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
Agreed with this as well. There's plenty of performances out there from him which could be held up as examples of things he could have done. I also very strongly dispute the notion that he fundamentally not a good actor. He plays certain types extremely well and tends to stick within those ranges, for sure - but most actors do once they know their strengths. Brosnan's filmography is littered with wonderful turns, many of which slipped under the radar.
I would concede that maybe the kind of actor that he was an ill-fit for what EON were trying to do (or figure out) with regards the character in the 90s. There are a lot of moments where Brosnan seems to be fighting to keep the character anchored against the litany of pyrotechnics, and that work is sometimes undone by the inclusion of "Moore-isms".
That’s the issue isn’t it? All of the criticism is unfortunately thrusted upon Brosnan when the producers, screenwriters, and directors of his era had very little idea how to follow up the success of Goldeneye. To give credit where it’s due, the mistakes of the Brosnan era are what allowed them to revamp, and reevaluate their mistakes for the Craig era, even if the quality of some of Craig’s films vary. In other words, Brosnan’s era was a lesson for EON, and despite his unceremonious dismissal, it’s not like Barbara and Michael had any issue with Pierce as Bond. They knew he was wonderful and excellent in the role, the true issue comes down to the different portrayals of Bond we’ve seen, and the desire that we as fans have to sometimes pit them against each other.
This here.
A problem I have with him in GE is his performance feels TOO calculated that he comes off stiff. He doesn’t feel natural.
This is why I loved him in DAD because I think that’s when he stopped concerning himself with that, and tried to bring his own sensibility to the role. There’s a certain energy to him in that film that I always felt was missing in earlier films. If we got THAT Brosnan performance in GE, it would raise the film up in my estimation.
I enjoyed Brosnan in role. He really brought the fun and excitement of being Bond, something we haven't seen in a ridiculously long time. However, Brosnan's portrayal was unique in the sense that he's the only actor that epitomised generic Bond.
I really think his weakest turn is TWINE. the supposedly “proper” acting bits like the look over his shoulder in the office in Bilbao, the long emotional pause in the conversation in the castle with M are just terrible. He looks like he can’t think of anything to say some of the time. But I put that down to direction. He’s very soft spoken as well which doesn’t help.
That said he always comes across as an absolutely diamond bloke, which really is more important.
One thing that has improved since the 90s is the creative talent in front and behind the lens.
Ouch, harsh indeed :) But not completely unreasonable.
It is a common phenomenon that we humans tend to overvalue the work of extremely good looking people. Their mere appearance triggers the release of dopamine in our pre frontal cortex. Hence, we literally feel good when looking at people like Pierce.
Brosnan was never a true 'actor' in the sense of the word, and those that defend him have every right to do so, but they are doing so out of love for his charisma, and the charm he brought to the character he portrayed.
This will inevitably sound snobbish but no one who has a basic understanding of stage or screen acting can honestly say, with a straight face, that Pierce brought good acting in any of his Bond films.
He did, however, improve with age.
One caveat: he did do the character of Bond justice iconoclastically. His style and charisma revived popular appreciation of cinematic James Bond.
What a shame Tim didn’t get to do more Bonds. Wish he could have done 6. I think LTK is criminally underrated. I love that movie (my # 5 all-time). Just wish they could undo the fake maggots scene smh.
Oh come on. I like to think that I’ve got a pretty basic understanding and stage, and screen acting, and I’m about to say that Brosnan did bring good acting in his films. What your saying is a 100% completely subjective opinion. You can dislike his portrayal all you want, but to insinuate something like that is a bit absurd.
You think? Pierce struggles to bring subtlety to his performances in GE,TND,TWINE and DAD - too frequently looks stiff and forced in in wide shots, overacts in the close-ups - little screen presence, very average comedic timing.
I like the fella and he was mostly fun to watch (once or twice) as 007, but saying he brought good acting to his Bondfilms is a bit of a stretch even with the best objective goodwill...
Or did you mean his performances in Thomas Crown and Ghost Writer? Those were indeed quite a bit better.
