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
Apart from Brosnan, I really do like Connery, Moore, and Dalton. They have contributed to the series in significant ways, and I am thankful for that.
The main reason I think Brosnan's Bond is because he introduced me to the series, Goldeneye was the first game I ever played, I played the Bond video games the most, and I watched his movies in the theater.
I'm not bashing the other 3 actors. I just don't identify with them as much since they were in generations previous to mine. That being said, I normally don't watch movies before the 80s, but I have been for Bond. I'm getting more and more open to the old Bonds as I get older.
Brosnan did not make the series, he isn't the most famous Bond, and he isn't the most successful Bond. He just happened to be Bond at a time when I was introduced to movies and video games as a young child - he was my first hero. I know all of you had a favorite actor as a child, and you made every effort to watch his or her movies. Brosnan was mine.
And for the record, those dated ones, DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, have aged far better than many of the following ones, including most of Brosnan's tenure.
As I've got older ive found myself favouring the older films over most of Brosnan's films. They're just classier. Not all of them of course (DAF, AVTAK and MWTGG for instance) but most of them.
If Brosnan himself can look back on his run with a certain level of objectivity then why can't others?
I like all of the actors who have played Bond except Lazenby; and I still don't hate Lazenby. I enjoy Brosnan's Bond a lot, and I feel that he was a very good James Bond. I think there are moments in his films that are not good, sure. The overall tone of his films was a "fun adventure" with some winks. It was not a bad ride, the Brosnan years. It brought fun, adventure, and excitement back to Bond after a far too long dry spell and the sombre, dark and revenge filled License to Kill. (Keep in mind I loved Dalton as Bond.)
Four films, which is to me one less than what I'd want from Brosnan. Because I wanted him to go out on a different film than Die Another Day. DAD was very flawed, but it also had some good moments. But a lot was wrong with that film, in my opinion. I can look at Brosnan as Bond objectively enough. I feel that his performance in TWINE is the only one that is hit or miss - it has ups and downs and does not feel solid. Other than that, I think he was a fine Bond and he did bring his own style and charm. His camaraderie with Q is one of the highlights of the series for me. Goldeneye is a very good Bond film and enjoyable. I like Tomorrow Never Dies a lot, mostly because of Brosnan's Bond. He was great in TND.
Because he was the most recent Bond since Craig, and because his films were of that kind of tone or flavor, and because his latest one was the awful mixed bag that was DAD, it is easy to compare Brosnan's films in a negative light compared to Craig's. This is due to Casino Royale being what it is: one of the best Bond films ever. Because Casino Royale was so great and different, gritty and well written, superbly acted, finely directed, etc. It changed the Bond world. The game changer, indeed. It put the whole feeling/tone/direciton of Bond films on a strongly different path, one that is in stark contrast to Brosnan's era. If it had come after AVTAK, Moore's era would have been even more savaged critically.
Bear in mind, I would still find plenty of fault with DAD, if Casino Royale had been a flop or a totally different kind of film. I am not defending DAD. I am, however, standing up for Brosnan's Bond in itself - his performances as Bond - and also standing up for his first two films which were very good indeed. Also TWINE is mixed for fans; it has plenty of folks who enjoy it a lot.
My main points are that:
a) It is naturally easiest to criticize the previous Bond compared to the current one (goes both ways; favorably or out of favor)
b) Brosnan's films on their own have real merit in the series
c) Brosnan's films (like all Bond films) can be criticized for their tone and faults or plaudits found for the writing, directing, soundtrack, all the elements aside from the performance of the actor playing Bond. In that regard, the films in general, Brosnan had 1 great, 1 very good, 1 rather middle of the road, and 1 bad film.
d) It is far easier to criticize Brosnan because of the blinding glare coming off of the strong, superb, and different Casino Royale.
You may not enjoy an actor's personal take on Bond. I don't enjoy Lazenby at all, for example. If you do not care of Brosnan's portrayal of Bond, of course that is your prerogative, your opinion. I just happen to really find Brosnan's Bond (including in most of DAD), his own portrayal, as good to very good indeed. His Bond in TND is one of my favorites and I rate that one highly. I very much like Brosnan as James Bond.
I don't like anyone bashing any Bond actor. The series continues because of different takes, portrayals, style, and stories. I am also not a fawning, wool over my eyes, dreaming fangirl about Brosnan.
But do I have a positive opinion about Brosnan's Bond? Do I like some of his films very much (even when looking at the whole of the series)?
To quote one of my other favorite Bonds: Yes, considerably.
B-)
Thanks. I was just expressing my opinion. Again, it's only my opinion; i'm not the president or a mod, or anything.
No need to thank me. Bond is Bond, just a stupid plaything to pass time. I will continue ridiculing him(as Bond) and his awful films. Does not mean I am Satan. (But Satan would be awfully flattered to be compared to Thunderfinger,I am sure. :)) )
He has the right to his opinions. But not to his own facts and reality. The influence of the early Bond over not only the franchise, but the whole movie genre, cannot be dismissed.
One of my favourite posts on the forum.
Of course, I mentioned the contributions of Connery, Moore, and Dalton. Bond would not be Bond without them - hell, Bond would not exist (on the screen) without them. Brosnan would not be Bond either if it wasn't for his predecessors. I am thankful to the early movies, I just have somewhat of a difficulty in relating to them. That being said, the older films have made benchmarks in cinematic history, while the newer ones have failed to do so.
In your tiny mind, possibly.
Maybe not Satan but it does make you a troll though.You dont like Brosnan.We get it.Time to move on.
Why do you insist on labelling him a troll?
I admit it. And @AstonLotus has one with my avatar on it, I am sure. I am flattered.
Because he does nothing but insult Pierce Brosnan over and over again.
And your very first post on this forum was to tell us all that you hate Daniel Craig and that he's a terrible James Bond.
Does that make you a troll?
If you actually took the time to read his posts, You'd realize he's joking. If you can't take a joke or accept others opinion's then you don't belong here. We all take friendly shots at eachother. Your also being a hypocrite because You blast all this hate at Craig. In the end who cares? Can't we all stop squabbling just once?
I get what you mean by this, but just to nitpick, I am hardcore fan and I like Pierce Brosnan. I think it's important that people don't lose sight of the fact there are those of us in existence who very much love every incarnation, but are still 'hardcore'.
I still like Brosnan.
Forgive me if someone has already put the article, but I'm new here and this is my first post :)>-
But a big welcome to you!