Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1323335373860

Comments

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I want to try and decide something? Is Brosnan a more convincing Bond in Goldeneye or TND?

    I've noticed in TND that every 5 minutes it seems Brosnan's hair goes from being scruffy to perfectly styled - something that doesn't happen as frequently in GE.

    Also he seems a bit more like a "reluctant saviour" in GE, whereas in TND he's more the smarmy big kid having a fun time (I'm talking about how he is onscreen rather than his feelings making the film).

    Sometimes I want to say I prefer Broz in GE despite his slightly uncomfortable demeanour in places.

    The GQ look that a lot of fans go on about seems more prominant in Brosnan's second flick.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I agree on Craig, but I think it needs to be seen in the context of the reboot. They've been focusing on the character's motivations to date, and less on the finer refinements. I think the only time we saw it was him speaking German in the early parts of CR. Hopefully they bring that taste for the finer life back in SP & B25 (I think they will now that they've reintroduced MP & the like). Comments by Craig about reinjecting the irony and so on give me hope. Some of the thuggishness was already removed in SF compared to QoS/CR

    RE: Brosnan - I'm glad he has the November Man franchise, and I hope he is successful with it. He said in a recent interview that he missed having an action franchise, so I'm glad it's working out for him. I'm personally happy that he was not able to change Bond further to his interpretation though, because I did not like where he was taking it personally. So I'm pleased he has an action franchise that he can make his own now.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree on Craig, but I think it needs to be seen in the context of the reboot.

    One thing I've found on these boards is that despite well meaning criticism aimed at Brosnan, people also fail to take into account the 'context' of his films. If we can judge Craig based on the context of the reboot, I think it's fair that we can judge Brosnan based on the context of his tenure.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree on Craig, but I think it needs to be seen in the context of the reboot.

    One thing I've found on these boards is that despite well meaning criticism aimed at Brosnan, people also fail to take into account the 'context' of his films. If we can judge Craig based on the context of the reboot, I think it's fair that we can judge Brosnan based on the context of his tenure.

    I personally have judged him in context. I don't know about others. I know he had crappy scripts and MGM was in dire straits during his tenure. That's plain to see.

    My personal discomfort with him as Bond has nothing to do with that. It's the elements that he personally brought to his portrayal of James Bond. Elements that are personal to Brosnan and that I've seen in other movies of his. I personally just did not like seeing that in James Bond. That has nothing to do with the producers or the directors etc. I am able to judge the movies separate from the actor. I can't speak for others though.

    As I've said before, I'm a big fan of Brosnan. I wanted him as Bond more than most. I like a lot of his other films, including Fourth Protocol, Lawnmower Man (yes, even this), November Man, Tailor of Panama, Ghost, and even the Thomas Crown Affair.

    It's just what he injected into his Bond portrayal and the way he did it that I did not personally like. I preferred him in his first two (particularly GE) because he was sort of playing a strawman. By TWINE he was bringing his interpretation - and I did not like it personally. The movie was shiite as well, but that's a different discussion.

    I've wondered why I feel this way. It's because I've grown up with Bond (as played by many actors). Bond is my hero. There are certain clear characteristics that my Bond must have and my Bond must clearly and confidently display. So even if I like an actor, if he can't convincingly deliver this for me, then it's not acceptable to me.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I want to try and decide something? Is Brosnan a more convincing Bond in Goldeneye or TND?

    I've noticed in TND that every 5 minutes it seems Brosnan's hair goes from being scruffy to perfectly styled - something that doesn't happen as frequently in GE.

    Also he seems a bit more like a "reluctant saviour" in GE, whereas in TND he's more the smarmy big kid having a fun time (I'm talking about how he is onscreen rather than his feelings making the film).

    Sometimes I want to say I prefer Broz in GE despite his slightly uncomfortable demeanour in places.

    The GQ look that a lot of fans go on about seems more prominant in Brosnan's second flick.

    @BAIN, the fact that you, a Brosnan fan, have reduced the debate to a discussion about Brozza's hair shows how poor his performances must have been. If the decision on which performance is best - GE or TND - comes down to hairstyle, then clearly something went very badly wrong during the Brosnan era.

  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Hair seems to be a factor even in the Moore and Connery era's whether it be Connery's toupee in DAF or Moore's equally re-styling hair.

