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
Dan has always expressed his gratitude for Pierces advice on taking on Bond they dined a few time. I have never seen anything to suggest Dan's doubt for him.
All has been covered Poor stories, storyline and the classy aspect was replaced by what over the top stunt can we have? what rediculous thing can we make this car do? what big names can we bring in?. Too much emphasis was put on action. Pierce is a good actor he showed this in post bond work, bag of bones, Novemner man etc. he has been a great supporter of the current franchise despite the initial disappointment of being dropped by Babs. A true gent.
I didn't mind the fish being dropping out of Moore's car either.
To answer the question posed by the thread: Yes, he was bad - in comparison to the other Bonds imo.
Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot about me being a Brosnan 'hater' - let me say this: No one was a bigger advocate for the man to become Bond before he actually became Bond than I. I grew up during the Moore era. Roger Moore was Bond to me. As I matured, I came to appreciate Connery to the point where I fully understand now why he is number one. However, that was not the case yet in 1986. At the time Brosnan missed out to Dalton I was terribly disappointed, because I wanted a suave (i.e. like Moore) replacement to take over from Moore, and to me, Dalton, while quite refined in TLD, was not quite what I imagined Brosnan could be as Bond. When EON took that complete surprise 360 degree turn with LTK and gave us a hard edged Bond, teenage me couldn't take it. I hated the movie in 1989 (although now it's one of my favourites).
So when Brozza eventually got the nod for GE I was thrilled,....... and GE did thrill me. It remains one of my favourite cinematic experiences. The movie was a return to form (for me at the the time) because it brought back the traditional elements that I liked about Bond. It was not so violent, it had a good looking independant main Euro girl in Natalya (I did not like LTK's somewhat whiney Carey Lowell at the time), it had great lines, it had some eccentricity to it (Onatopp), it had an expensive looking finale, and the director really captured the cooler moments that I have associated with Bond since childhood. So I loved GE, and still do.
However, even in 1995, I noticed something was off. I realized that much of what I liked about the film was it was 'cool'. However Bond (as played by Brosnan) appeared somewhat wooden in it (although very smart and cool in a suit which was a welcome return after Dalton's rather shabby turn in LTK). I felt, even at the time, that the supporting cast had the best lines and that the supporting cast were very confident, charismatic, mature and carried the film. Brosnan's Bond just existed in the film to me, but seemed insecure. In 1995, that was good enough for me, after the somewhat unique LTK. Brosnan would increase in confidence in later movies, I assumed.
It is TND that I began to question whether my initial allegiance to him as Bond was misplaced. He was very confident in this one. While he still looked extremely handsome and Bond-like, I noticed that he was bringing more of his take on Bond to the character - and it is exactly this part that I did not like. The scene that stands out for me is his waiting in the hotel room for Paris, and the conversation between them when she arrives. "You've made your bed". There was an emotionality about his Bond at this point that I found a very troubling, despite the context of the scene. I actually found him weak at that point. I felt the same way during the GE beach scene (another scene that I was uncomfortable with). Not a paid assassin for Her Majesty's Govt, but rather a whiney schoolchild. However, I wrote this off because the rest of the movie was an old-school Bond the likes of which I had not seen since MR, and I really enjoyed the movie. The jury was still out for me as far as Brozza was concerned. He seemed much more confident, but there was this weepy layer seeping in that I didn't appreciate.
It is in TWINE that I just lost respect for him in the role and wanted him gone. I realized that he was now truly bringing his take on the character, and I did not like what I saw - not one bit. He was very confident, no doubt. The issue was that his favoured interpretation seemed to be to portray a sentimental, mushy Bond - a somewhat effeminate one. That was not ok with me. When watching TWINE, on many an occasion I felt that I (a normal guy living a somewhat normal life) would have acted in a 'harder' way and reacted in a more manly fashion than the supposed experienced British agent I saw on screen. So his soap opery emo-Bond was not on for me and he had to go after this. What was only a small scene in a hotel in TND & on the beach in GE had become a whole bloody movie in TWINE. I was embarrassed beyond words.
Then DAD came along and I noticed another 360 degree turn in Brosnan. He was now just as confident as he was in TWINE, but the sentimentality appeared to have completely gone (maybe he was given a talking to by the producers - who knows). He now seemed to be channeling Connery (particularly in the Jinx intro scene) - he was more alpha manly here than I'd ever seen him as Bond. The trouble was the movie was a piece of 's'.
So at the end of the day I don't buy the argument that it was the producer's fault. Sure some of the movies were junk, but every actor who's done more than two gets at least one questionable film. No, in this case, it is Brosnan the actor, who was unable to create a consistent portrayal for me despite 4 films. The only distinct element that he seemed to bring was something that appeared to have been shot down by DAD thank goodness. That is emo-Bond.
I continue to enjoy him in his other films, but I do not think retrospectively he was suitable for Bond, despite looking the part. He was never comfortable in his skin in this role, and his changing characterizations during his tenure reflected that. The element that was most assuredly his was the one element that I personally could not stand. That was his overt sentimentality. When I saw Daniel Craig confront Dryden in CR, I knew manly Bond was back.
But then most spies don't particularly carry such an aura. They simply blend in. The fact Bond doesn't adhere to a strict reality allows many interpretations. That said, I can think of several occasions where Brosnan's Bond dispatched enemies with ruthlessness.
`He knew all about shoulder, exactly where to hurt me....'
Jesus, I cringe now just thinking about it.
When Craig gets into a fight, you really believe it. When Brozza gets into a fight, it all seems very staged, with not a hair out of place.
It's not really fair to compare Brosnan and Craig because they are different. It's like comparing Moore and Dalton.
I'm only comparing him to Craig because I recently watched his 3 movies again, and that is when you notice the difference. I also thought Moore was weak compared to Dalton.
Really? I found the stairwell fight fairly ugly, and the apartment fight in QoS fairly ugly too.
As for being called `young man'. I'll take that as a compliment, seeing as I'm probably twice your age......
;)
;)
In the words of Connery in GF; `That makes 2 of us.....' ;)
I mean, Craig's fight in the Komodo cave in SF is terrible imo, yet it's the same Craig who got brutal with Obanno and Slate in CR & QoS respectively.
However, if you're asking whether Craig delivers more machismo on screen - that's a different question, and I personally think he does, hands down. There is absolutely no Ryan Seacrest/David Beckham metro blood in Craig at all.
For family entertainment.
Yes, I'm worried we will see more of the same in SP. Mendes appeared to make a conscious effort to dial down the brutality of the violence in SF. However, given Oliver Schneider of Fast and the Furious fame is choreographing SP, some say we have nothing to worry about. It likely won't be as violent (i.e. no blood) as CR/QoS but may be more visceral than SF hopefully.
That's good to hear. I hate feeling I'm surrounded by young kids on here, as it makes me feel old.
If they hold back on the blood in SP, then the fight scenes will be more of the same that we saw in SF, and looks like we are slowly returning to the more family feel of the Brosnan films.
I seriously hope not. If this is the case, I'd rather we had Campbell returning, or even Forster for that matter. Mendes take on Bond may be a bit too nice for my liking, and which may not become really evident until we see SP.
And personally, I LIKE it that way...encroach away, you youngsters! Come check out my lawn....
:-B
Thanks for the heads up. I've just posted in there....
Seconded.
;)
Wow. There are people on here who don't like Laz as Bond. Incredible in this day and age. Like a throw back to the late 60s.