A question to those who care not for Brosnan's Bond

178101213

Comments

  • edited February 2022 Posts: 2,249
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan , I wish I didn't feel this way. I have my favorite Bonds in Craig and Connery by far, but I can watch Moore, Dalton and Lazenby any day of the week and am filled with genuine enjoyment watching them do their thing.

    But with Brosnan, it hurts to say that I only like one half of his four films, and that's TND; I think his performance is effortless (I can't stand the film from the HALO jump onwards); but that first half, he was damn good... he leaned into his comfort zone. Once he stretches himself and tries "the drama", I find him cringey (TWINE and scenes like the one in DAD when he confronts M aboard the ship... I hear his reading of the lines and it sends uncomfortable shivers down my back).

    Generally he just rubbed me the wrong way.... Perhaps when I was younger I watched him in something that turned me off? And that stuck to him when I watched his Bond films? I don't know what it is. But however this dislike came about, it hasn't softened with time.

    It’s understandable. We each have our favorites and least favorites. I think Brosnan was let down by poor scripts for at least half his era, yet somehow his first three films work for me. For me I think Goldeneye is a masterpiece of the series, in my top 5 favorites of the franchise. It has such a unique tone and atmosphere to it that really isn’t found in any other Bond film. I used to find TND incredibly generic, but it’s climbed its way up to my top 10. I think it’s a really fun film, with a brilliant premise, the idea that perhaps we can’t trust our news sources and that they have their own agenda I think speaks true even to this day, and that plays a huge part as to why that film has gone up with me. I’ve always been a defender of TWINE, I can understand people’s criticisms, but I can’t bring myself to agree with their overall assessment on the film, I think it’s great.

    As for his acting, I have no issues with it at all. It’s easy for people to bring up specific examples of his acting and point too it as being “bad”, but the thing with that is when you look at all of the films with a fine tooth comb, each actor whose played Bond has those moments. I’ll go ahead and say it, I think Brosnan’s pain face is funny, and his groans are too, but it’s not as ridiculous as Connery dry humping a table in Thunderball because it’s used as a torture device, nor does it come close to Roger Moore looking as if he sucks the souls out of his leading ladies whenever he kisses them. Those kinds of examples are littered throughout each actors tenure.

    I think the issue is that people like to think of James Bond as a modern day Heathcliff, which that image of Bond has certainly gone up in popularity thanks to Craig and the reappraisal of Dalton. That’s not an invalid take on the character, by all means it’s more in line with what Fleming wrote, but different strokes for different folks. I prefer a Bond who can be emotional, can be dark, but isn’t always in a state of anger or depression. That’s why I think Brosnan was great because he could do all of that, and I think he balanced all of the crucial elements of Bond perfectly. Lazenby never grew into the role, Moore went too far into the comedic aspects, Dalton was very brooding, Craig was very brooding at first, but over time his character was allowed to lighten up more as his films went on, which I quite liked. I’ve always said it, but I think Brosnan is the only actor besides Connery to successfully blend all of those elements together and make it work. Even then, Brosnan at least had great performances consistently throughout his tenure even if the films weren’t too great, whereas Connery just stopped caring after Thunderball, and it affects his final two entries because he’s either bored or out of shape. I’ll be honest and say that if it weren’t for Connery’s first 4 Bond Films, I’d have Brosnan as my overall favorite. But man, you just can’t top early Connery.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    I came across a post at a sci-fi site that said 2001 was a slow bloated boring mess of a film with severely dated special effects. People see what the can see, or what they want to see. Including me.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,406
    Fair enough @007ClassicBondFan … I certainly don’t begrudge anyone who enjoys Brosnan. Anyone who rates him tops, I’m envious of since they found and find enjoyment and comfort in his time as James Bond.

    Saying that, Brosnan was the perfect casting for that time. It was because of his casting that the series successfully continued after the six year hiatus. For that I will forever be grateful and I understand how important he was and is to the history of EoN’s James Bond (I do love Dalton, but no matter what script came out for his third, I just can’t see audiences returning to 007 as they did for Brozz. No matter what: Brosnan put bums in seats)
  • peter wrote: »
    Fair enough @007ClassicBondFan … I certainly don’t begrudge anyone who enjoys Brosnan. Anyone who rates him tops, I’m envious of since they found and find enjoyment and comfort in his time as James Bond.

