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
Pierce is my favorite Bond. Though the older i get, the more i notice the flaws in his films especially when viewed in the context of a Bondathon.
But that only concerns his movies, not his portrayal. For me he is my ideal Bond, basically what Connery was to a previous Generation. And Goldeneye remains pitch perfect to me.
Wow! :O
What sorcery is this?
That, for me at least, is the essence of Bond. That debonair attitude. A slightly, but not excessively, cocky demeanor. Confidence that just oozes cool. It’s something that Brosnan delivered well. It was an era when the franchise had the audacity to do that over the top escapism, that if done by any other film series would be seen as parody, but they did it with a straight face. It was brilliant and I miss it.
DAD was easily his best performance. I wish we had gotten THAT Bond from him from the get go. I thought he was too stiff in GE.
Agree that Craig has lost something post QOS. Hope he rediscovers first gear for B25.
Had the directors taken a different approach with his movies, or Brosnan himself taken a different approach to the character (he plays tough far better in movies outside of Bond), then he may have been a great Bond.
As it is, for me it will always feel like a sadly missed opportunity. He looked the part, exactly how Fleming wrote him, yet never really acted how Fleming wrote him. Hammy, animated, over-emotional, trying that little bit too hard to look cool when the camera was on him. That was never Fleming Bond.
We caught occasional glimpses of what his Bond could look like throughout the 4 films, but it never really came to the surface, hidden away behind a slightly feminine velvety voice, rapid machine gun fire, ridiculous animated running, smarmy smiles and squints, theatrical yells and silly grimaces, badly done CGI effects, OTT villains that lacked any menace, and implausible storylines that strayed way too far from the Fleming books.
Yet this was a great pity, because watching Brosnan in Tailor of Panoma, or The Ghost Writer, and he could easily play characters with an inner menace, danger lurking within, someone to be feared. It's just that we never saw this when he played Bond - yet that is exactly how Brozza should have played him.
And just for balance Bazza, I'll add YES, he bloody well is!! Hehe
He's the worst. I once ran into him and asked him what was his favorite film. He punched me in the face, knocked me down, and proceeded to kick me on the ground.
Of course, the fact I kicked him in the groin when I asked that question might've upset him.
Then for his second film it comes out against Titanic. Bloody hell you might say? Nope it holds it's own and does extremely well against huge competition over the holiday season. This time he's saddled with a director of less pedigree then Campbell and a script that was revised on the fly. Public still loves him and clamors for him.
Third film and the producers try something different. A true main villainess for Bond. They play with the formula and go back to a more humanistic approach. Fans still clamour for it and it's another success.
Fourth film, the producers decide to go big and outlandish. As an actor you can get lost in such a production. However Pierce holds his own and delivers a great performance. The box office is smashed!
Okay all that is in terms of box office which is how, rightly or wrongly, success gets defined in Bond films. Pierce consistently delivered in all types of films he was starring in. Looking more creatively and into his performance as Bond. I'd say it was slightly uneven. GE was a great first film in terms of the Bond touches being back. Yet the whole thing was updated for the new generation. Pierce manages to do the role justice. He doesn't look totally comfortable but he rocks some of the scenes. Especially against Dench as a new M.
TND I think the script revisions hurt the whole film. By the stealth boat climax it's a shoot'em up movie and lacks what a Bond picture should be. However he shows depth at the passing of Paris. He and Hatcher have some great chemistry. The producers have an OTT villain and Pierce holds his own.
I appreciate what they were trying to do with TWINE. It was a direct reaction to TND and I think a sensible return to a more human portrayal of the character. This time his performance suffers as he has little chemistry with Richards. But the chemistry with Marceau is quite hot. I love the scene of him on the computer watching her video and he caresses the screen and you can see he's moved by her vulnerability. Wonderful stuff.
Finally the big production and hoopla for DAD! They advertised Jinx and Bond equally as Berry was coming off an Oscar win. Yet again he shines and delivers a wonderful performance. The walk through the Chinese hotel with PJ bottoms and scruffy beard. I don't think Craig could pull it off but Pierce owns it!
I like what Brosnan has left as his Bond legacy. I think he was admirable in the role and seemed to enjoy being Bond. I never heard any "slash my wrists" comments. To me he was very much like Moore in that he didn't fight what Bond did to him or his career he embraced it.
My respect and admiration has grown and I think he has a lot to be fondly remembered for.
=D> well said.
I never ever had the feeling that Brosnan was badly received or unsuccessful until i joined this forum after 2010.
But since it's always the usual suspects with Dalton avatars bashing him, i stopped caring.
I also very much agree with this.
They are generic in every way possible - even the titles. It's a part of the Bond history that I don't look back fondly on, like I do with the Dalton era, early Moore or the 60's Bonds.
110% agree. Its not that he wasn't capable but rather that as an actor he and his directors never hit the right note. Not sure what EON were playing at either. He's said as much himself in interviews.
Totally agree about TTOP and the Ghost Writer too. Love his performance in both films.
Only thing I'd question - like all the actors (apart from Craig?) wasn't he much better looking than Fleming described?