    My point was that in TND Brosnan seems a bit too clean if you will. In GE he gets more roughed up and also, in terms of his behaviour, seems more restrained.
  • Getafix wrote: »
    Tuulia wrote: »
    In short, the answer to the question in the thread title: No, he wasn't. But Lazenby really was. :P

    Seconded.

    Wow. There are people on here who don't like Laz as Bond. Incredible in this day and age. Like a throw back to the late 60s.

    Hey, I resemble that remark! ;))
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Hair seems to be a factor even in the Moore and Connery era's.

    And the Craig one too...! ;)
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I think Telly Savalas had the best Hair style. :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Come on. Connery's toupee' in DAF is the clear winner here. :)>-
  • Posts: 11,425
    Rog's helmet hairstyle in the later movies is interesting.

    And Dalton deserves a mention for his dracula look in LTK.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree with your earlier points @Getafix re: Brosnan suiting the role of a Blair type politician because of the way he presents - he suits the smarmy types like the Tailor of Panama too.

    I disagree on Bond though. I don't think he's really suited to Bond based on the 4 films he made. Even if he played it harder, nastier & in a morally ambigous way, I think he would have had to put out too much of himself - it would have been excessive. I think he was very good in the November Man for instance and the aforementioned ToP, but that is not James Bond. There is more of a subtlety to Bond....a knowing experience....that Brosnan never captured, for me at least.

    As an example, when Connery tells MP in YOLT that he had a double first in languages from Cambridge - just look at the way he delivers that line. The subtle knowing arrogance. Compare that to the way Brozza delivers to Oxford line (in Russian) to Denise in TWINE. Big difference.

    I was trying to be nice to Brosnan - going along with the line that he could have been good if he'd had better material and tweaked his performance. But essentially I agree with you - he was fundamentally miscast and had he played Bond to his strengths, the role would have been completely redefined.

    I actually think that's the route he should have gone down. EON would probably never have allowed it, but that whole idea of Tarrantino directing Brosnan as this sleazy, corrupt, over the hill Bond is really tantalising. Perhaps it wouldn't have been Bond, but it would have been interesting. Did Brosnan ever suggest directors to EON like Dan does? May be he did and they weren't interested or EON said no, but I just sense a lack of engagement with the character and the whole process.

    I also wonder whether Brosnan just lacked courage. EON is accused of a lot, but I think they give their actors more leeway than the Brosnan defenders make out. If they're so controlling, how come Dalton's portrayal supposedly shocked audiences. When DAD came out, who imagined the next Bond film would see a performance like the one that Craig gave? The fact that the Brosnan era is bookcased by two of the hardest hitting entries in the entire series kind of undermines this idea that it was EON who forced Brosnan to give this bland 'greatest hits' performance.

    To be fair it's all a matter of timing.

    Dalton and Craig are in a different league of acting compared to Brosnan who is comparably weaker and as Both Dalton and Craig were essentially begged to take the role, whereas Brosnan was begging for the role, Dalton and Craig both had the ball in their respective courts to approach the movies the way they largely wanted. W

    With Dalton's portrayal not being fully embraced by audiences, EoN wanted a safer and more familiar direction. After the spoofing from the likes of Austin Powers and society at large taking a more serious turn with the advent of 9/11 and shows like 24 and films like Bourne practically illegitimating Bond's credibility at the time, it was time to abandon the rubbish EoN had been endorsing and to revisit what Dalton started in Craig. Brosnan was partly to blame but what ever blame he gets is a very small part imo compared to EoN.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I see where you're coming from, but Moore worked within similar constraints and yet gave a shed load of memorable performances. He did the whole lightweight Bond but did it very well. I just find people are always making excuses for Brosnan, as if he didn't get a chance in 4 movies to deliver a solid Bond characterisation of his own.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    This thread has been around a while. And nothing changes really.
    Nor does my opinion. I love Brosnan's Bond. He had some great moments and two great Bond films: GE and TND. He was a fine Bond.

    Neither does mine.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 12,837
    When I first heard about Goldeneye I was unimpressed. My first Bond was Dalton. I loved TLD (saw it at the cinema when I was only five years old, blew me away) and LTK. I was 12, I think, when I first heard about Goldeneye, and I was unimpressed. All these years of waiting for the next Dalton Bond film (I saw some of the old ones but I didn't like any of them as much as Dalton) and they'd replaced him.

