Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

2456761

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    I can't wait to see Craig's post-Bond projects.
  • Posts: 431
    Brosnan was indeed a Bond of his times...the slick and cheesiness that @myworldisenough mentioned is such a perfect reflection of the 90's in my mind. I am very much in the camp that believes the Brosnan films were plagued by "creative choices" made outside of his control. I really have nothing against him or his acting or his version of the character, just that I may prefer a few of the other Bonds more. I'll take him over the model any day.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    Interesting reply, @JamesStock. Sure, his 'faces' get a lot of flak, but I, too, think that most of the complaints about the Brosnan era were things outside of his control.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,231
    Brosnan was indeed a Bond of his times...the slick and cheesiness that @myworldisenough mentioned is such a perfect reflection of the 90's in my mind. I am very much in the camp that believes the Brosnan films were plagued by "creative choices" made outside of his control. I really have nothing against him or his acting or his version of the character, just that I may prefer a few of the other Bonds more. I'll take him over the model any day.
    Interesting reply, @JamesStock. Sure, his 'faces' get a lot of flak, but I, too, think that most of the complaints about the Brosnan era were things outside of his control.
    My opinion in a nutshell. Well said boys.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    Why thank you. Glad that quite a few people agree.
  • edited August 2011 Posts: 11,169
    "I'll take him over the model any day"

    Maybe you should be a little more specific and say "swimwear model" ;)
  • edited August 2011 Posts: 1,778
    I haven't read all the comments so forgive me if I sound repetitive. There are a few reasons Brosnan sucked. First of all he was the only Bond actor to not leave their own personal stamp or bring something new to the role. Connery invented it, Moore turned the character into more of an English super-spy/superhero with greater emphasis on humor. His Bond also seemed much more patriotic, naturally as he was the first British Bond actor. Then came Dalton who for the first time brought a grittiness and seriousness than hadn't been seen from the previous 3 actors. Daniel Craig has brought something similar to Dalton but with his own stamp on it. He's brought a real world feel to it. Of all the Bond interpretations his would seem to most believable to exist. He's also brought out a bit of the sociopath that Fleming alluded to as Bond's line of work would naturally have that effect on someone. Hell even Lazenby brought something. His Bond was the first to appear emotionally vulnerable and insecure. Then we had Brosnan. He was too crappy an actor at the time to truly craft an interesting character so he simply took half of Connery and mixed it with half of Moore and threw in a dash of Dalton and hence created a caricature not a character. Maybe that's why his films felt so tired. I never felt like I was watching anything distinctive. I could watch Connery and Moore over and over again because they had such effortless charm while Brosnan on the other hand was trying very very hard to be cool.

    Which leads me to my next point. Brosnan seemingly had a 13 year-old boy's understanding of James Bond. Maybe that's why I liked him when I was 13. He figured “James Bond is cool so I'll act cool". So he constantly presses his lips together, tilts his head or smacks his lips before saying something cool. All three are just such douchbag things to do. If he did them sparsely it'd be ok but it does one of them seemingly every 5 minutes. If Connery or Moore's Bond walked into a casino and I got to meet them I'd think "Wow that guy is the man. I wanna be like him". If I got to meet Brosnan's Bond I'd think "This clown is trying way too hard to be cool". All in all the Brosnan years were an era of unimaginativeness and bad clichés.
  • edited August 2011 Posts: 11,169
    "He's brought a real world feel to it".

    Falling out of aeroplanes and emerging unscathed, falling through glass windows, firing machine guns out of cars, avoiding fires like a superhero. Yeah..."real world" ;)
  • edited August 2011 Posts: 1,778
    @Bain123. Have you even seen Brosnan's movies? He's Rambo with a tux. And when I said real I meant his characertization. He feels, he gets scared, he bleeds, and he has to deal with baggage his job brings. What'd I'd give to see Brosnan in the CR torture scene. Never in a million years could he pull it off as well.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    @DoubleOhhSeven, that's because of the script. They had him feel, they had him be scared, they had him bleed. The other Bonds could do what Craig does, if it was required.
  • @DoubleOhhSeven, that's because of the script. They had him feel, they had him be scared, they had him bleed. The other Bonds could do what Craig does, if it was required.
    I understand that but Brosnan had plenty of chances in TWINE and the first half of DAD to show-off some acting chops but he falls flat. TWINE was EON's answer to Brosnan's complaints about giving him more to do. They gave him a shot and he wasn't good enough to make it work. And I hear the argument all the time that if Brosnan's scripts were stronger he would've made a better Bond. Nonsense. QOS and LTK had pretty weak and uneven scripts but Dalton and Craig both shined in those films. That's a mark of a great actor. To make the most out of weak material. Craig and Dalton are very good actors. Brosnan, atleast back then, was not.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    I see what you're going with. Yeah, that does make more sense. QoS was an action-oriented film, it felt like, but Craig still shined.
  • Q: "Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad"

