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
I can find great things on his films, at least the 3 first ones. The thing is that at some moments they was just a mess! I think the main problem is that Brosnan was never able to find his own Bond. I always thought that he was a mix between Connery and Moore and for a while that amused me personally, until it started annoying me. When he tried to deliver the most dramatic lines it felt wrong, out of place. When watching a Bond film I often try to imagine the lines being delivered by the different actors and when it comes to some of Brosnan's most iconic lines I always get the feeling he got them the wrong way. I'm not saying he is a bad actor, he has done some very good performances over the years (El Matador and The Ghost Writer come to mind) but he is inconsistent!
The last film was one royal mess and shiver just thinking of it.
The scripts were not perfect but that doesn't justify everything, they were not that bad once you think about it (except the one that I shall not name)!
In global the films had no defined focus, they mixed up everything just like Brosnan did and that is what almost strangled the cat (borrowing one of my favourite lines).
1. Bond girls who could barely act and had no chemistry with Brosnan (except Sophie)
2. Weak disappointing villians
3. Great premises that were never fully realized
of course all of this goes directly to the subpar writing of Wade and Purvis. Can't fault these assholes, they got paid well for crappy work.
I love the way it's never Brosnan's fault. Very amusing. I guess you think they should have let him make a 5th just so he could really nail it?
Completely agree. Brozza is not without talent but he was tragically miscast as Bond. Perhaps a decent director could have got a better performance out of him, but he never really made the part feel his own. He suits playing a sleaze. Perhaps Bond is a sleaze, but it requires an actor with gravitas to make him likeable.
You know thats true.
When you think of the great chemistry of the Bond films with 007 and his leading lady..
Sean and Daniela, George and Diana, Roger and Maud, Tim and Maryam and Dan and Eve..
It didnt quite work with Brosnan except with Sophie. His chemistry with Wai Lin was non existant, Denise might as well have not been there and I think Bond and Jinx hated each other (its a while since I have seen GE so I cant comment on Natalya)
Sophie was the only one but she was in a different league to others.
You right Getafix. There was so much wrong with the Brosnan films that his crappy performances get lost in the hogwash.
That being said, of all the Bond actors he never "made the part his own". Even Lazenby's brought something to the role but Brosnan just kinda "hangs there" like a flea infested dog. George was not an experienced actor and he outshines Brosnan in his one film.
Brosnan does so much better in other films but not as James Bond, 007.
Brilliant! I love that line.
So true as well. He looks like such an non-entity as Bond - this pathetic character lurking around the screen, desperate for attention.
Half of you wishes someone would just wrap a blanket round him and give him a cuppasoup and a few kind words to cheer him up, like 'not far now Pierce, you're almost at the end - remember, it's the taking part that counts!'
And the other half of you wishes he'd just fall down a hole and disappear for ever.
He's no Brando but I think comment is bollocks personally.
He did have great chemistry with Natalya imo.
Anyway, I disagree with people on here who thought Brosnan was a bad Bond. I really liked his version of Bond, GE is one of my favourites and TND and TWINE aren't classics but I think they're decent enough (the less said about DAD the better).
I always light up at the line: "yes...basic rule...always call their bluff" before she playfully puts the pillow over his head and they kiss. In my book thats just really sweet.
Anyway, despite his shortcomings I LIKED BROSNAN AS BOND - a lot of people still do.
And lets face it...being Bond was the best thing that ever happened to him career wise.
Agreed. Although his best work lies outside of Bond.
I think a lot of it does tbh. Whoever said he had no comic timing obviously hasn't seen The Matador.
A lot of those films he probably wouldn't have made if he hadn't been Bond.
George seems more like a washed up has been.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFFrTwnWP0U?version=3&hl=en_GB"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lFFrTwnWP0U?version=3&hl=en_GB"; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
WORST JOR EL EVER
In many ways i think DC era stuffs been suffering in the third act, QoS just had one crappy pay off. Casino royal was like 4 mini bond films all joined together.
I'm not one who is going to defend Brozza to the grave with regards to his acting, as he did fall down in some scenes, but the guy channeled two of the more appealing aspects of Bond, that of Connery and Moore, and it worked for me. People have said that Craig has made the part his own, but that is more because Casino Royale had a much better script and was generally stronger than the last three of Brosnan's outings, and Quantum gave him so many scenes where he was able to do his "inner pysche" thing. To me, he's still Dalton/Lazenby upgraded. Not to say that he hasn't been great, as he has. He's been extremely good. But to have him weighed against Brosnan feels weird to me, as the films are totally different.
So again I ask, what exactly could Brosnan have done to make the role "his own"?
How come it's never Brosnan's fault? I don't understand how it's possible for 'everything else' to go wrong but somehow the main actor is totally blameless. This argument simply doesn't make sense. There are people who willingly acknowledge that his films were awful but that it somehow had nothing to do with Brosnan. It just doesn't make sense.
Even when he was given scenarios that offered the chance to expand his range (TWINE for example), he totally blew it.
Fair point @CraigMooreOHMSS. Connery Moore and Dalton were the three type of Bond's i.e. distinctly different. Is there a fourth type?
Well, IMO, Brosnan was completely different to all of them. I don't know how you'd define it, other than as cr*p acting.
I think Craig feels similar to Dalton, but without the latter's lightness of touch and humour (I don't mean one-liners and sight gags, but the evident enjoyment and playfulness he brought, particularly with TLD).
Good analysis on Craig/Dalton too! Craig would be uncomfortable in TLD/LTK because it has Bond moments/dialogue in it and like you say, TLD has the enjoyability factor in Dalton's performance
Totally disagree with that my friend. He'd eat that stuff up, why else would an actor take the role if he DIDN'T want to do it? He'll be more comfortable than a pig in s**t if EON gives him the traditional Bond script incorporating the normal Bond elements, he can do it and he's that good an actor. I'll predict here and now with full confidence and zero reservation that a lot of people who think he isn't Bond are gonna be eating some serious crow after watching Skyfall.
I agree with a lot of what my fellow original Doc Shatterhand said about Brosnan while we're at it. Ultimately, I think Pierce experimented too much with the character, Bond seemed to change from film to film and never settled into a portrayal I could identify with compared to the others except Lazenby, who blew his chance to do anything more than he did in his only outing.
He'd struggle to pull off films such as GF, YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, MR etc. imo
Possibly. Although I think Dalton would struggle even more if that would be the case. Both would be just as good in certain scenes, but there are certain scenes that would have been scripted differently to accommodate their skillset, and there are moments that neither would have wanted to do, especially Dalton. But that's a bygone era. The films have evolved and I think you could say the same about Connery and Moore if the roles were reversed.
Kidding of course, but with all this Bond vs Bond stuff, one had to put something different in the game.
All and all, I love GE, I like TND, I endure TWINE, and...well, that´s all isn´t it ;)
It's hard to say if it was the scripts or his own abilities that let Brosnan down. He is capable of good performances--Remington Steele, The Tailor of Panama--but he never quite got to that level with Bond.
Top five Bond films are always the same for me: FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, TLD and CR tied with GE. (see what I did there? ;) )Cheers