    I remember being shown a picture of Brosnan Brosnan when he was announced as Bond, and all I remember thinking is who the fuck is this bellend? Apparently he was in a TV show but I'd never heard of him. He was meant to play Bond before, I was told, but I didn't care. In my mind Brosnan had stolen the role from Dalton.

    Then I saw the Goldeneye trailer. Can't even remember what film it was I was watching, all I remember was being at the cinema and seeing the first trailer. You all know the one I'm talking about, "expecting someone else?". Best Bond trailer ever. I was blown away and I thought Brosnan looked pretty cool but I was still annoyed that it was him and not Dalton.

    Then later I saw Goldeneye. And I loved it, and I loved Brosnan as Bond, and I still do today. He was brilliant. A cold blooded assassin with a softer side who hides all that behind a Roger Moore esque facade. As an example, look at the bankers office. He's sitting there with a smile on his face making bad puns and exchanging quips with the villain but then when the shit hits the fan you see what sort of man he really is. He effortlessly kills everyone in the room and then angrily starts to interrogate the banker. That sums up Brosnan's Bond well to me. On the surface he's a cool flashy playboy but you get the sense that this is a bit of an act to hide the killer underneath. He was a real action hero, moreso than any of the others, but his Bond also had more depth than Connery or Moore did.

    He was also a proper movie star. Daniel Craig is a better actor sure but in terms of star quality I don't think any Bond except Connery beats Brosnan. Tall, suave, dashing, handsome, oozes charisma and makes even the tiniest thing look incredibly cool (eg- flicking his head to the side as bullets slam into the wall in GE). He's a proper film star.

    I was gutted when they sacked him (although I was pretty confident Craig would do a good job, I already knew he was a good actor) but he's given some amazing performances since then. He was brilliant in The Matador, November Man, etc.

    And to top it all of he seems like a really nice down to earth guy too. He does loads of charity work and he always seems really nice, humble and approachable in interviews, etc. While most Hollywood actors are up their own arses and egotistical, Brosnan is refreshingly humble and self aware. He's also been through a lot in his personal life, he helped his wife through her battle with cancer which she sadly lost and his daughter died of the same disease years later. But he's gotten through all this and still seems like a genuinely nice guy who wants to help others (all the charity stuff he does) despite all he's been through.

    To sum up: great Bond, great actor, great guy.


  • Posts: 11,425
    As I've always said, Pierce seems to be a thoroughly nice guy.
  • Yeah while his Bond might not be as popular anymore, even his biggest detractors (like yourself) don't have a bad word to say about the man himself. I don't think I've ever read any reports about Pierce Brosnan being a dick. Bit like Roger Moore in that regard.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I actually enjoyed reading that appreciation tirade, @thelivingroyale. It is nice that people stand up for him. I may detest his Bond films and performances, but I am not heartless.
  • "It is nice that people stand up for him"

    Someone has to :)

    It was Roger Moore a couple of weeks ago, now the hate seems to have shifted back to Brosnan. Who's next? I vote Connery :P
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Agreed. He seems like a nice enough bloke. He's also arguably the most handsome actor to play Bond. That is why he was a shoo in. The fact that he has so many detractors after the fact says something. The complete opposite of Craig and Dalton in this regard (both were not seen as the best for Bond).
  • Posts: 11,189
    That's a great post @thelivingroyale.

    I'm a fan too eventhough I can kind of understand some of the criticisms. Fact is Brosnan got me into Bond and I'll always have a fondness for him.

    I don't think he's the greatest of actors but he has undoubtable screen charisma and is always fun to watch even in his poorer performances (*cough*Taffin*cough*).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,732
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    always fun to watch even in his poorer performances (*cough*Taffin*cough*).
    Taffin was a MASTERPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECE!
    ;)
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    chrisisall wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    always fun to watch even in his poorer performances (*cough*Taffin*cough*).
    Taffin was a MASTERPIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECE!
    ;)

    haha. He's hilariously terrible in that film.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I actually enjoyed reading that appreciation tirade, @thelivingroyale. It is nice that people stand up for him. I may detest his Bond films and performances, but I am not heartless.