    A: No. But he's really not that good either, as Bond anyway. I like him just fine though in other things he's done such as "Taffin" and "The Thomas Crown Affair". I saw him carry himself a certain way in those films that he didn't seem to as Bond, that I thought would have better suited him as Bond. I know he prepared for the role. Like he said, "just didn't nail it"
  • LudsLuds Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,973
    Q: "Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad"

    A: Yes. Brosnan was a horrendous Bond, providing nothing new or nothing good to the role. His constant lack of acting skills, often characterized by cringe worthy Pain Faces and typical over-acting was painful to endure. Brosnan did indeed inherit some of the worse scripts and stories, but this can't be made into a valid excuse as he did get one of the very best scripts in GoldenEye and still failed miserably, looking like a little lost boy. His blatant lack of confidence makes many Bond enthusiasts regret Dalton's departure or EON's lack of intestinal fortitude to cast their favourite in '94, James Purefoy, and stick with the more known and "safer" choice in Brosnan.

    Brosnan's claim of having been a Bond fan since childhood may have satisfied some of his fans, however, his disrespectful and classless attacks towards them people who made him brought to light his true nature.

    Others claim that his films box office results is proof of success, this argument can easily be debunked, coming out of a 6 year drought without Bond flicks in a market that was in such demanding state. Any actor would have gathered massive following after such a long absence.

    Brosnan and the abysmal atrocity of his last two outings, TWINE and DAD can certainly be attributed as the source for such a drastic change in direction with Daniel Craig's casting. The franchise had to fall in the gutter before making such move, this sadly had to be a necessary evil to bring the Franchise back in the right direction.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    @Luds, so what you're saying is Brosnan is your favorite Bond?
  • LudsLuds Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,973
    @Luds, so what you're saying is Brosnan is your favorite Bond?
    Well, perhaps had Hugh Jackman been selected after him, Brosnan wouldn't be my last ;)
  • :-)) Geez Luds, just say what's really on my mind. The second paragraph, that's one of the things that really made me question his sincerity as a person. Makes me think now, did he really want to play Bond, or was it just a big job for him that provided a ego boost that he seems to crave.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    Or Whoopi Goldberg. ;-)
  • I agree Luds. Who knows how much he really loved the films. Seeing Goldfinger as a boy doesn't make one a huge fan. I saw Thor a couple of months ago in the theater and I’m not a fan at all. I think Brosnan realized that with Remington Steele coming to an end his career was in serious danger. And what better way to save it than by playing such a similar character? I mean we all knew Brosnan wasn't going to go on and have Marlon Brando like-career after Steele was cancelled. And remember his career was in the toilet during the years in-between Remington Steele and James Bond. He had one notable role in between 1987 and 1995 and that was in Mrs.Doubtfire where he wasn't even a lead. EON saved the man's career and took him from TV has-been to Hollywood star. And how did he thank them? By burying them on multiple interviews in magazines and TV just because they wanted to hire a real actor to actually make good films.
  • Luds spelled it out nicely. Brosnan just didn't have what it took to be Bond. And his films are easily the most poorly written and creatively vacant of the franchise. I don't mean any disrespect to his fans which, strangely, he seems to have in abundance around here (coming here after being on hiatus for a few months and finding the place crawling with Brosnan fans almost feels a little Children-of-the-Corn-ish) but Brosnan was just a weak weak Bond imho. Power to you if that's your thing I guess, however I urge anyone who was turned onto Bond by Brosnan to go back and look at the older films-- there you will find pretty much everything from the Brosnan era done better the first time.
  • Luds spelled it out nicely. Brosnan just didn't have what it took to be Bond. And his films are easily the most poorly written and creatively vacant of the franchise. I don't mean any disrespect to his fans which, strangely, he seems to have in abundance around here (coming here after being on hiatus for a few months and finding the place crawling with Brosnan fans almost feels a little Children-of-the-Corn-ish) but Brosnan was just a weak weak Bond imho. Power to you if that's your thing I guess, however I urge anyone who was turned onto Bond by Brosnan to go back and look at the older films-- there you will find pretty much everything from the Brosnan era done better the first time.
    It seems that the casual Bond fans like him more due their fond memories, whether it be childhood or just being without Bond for 6 years. A few people I know said they liked Brosnan but they haven't seen one of his films in quite a few years. I pointed out why he sucked and asked them to rewatch any of his 4 Bond films. Within the passing months I've had them tell me they see what I mean and didn't enjoy the respective film nearly as much this time around. You have to understand, for alot of people my age (in our 20s) Brosnan was the only Bond they knew and hence loved him. But they quickly change their minds once they see what else the Bond series has to offer.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 33,389
    It's upsetting - you guys are making extremely valid points, but I grew up having Brosnan as Bond. I would watch his Bond films on VHS, just to rewind them and watch them again. And having Pierce as my favorite actor doesn't help in me not agreeing with the points. I will acknowledge, though, that I do understand your points. It's just that when I sit down and watch his films, I can't help but love him as Bond, and every moment within the film...to a degree, of course. Let's not get into his CGI parasailing or surfing intro during DAD.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    edited August 2011 Posts: 823
    The only good Brosnan Bond film is GE.