    Saying that, Brosnan was the perfect casting for that time. It was because of his casting that the series successfully continued after the six year hiatus. For that I will forever be grateful and I understand how important he was and is to the history of EoN’s James Bond (I do love Dalton, but no matter what script came out for his third, I just can’t see audiences returning to 007 as they did for Brozz. No matter what: Brosnan put bums in seats)

    Thank you @peter, I certainly could never do the same for anyone who prefers anyone else in the role over Brosnan. I suppose I’ve been very fortunate to have grown up with each actor during my formative years. Goldeneye was the very first Bond film I saw and it blew me away, and for that reason I’ll admit that a lot of my admiration for Brosnan is rooted in nostalgia, but then again a lot of my admiration for films like FRWL, and CR are also rooted in heavy nostalgia as well, because one of them was the film that really blew the doors wide open and had me instantly hooked, and the other was the very first Bond film I saw in theaters.

    I’ll always lament the fact that Brosnan never really had an opportunity to go darker with his take and do a more Fleming inspired film for his final outing, but I also understand the position EON was in, and in hindsight, Brosnan leaving was probably for the best. Dalton not being able to do a third is another huge shame, or at least him not taking the role sooner. Seeing Dalton battling Christopher Walken on the Golden Gate Bridge would’ve been awesome.
  • Posts: 1,629
    Quite right about Brosnan ! Looking back, the producers goofed by not accomplishing what Connery suggested - tighter shooting schedules, planned better so as to get done more quickly. They also should have made OHMSS before YOLT and, when they did get to YOLT, steer closer to the book. It would have been made late 60's/early 70's and both have been strong - and YOLT bizarre enough - to capture the evolving audiences well, yet still capture the traditional Bond audience. Funnily enough, I still think they would have turned to the more light-hearted, fantastical, humorous tone for the 70's either way. At any rate - seeing Roger Moore as the Saint, for years before his turn came round, one easily could see him as a Bond focused on good looks, charm, wit and just enough action. Later, seeing Brosnan as Remington Steele convinced audiences he was the Right person for the role of Bond. The audience and the anticipation built up well and provided GE with a bang-up financial success so long as the film was good, and it was...even with the dreadful freeze-frame ending, the lame ending song, and turning to the Bond-and-lady-interrupted bit and not giving them some alone time, not to mention not having them at or in the ocean.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,406
    @007ClassicBondFan … Dalton vs Walken… almost brought a tear to my eye, 😂
  • Posts: 1,629
    Dalton...Walken...Two syllables, letter L before a hard consonant between the two syllables, Letter A in the first syllable, vowel in the second syllable sounding the same as each other, both before a final letter N. First name in three syllables. Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty interesting...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan … Dalton vs Walken… almost brought a tear to my eye, 😂

    Right?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,156
    If Brosnan had been more like he was in DAD from the start, I might rank him higher than Moore.

    In GE he feels too calculated, like Brosnan’s was so intimidated by his part that he tried to make his Bond too cool if that makes sense. It’s the same in TND, though he’s a bit looser. I just couldn’t connect with him as a kid the way I did with other film heroes I grew up watching like Reeve’s Superman, Keaton’s Batman, Indiana Jones, etc.

    His performance is the worst in TWINE, but I put that all on the director because every actor is sort of hamming it up aside from Denise Richards (who I actually have no issue with).

    With DAD, there’s a certain vitality in his performance that I realized was missing in his previous films. This time he’s no longer just trying to play it too cool but play it with no ****’s given. I dunno if that’s because of the script or direction, or just Brosnan having grown into a better actor in the 2000s than he was in the 80s/90s. Whatever the case, it WORKS. It would have perfectly suited a more grounded installment like FYEO. So it’s really too bad he left the part just when he was getting really good.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,137
    As much as I wanted more Daltons, I'd have to say that Brosnan and GE were the right Bond and the right movie at the right time. The series needed to come back with a big bang relaunch and that combination of actor and film certainly provided that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,156
    If I had to pick an actor that replaced Dalton in 1994, it would be Jason Isaacs. Not that I think audiences would like him. I just want him as Bond in the 90s for completely selfish reasons as a fan.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited February 2022 Posts: 4,247
    I have always loved Brosnan's Bond. I mean...where would Bond be today if not for GoldenEye?....so it's fair to say GE gave birth to CR. Brosnan was the right guy for the 90s. Even most very entertaining action films from the 90s won't work today. For example, I love Broken Arrow(1996) to this day, but if a film like that is released today, it's surely going to be a financial and critical failure or would John Woo's many collaborations with Chow Yun-Fat work in cinemas today? I don't think so. I love Craig's Bond a lot. But it won't surprise me if Bond 7 comes and delivers and fans start bashing Craig's era. Because I realized Brosnan's bashing came heavily immediately after Casino Royale was released.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    If I had to pick an actor that replaced Dalton in 1994, it would be Jason Isaacs. Not that I think audiences would like him. I just want him as Bond in the 90s for completely selfish reasons as a fan.

