesn't get enough credit for imo. I actually like that about his Bond. He wasn't a cold blooded killer, his kills were angry, emotional, passionate. That's the character actor in him coming out I think. Having said that I don't think that took away from his toughness, he was definitely less of a mans man but he never seemed out of place in the action scenes or the harder edged moments to me. In GE especially I really bought into him as an action hero, maybe moreso than any other Bond.