    Yes, I have to say that @thelivingroyale's eulogy to the Broz made even me a bit sympathetic.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    When I first heard about Goldeneye I was unimpressed. My first Bond was Dalton. I loved TLD (saw it at the cinema when I was only five years old, blew me away) and LTK. I was 12, I think, when I first heard about Goldeneye, and I was unimpressed. All these years of waiting for the next Dalton Bond film (I saw some of the old ones but I didn't like any of them as much as Dalton) and they'd replaced him.

    I remember being shown a picture of Brosnan Brosnan when he was announced as Bond, and all I remember thinking is who the fuck is this bellend? Apparently he was in a TV show but I'd never heard of him. He was meant to play Bond before, I was told, but I didn't care. In my mind Brosnan had stolen the role from Dalton.

    Then I saw the Goldeneye trailer. Can't even remember what film it was I was watching, all I remember was being at the cinema and seeing the first trailer. You all know the one I'm talking about, "expecting someone else?". Best Bond trailer ever. I was blown away and I thought Brosnan looked pretty cool but I was still annoyed that it was him and not Dalton.

    Then later I saw Goldeneye. And I loved it, and I loved Brosnan as Bond, and I still do today. He was brilliant. A cold blooded assassin with a softer side who hides all that behind a Roger Moore esque facade. As an example, look at the bankers office. He's sitting there with a smile on his face making bad puns and exchanging quips with the villain but then when the shit hits the fan you see what sort of man he really is. He effortlessly kills everyone in the room and then angrily starts to interrogate the banker. That sums up Brosnan's Bond well to me. On the surface he's a cool flashy playboy but you get the sense that this is a bit of an act to hide the killer underneath. He was a real action hero, moreso than any of the others, but his Bond also had more depth than Connery or Moore did.

    He was also a proper movie star. Daniel Craig is a better actor sure but in terms of star quality I don't think any Bond except Connery beats Brosnan. Tall, suave, dashing, handsome, oozes charisma and makes even the tiniest thing look incredibly cool (eg- flicking his head to the side as bullets slam into the wall in GE). He's a proper film star.

    I was gutted when they sacked him (although I was pretty confident Craig would do a good job, I already knew he was a good actor) but he's given some amazing performances since then. He was brilliant in The Matador, November Man, etc.

    And to top it all of he seems like a really nice down to earth guy too. He does loads of charity work and he always seems really nice, humble and approachable in interviews, etc. While most Hollywood actors are up their own arses and egotistical, Brosnan is refreshingly humble and self aware. He's also been through a lot in his personal life, he helped his wife through her battle with cancer which she sadly lost and his daughter died of the same disease years later. But he's gotten through all this and still seems like a genuinely nice guy who wants to help others (all the charity stuff he does) despite all he's been through.

    To sum up: great Bond, great actor, great guy.


    This is great. You nail exactly why Brosnan was the man.
  • Posts: 3,291
    Brosnan always comes across as a nice guy. In fact, out of all the actors to play Bond, him and Moore come across as the nicest blokes. I may find them to be the weakest in terms of playing Bond, but their off screen persona appears very decent.

    Connery and Lazenby come across as the biggest dicks off screen, and Dalton and Craig are pretty much in the middle - decent blokes, slightly serious, perhaps lacking the personality, sense of humour and light-heartedness of Moore and Brozza, mainly because they are true thespian actors, there because of their core talent rather than just looks and personality alone.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    I just think its sad that people give Brosnan an overly hard time. I think maybe his problem was, that he was a fan first and foremost and was an actor second. Most of us would all love to be Bond but if ever we were cast as our favourite hero, just how well would we pull it off? Brosnan is a good actor and irrespective of the quality of his acting and the films he was in, the man gave us a Bond that new how to have fun. Whether his era was good or bad, it doesn't matter; Brosnan has cemented his name into the history books and kept us largely entertained.
  • Posts: 1,548
    As limited an actor as PB is I still enjoy his Bond tenure particularly Goldeneye obviously. But I can't believe anyone is longing to go back to that style of film now after Dan Craig's golden run.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,732
    LeChiffre wrote: »
    I can't believe anyone is longing to go back to that style of film now after Dan Craig's golden run.
    Introducing: SPECTRE!
  • Posts: 832
    Who thinks he's bad? I mean he's clearly not the best, and also adds little to the series, but bad? No way.
Sign In or Register to comment.