I still don’t agree with any of that. Nothing about Brosnan’s performance in those films rings true with the words your using the describe him. I’ll give you credit and at least say that it’s tough for me to watch his acting in the torture scene from TWINE, but it’s also tough for me to watch Craig’s acting during the torture scene in Spectre. If you were to nitpick every single Bond actor’s performance, of course you’ll find flaws. But the idea that Pierce was some kind of wooden actor who got lucky with the part seems to be doing a huge injustice to the guy. He’s not the best actor to have played him, but neither were Connery, Lazenby, and Moore. I can completely understand not liking his take on Bond and the films he was in, but I just don’t see any merit in the constant criticisms of his acting, especially when his performances have always been considered highlights of his weaker films.
I am being critical but don't get me wrong - I like Pierce as James Bond. I like Lazenby as James Bond. I just don't find either of them strong enough actors to completely pull it off in a believable, layered performance.
Very normal for an artist to be harder on him or herself than the public is...Artists are their own worst critics by nature. I don't think he meant that he thinks he did a horrible job playing the character, I think he meant that he was nervous that he might not live up to the expectations he had of himself playing the character and probably secretly hoped he wouldn't do a bad job...I think he pulled it off just fine, and grew into the role and did even better as the movies progressed.
I agree, you get the same mentality out of comic artists, and based on history the same mentality from painters and sculptors too...it's not news
When I saw QOS in theaters, something odd happened: for the first time watching a Bond movie, I didn't believe Bond could do something. When he starts speaking fluent Spanish, I disengaged a bit from the movie. Ditto when he knew how to fly the cargo plane. They just didn't seem like things Craig's Bond would know how to do, and these types of moments would only get more numerous with SF and SP. For example, when Bond is watching the bartender shake his martini and he says, "perfect," as if he really fusses over his drinks (contrary to CR), or in Spectre when he correctly identifies the old Rolls Royce that's coming to pick him and Madeline up. These are typical Bond moments where I probably wouldn't bat an eye if any of the previous actors played them, but with Craig, even though there's nothing wrong with performance, he doesn't really sell these scenes because he's too innately different from the character he's playing.
The comment about Brosnan liking the character too much to play him well is interesting because it assumes that an actor needs to be objective about a role in order to properly portray him. I disagree. I suppose it depends on the actor and the character, but for a pulp character like Bond, I think the actor's natural traits are more important than his acting ability. It's the reason why Schwarzenegger and Ford aren't great actors but they sure as hell are great at playing Conan and Han Solo, and why I don't think better actors would necessarily be better at playing those characters, even if they might handle the dramatic scenes better.
It's cool now to rag on the Brosnan era because we're still in the grimdark-reboot era and we cannot accept that, not too long ago, we had no problem enjoying idealized/romanticized action heroes. We seem to have forgotten that Bond, in the words of Fleming himself, is ultimately a romantic character:
I do believe that Brosnan could easily have done a "darker" Bond, but that's missing the big picture: Bond is not a dark character, he is ultimately an action/adventure hero. Whoever is hired to play Bond should like the character and should have traits that are already close to the character's, because Bond is inherently an idealized/romanticized version of a spy. In that regard I think Brosnan had the same traits as every Bond actor that came before him.
The one detail missing is that usually in order to get the next gig and assuming the actor needs the money, the do need to get into the character, get the character right, and play the character well. I'm no expert at movie deals and contracts but even if there is a contract for say three movies, I imagine there are clauses to nullify the contract if the first movie in the shoot is an incredible flop...so to that end, both fans and the studio must have seen something in Brosnan or I somehow doubt he's had made it to a 4th Bond film. Whether you inhabit the character or perform the character, I feel like there is a balance with characters like Bond in the movies that must be met to continue playing the character. In the case of Brosnan vs Craig, I don't think either one played the character any better or worse than the other, I think the separation may occur at the cinematic level, special effects, timing, tech those sort of things and how they all connect with the audience.