    Jason would have been fantastic IMO.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,562
    Brosnan was perfect for the era. I'll leave it at that.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,788
    Brosnan was perfect for the era. I'll leave it at that.

    And he looked too young to take on the role in 1987. It all worked out for the best....
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,562
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Brosnan was perfect for the era. I'll leave it at that.

    And he looked too young to take on the role in 1987. It all worked out for the best....

    Agreed. I'm not a fan of Dalton but he was also perfect for the late 80s, especially with the harder edge, gritty films that were prevalent
  • Posts: 12,439
    Brosnan is a better Bond than his movies being great Bond movies IMO. Love GE, like TND, then TWINE and DAD languish near the bottom of my list. If either TWINE or DAD had been GE quality, I’d definitely look at the era a lot more positively. But yeah, I love Brosnan himself as Bond, as I love all the Bond actors. The biggest source of criticism I can say is that I do think he’s the least original of the six thus far and more of a culmination of the classic Bond qualities, which isn’t bad but does make him a little less unique. As I’ve said about him before being Bond, jack of all trades, master of none. Connery was better with cool than anyone but didn’t have the same emotional appeal as Craig, Moore was funny and charming but not quite as intense and brooding typically. Give and take.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,715
    Yeah it's how the latest actor is used with the decisions made by the producers. Witness Dalton, my favorite in the Bond role. Witness Brosnan who I enjoy greatly.

    With Brosnan credit to the filmmakers to introduce concepts that would evolve further with the next Bond actor. And as rights to Fleming and Spectre came available over time. Timing can be everything on these things.

  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,137
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Brosnan is a better Bond than his movies being great Bond movies IMO.

    Y'know, there's a lot of truth in that, actually.
  • Totally agree that Pierce was a good Bond, best choice for the time. I do like him a lot as Bond, but as many already said, he didn’t have the best films/scripts unfortunately. So for me he can’t rank too high in my Bond charts. It’s a shame because he was a perfect Bond for the 90’s.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 682
    I don't think the Brosnan era had as many glaring issues as the Craig era did, but that depends on how you rate the movies. I'm more lenient when it comes to Bond movies that don't take big risks but execute their goals well as opposed to the inverse, where risks are taken but don't pay off.
  • Posts: 1,911
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I don't think the Brosnan era had as many glaring issues as the Craig era did, but that depends on how you rate the movies. I'm more lenient when it comes to Bond movies that don't take big risks but execute their goals well as opposed to the inverse, where risks are taken but don't pay off.

    TWINE is a glaring example of the producers trying to take big risks but don't take them to the length they should to make them work. They tease things like Bond being injured, a woman as the villain and Bond's execution of her, a villain who can't feel pain and can supposedly push himself faster and longer and so on only to abandon them to accommodate the tropes the fans expect, so we get Denise Richards, comedy with the Zukovsky character, Bond miraculously recovering from injury with no apparent effects, Renard's unique characteristics and so on.

    Craig's era at least took those chances. No, not always successful, but more often than not it didn't feel like giving in too much to fan service.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,228
    BT3366 wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    I don't think the Brosnan era had as many glaring issues as the Craig era did, but that depends on how you rate the movies. I'm more lenient when it comes to Bond movies that don't take big risks but execute their goals well as opposed to the inverse, where risks are taken but don't pay off.

    TWINE is a glaring example of the producers trying to take big risks but don't take them to the length they should to make them work. They tease things like Bond being injured, a woman as the villain and Bond's execution of her, a villain who can't feel pain and can supposedly push himself faster and longer and so on only to abandon them to accommodate the tropes the fans expect, so we get Denise Richards, comedy with the Zukovsky character, Bond miraculously recovering from injury with no apparent effects, Renard's unique characteristics and so on.

    Craig's era at least took those chances. No, not always successful, but more often than not it didn't feel like giving in too much to fan service.

    Well said.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    I don't think the Brosnan era had as many glaring issues as the Craig era did, but that depends on how you rate the movies. I'm more lenient when it comes to Bond movies that don't take big risks but execute their goals well as opposed to the inverse, where risks are taken but don't pay off.

    I agree, and as you say it can be subjective. I do think there were some unforgivable errors of judgment in the Brosnan films with much of them being quite average, so overall not great. To me the invisible car and the wave ride were just not acceptable. Not to mention casting Madonna.
    There was nonsense in previous Bond films too but they were somewhat believable and realistic enough/coherent with the tone of the film and at the time the film was made. Those Brosnan moments were completely inappropriate to me.
    I still like Pierce very much.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,228
    Pierce's best Bond films are not Bond films. They're The Tailor of Panama, The Fourth Protocol, etc. Pierce is better when he plays against his pretty-boy type. Even in Remington Steele he was a con artist.