    TND was alright but nothing to write home about.

    TWINE and DAD were awful!

    Considering that we waited 8-9 years for Brosnan to become Bond, it was quite a disappointment.

    His Bond films, if you took away the familiar Bond Theme music and the Gunbarrel sequences and change his character name, they could had been a big screen version of Remington Steele with a bigger budget.

    Then what disappoints me even more is that Brosnan been fighting to become Bond since 1986, he finally gets the role and then not only did he stop making Bond films after 4 films, 3 of them not very good, he started bad mouthing the movies and the movies' producers who made him wealthy and an international film star.

    Before GE, he had done nothing remarkable or memorable on the big screen!!

    ungrateful, treacherous bastard!!

    the only film of his I watched after DAD is Ghost Writer and only because it's a Roman Polanski film.

    The only movies I watched of his when he was Bond were:

    The Thomas Crown Affair and that's because John McTiernan directed it and I am fond of the original;

    and Mars Attack because of Tim Burton's and Brosnan is not the main star in it anyway!!

    I don't watch his movies anymore - he means nothing to me anymore!!

    this is his resume before GE, not including tv series, tv movies, tv mini-series

    1994 Love Affair
    Ken Allen


    1993 Mrs. Doubtfire
    Stuart 'Stu' Dunmeyer

    1993 Entangled
    Garavan


    1992 Live Wire
    Danny O'Neill

    1992 The Lawnmower Man
    Dr. Lawrence Angelo


    1990 Mister Johnson
    Harry Rudbeck


    1988 The Deceivers
    William Savage

    1988 Taffin
    Taffin


    1987 The Fourth Protocol
    Valeri Petrofsky / James Edward Ross

    1986 Nomads
    Jean Charles Pommier


    1980 The Mirror Crack'd
    Actor playing 'Jamie' (uncredited)

    1980 The Long Good Friday
    1st Irishman
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited August 2011 Posts: 33,389
    I'll have to read up on his dissing of the producers. I really haven't heard that much about it.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    I'll have to read up on his dissing of the producers. I really haven't heard that much about it.
    in 2003-2004, he said he was quitting the role:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/3626605/Goodbye-Mr-Bond.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-324571/Brosnan-wants-licence-kill-Bond.html

    and he even suggested Colin Farrell as his successor:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3973887.stm

    then in 2005, he said he was dumped and he was never given a choice to do a 5th film and he started criticizing EON and the Bond film producers and he even made fun of Daniel Craig:

    http://www.askmen.com/celebs/entertainment-news/pierce-brosnan/pierce-brosnan-wants-bond-back.html

    http://www.hollywood.com/news/Brosnan_Bond_Producers_Will_Regret_Dropping_Me/3465198

    http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/news/a25230/brosnan-slams-bond-producers-again.html

    if you use GOOGLE, you can find more stuff on him
  • edited August 2011 Posts: 1,778
    It's upsetting - you guys are making extremely valid points, but I grew up having Brosnan as Bond. I would watch his Bond films on VHS, just to rewind them and watch them again. And having Pierce as my favorite actor doesn't help in me not agreeing with the points. I will acknowledge, though, that I do understand your points. It's just that when I sit down and watch his films, I can't help but love him as Bond, and every moment within the film...to a degree, of course. Let's not get into his CGI parasailing or surfing intro during DAD.
    I understand what you mean. I used to rank Roger Moore as the best Bond as he was the Bond I was exposed to first. As I've matured I've learned to accept his flaws. Im assuming your in your 20s too and grew up during Brosnan's run.

    And yes he blasted EON for months. Talking about how they wouldn't return his phonecalls yet neglected to mention the 20 million dollars he was asking for to do Bond 21 along with the fact he spoke down on them while he was under contract. He did the same thing to the producers of Remington Steele. If Brosnan doesn't get his way he bitches and whines like a small child to the media. As a professional he doesn't have half the class of Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton who both accepted that their time was up.

