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
Indeed. Very effective. He is a great actor, no denying that, though many would try to, of course!
HENRY YOU'RE A YOUNG MAN, DON'T DO IT!
I've not seen it myself, though I remember its being discussed over on CBn at the time.
Oh it's bad. It's been years since I saw it but I think even DAD might've put it to shame.
Oh, I see. One to avoid then? I've seen very few films Pierce Brosnan did outside of Bond, I'm shamed to say.
Oh I don't think it is outstanding, in fact an interview with Michael Apted when he came up as quite arrogant towards it made me see it in a new, negative light. That said with all its flaws it does show the roots of CR.
I am talking about the quality of the movie, but about certain similarities (terrorism as the backdrop, a terrorist villain, a Bond girl that ultimately betrays Bond as the center of the plot, etc.). That it was ham fisted is beside the point. YOLT, TSWLM and MR are pretty much the same movie, with cosmetic differences, heck one could even consider YOLT a bigger, dumber, bastardised DN.
Oh and I am not saying CR is inspired by TWINE. But that they were then considering the same approach.
I'm in agreement, apart from the ham-fisted part. I think TWINE both reflected many of the films that went before and many of those that came after too. I really don't get all of the bashing it receives on the Bond boards. The insertion of the action scenes is no less contrived than say TSWLM (see my article here on that: http://www.thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/kingsley-amis-draxs-gambit-and-reform.html) and it certainly does show the roots of the later CR more than anything, even though I know full well it's not popular to say that nowadays.
:)) too late for that, I'm afraid.
Ok, TCA it was not. Really just an average theft caper kind of film, the way the theft of the 3rd Napoleon diamond was done was not as original as what was seen in TCA. It reminded me of something more out of "It Takes A Thief" but I like that stuff anyway so it was fine. Brosnan was not as good as he was in TCA, but still better for me than in his last two Bond films in this role. Woody Harrelson and Pierce were very funny together and worked well. Salma Hayek? In bathing suits and lingerie? She can call me "Sir Woody" :P
There's a great clip of a prank played on Brosnan in this film but I can't find it on YouTube.
As such? that is how close I feel to his Bond when watching. He brings the empathy and pathos.
Yes, so do I in a way. Brosnan gets a lot of bashing on Bond sites these days. If it was all justified I wouldn't mind, but it's not.
I agree. I think the problem is that Bonds get blamed for things they had no control over. John Glen was responsible for most of short comings and overuse of humor doing the Moore-Bond era, which most of Moore-era, 80%, was good. Poor scriptwriting and PC, at the approval of Babs and Mikey, was the death of Broz-Bond and will be the undoing of Craig-Bond.
So you would obviously like to think. Hasn't happened yet Mr. Prophet. The scripts of the current era haven't been perfect, but they were far worse in the latter Brosnan era as far as I am concerned. Craig will never let that level of script ineptitude happen under his watch, you can argue he did for QOS but he isn't a writer and should have never been put in that position. That blame lies fully at the feet of Marc Forster for insisting the original script be scrapped and rewritten with the possibility of a writer's strike looming, and for EON in caving in to his demands. They've acknowledged the mistake and seem to be the sort who learn from those. Purvis and Wade are gone, hence their mistakes that included where SF went off the tracks after Silva was captured should be assumed to be gone as well. Now Logan is fully in charge and it's a whole new ballgame there. When we see different, then perhaps you will have a point.
I do not have any hope for any future scripts for Bond movies: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370820/Seen-The-2005-screenwriting-bible-caused-identical-movies.html
Actually the scene where Silva was captured was the same in which Loki was captured and the same scene where the Joker was captured. It was mentioned in the Slate or Salon coverage of this.
(last statement withdrawn)
Yeah,sure. The Guy is starring in a Film, that makes any of Grimms fairy tales look like being written by Descartes himself, but he sure as hell is a Cerberus when it comes to quality scripts. I really wonder how he managed to get all this Love for nothing. As Robert Palmer put it so Long ago: "some guys have all the luck"
However, the point of posting around here that you are missing is to engage in honest debate, not to be the winner at all costs like that worm VijayGalore WHO CALLED ME A LIAR just to try to win one. And only succeeded in making himself out to be a complete ass while doing so. If you have something to say here, then you should expect people to disagree and should be willing to accept other's opinions in a respectful manner like a grownup is expected to. If you can't accept that, you shouldn't post.
@Matt_Helm- I know, I know, we all know how down you are on SF. I've been waiting to discuss that with you but it seems you got down 1-0 and moved on. The above that I bolded is also for your benefit in co-existing around here and also applies to you. I'm not an out and out defender of Skyfall nor blind to certain poor scriptwriting issues. I want it all to make sense and not all of it does, but at least I acknowledge when you make a good point, as I have with @Perdogg and others. No one's opinion is infallible nor factual, it is what it is and tolerance is a virtue sometimes too often lacking here in this site.
Yes,
and yes!
These are the only reasons people dislike him. Period! And they don't hold up in scrutiny, as the above comments prove.
I don't care what people say. Yes, maybe Brosnan is bad.. but I like em bad... especially when their good ;)
The creative dept. was at all time low during his run also. He got jobbed. Shame, because he seems like the coolest dude off camera. Weirdly, I like DAD the best.
Does that apply to Craig, too, since M is even more active in his movies? I seem to remember Connery sitting at least once during his scenes with M, although that might just be me. Standing also seems to be a position of greater respect than sitting, which is more casual/comfortable.
The problem I personally have with Brosnan's films is not because of him as an actor. I thought his portrayal of the character was done fairly well. My problem with his films, lies in the writing. I just don't feel that his films were very good story wise, they were really cheesy, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, and Die Another Day were just real stinkers but I loved Goldeneye so I don't dislike all of his films.
I really liked Dalton in The Living Daylights, License to Kill was...well not as good but not horrible. I would have liked to have seen him do one more movie.