    And my God Colin Farrel as Bond? Thankfully that didn't happen. We all know the reason Brosnan recommended him was because he's Irish.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    edited August 2011 Posts: 823
    I am still glad Hugh Jackman and Owen Wilson didn't become Bond

    BUT

    I still like to see Tarantino direct a Bond film
  • Posts: 11,169
    @Bain123. Have you even seen Brosnan's movies? He's Rambo with a tux. And when I said real I meant his characertization. He feels, he gets scared, he bleeds, and he has to deal with baggage his job brings. What'd I'd give to see Brosnan in the CR torture scene. Never in a million years could he pull it off as well.
    @DoubleOhhSeven, that's because of the script. They had him feel, they had him be scared, they had him bleed. The other Bonds could do what Craig does, if it was required.
    Nonsense. QOS and LTK had pretty weak and uneven scripts but Dalton and Craig both shined in those films. That's a mark of a great actor. To make the most out of weak material. Craig and Dalton are very good actors. Brosnan, atleast back then, was not.
    Yes I have seen Brosnan's movies (again pretty recently actually) and yes there is a lot of gun-ho action - esp in TND. My point is that that doesn't really change much in Quantum. Effectively Quantum suffers exactly the same problem most of Brosnan's films did - a good idea thrown away and being replaced by bang-smash action. I'd take at least three of Brosnan's entries over that irritating little "Bond" film anyday. Yes, Bond is "vulnerable" at the end but only after he's fallen out of planes, through glass windows etc. I also don't remember Craig bleeding much in QoS either. It goes back to the same action-heavy routine.

    Maybe it's just me but I didn't think Craig was THAT good in Quantum - not bad just very unsympathetic. Definitely a step-down from Royale. His occasionally robotic expression and monotone delivery of lines didn't really do much for me either.

    I actually felt more sorry for Mathis in the film than I did Bond.

    He pretty much killed the sex scene between him and Fields aswell.

    Hopefully B23 will be better.

    In regard to Brosnan, I acknowledge that A LOT of flaws went on in his era some of which were due to him, others (big ones) were due to the creative team. I'm going to take what the press have written with a pinch of salt aswell, we all know the c**p that the media can make up or exaggerate. Allegedly (though I also don't know if this is true) Dench was on Brosnan's side when EON canned him so perhaps he wasn't the a**hole he's been made out to be now - perhaps!. However Brosnan brought me A LOT of love during my initial exposure to 007. I'm not going to bite the hand that first fed me and sometimes on these forums I feel as if I'm "wrong" for liking him at all. I enjoy him, I believed that he was James Bond during his run. Craig, though certainly a very good actor, hasn't yet given me the same feelings of joy Pierce did.

    I know its not "cool" around here but I like the man, and yes I've read Fleming but my opinion still hasn't changed.
  • LudsLuds Moderator, Director
    Posts: 1,973
    @BAIN123 YOu bring good points about Bond's supposed vulnerability, I fond that they haven't exposed it enough in Craig's tenure yet, and it very much lacked at times, say during the Moore era. However, evidently as I've explained before, to me the over-the-top melodramatic scripts that Purvis & Wade came up with combined with over-acting made these moments worse than "superman" Bond as some call Craig ;)

    And regarding your position, good for you, to keep fighting your fight, as a non-fan all I can hope is for someone like you to actually keep question their position and take the appropriate stance. This doesn't make you wrong, it solidifies that you thought about your position.

    -

    Coming back to @DoubleOhhSeven's point of childhood memories, I feel that this plays a considerable role in a vast majority of fans, for sports figures, singers, musicians, actors, and role models. This isn't necessarily a bad thing in retrospect, everyone loves to remember their childhood heroes, but the mind at that time certainly isn't the greatest critique. Many will learn or acquire different taste over the years which will prompt them to reconsider their position. Heck, I was a huge MC Hammer fan in my youth, I am not ashamed of that ( :-)) ), but now I've evolved and look for some kind of talent out of a song/performance. I can laugh about liking Hammer while my sister was a NKOTB fan, yet realize it was complete rubbish. Applied to Bond, I was a Dalton fanboy as a child, and as I became an online Bond fan in the early 2000s, I certainly reconsidered this position, yet after pondering, I do maintain that I find his interpretation to be the truest to Fleming's novels, bringing believable vulnerability and intensity others lacked. He remains my 2nd favourite Bond, no one touches the great Connery ;) Some who were Moore fans, Dalton fans, Lazenby fans, Brosnan fans, may yet reconsider their position, and like other interpretation best, without losing this "special place" in their childhood hearts. No problem with that.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I don't think he was that bad at all,but i'm in the minority.
Sign In or Register to comment.