    You can see him trying and sometimes straining to do just that, but he was constantly let down by the scripts.

    There was only one Connery, and one Moore. To copy their seeming effortlessness (and they were from a different generation) is a mistake.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    For me PB was the worst Bond. Why? because IMO he poses his way through his films. There is absolutely no sense of ruthlessness about him, he's more Milan catwalk than 00 agent.

    That Said, I've only watched a couple of his films as I simply couldn't bear any more, so he may have improved (but I doubt it)

  • Posts: 1,911
    echo wrote: »
    Pierce's best Bond films are not Bond films. They're The Tailor of Panama, The Fourth Protocol, etc. Pierce is better when he plays against his pretty-boy type. Even in Remington Steele he was a con artist.

    You can see him trying and sometimes straining to do just that, but he was constantly let down by the scripts.

    There was only one Connery, and one Moore. To copy their seeming effortlessness (and they were from a different generation) is a mistake.

    And that's what I've said for years about his take on Bond, if you take two actors who distinguished themselves in the role and played at the top of their game and blend that then you are still just a second-generation copy. Some people see that as a strength, but it only shines a light on him not being either of them.

    No offense to Brosnan, but he's the only one of the actors who basically didn't do anything really original with the role. That's why I think people liked his version when he was current as he played to what people thought they wanted out of Bond, whereas I want something fresh that still echoes the character of Bond.
    stag wrote: »
    For me PB was the worst Bond. Why? because IMO he poses his way through his films. There is absolutely no sense of ruthlessness about him, he's more Milan catwalk than 00 agent.

    That's where I always found it interesting that some like Brosnan better than Craig in that he's dark and looks good in a tux, whereas Craig was considered inappropriate because he was a bit shorter, blond and didn't fit the idea of refined, although he was portraying the character as he evolved and was much more fascinating than one who did the expected.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 2,249
    I absolutely loathe the criticism of Brosnan’s Bond not being original, not only because it’s completely incorrect, but because that implies all the other actors haven’t done the same thing Pierce did. Connery became a pastiche of himself, Lazenby was accused of copying Connery in some circles, Moore started out harder edged, but became an overt parody of the Bond that Connery played (and I say that as a Moore fanboy), Dalton went to the books while emulating that ruthless danger that Connery had, and Craig’s portrayal is essentially an amalgamation of Connery’s, Lazenby’s, and Dalton’s. But hey, Pierce must be the only one who brought nothing new to the role...
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited August 2022 Posts: 682
    Every actor inherently brings their own personality to the role. With Brosnan it was a jetsetter attitude with a bit of foppishness and daredevil risk-taking thrown in. I get why some might dislike that, but I think saying that Brosnan did nothing new is dishonest. It depends on how you define "new."

    Dalton is my personal favorite, but what did he do that was "new?" You might say he was the Bond that went on a mission of personal vengeance for the first time, but that's only because it was in the script. It wasn't necessarily intrinsic to his performance. I could say that Brosnan fell in love with a female villain and then killed her, fought a personal battle against a former ally of his, or endured a year's worth of imprisonment, but again, that's because that's what was written for him.

    Dalton was certainly hard-edged compared to Moore, but that was basically a return to the style of Connery. The only two actors who drastically changed Bond's character, IMO, were Moore and Craig. Moore turned him into an international playboy and Craig turned him into a tragic, haunted figure. They made the role their own whereas Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan basically just played the character as-written and imbued it with their own quirks. At least that's how I view the issue.
  • slide_99 wrote: »
    Every actor inherently brings their own personality to the role. With Brosnan it was a jetsetter attitude with a bit of foppishness and daredevil risk-taking thrown in. I get why some might dislike that, but I think saying that Brosnan did nothing new is dishonest. It depends on how you define "new."

    Dalton is my personal favorite, but what did he do that was "new?" You might say he was the Bond that went on a mission of personal vengeance for the first time, but that's only because it was in the script. It wasn't necessarily intrinsic to his performance. I could say that Brosnan fell in love with a female villain and then killed her, fought a personal battle against a former ally of his, or endured a year's worth of imprisonment, but again, that's because that's what was written for him.

    Dalton was certainly hard-edged compared to Moore, but that was basically a return to the style of Connery. The only two actors who drastically changed Bond's character, IMO, were Moore and Craig. Moore turned him into an international playboy and Craig turned him into a tragic, haunted figure. They made the role their own whereas Connery, Lazenby, Dalton, and Brosnan basically just played the character as-written and imbued it with their own quirks. At least that's how I view the issue.

    I like this take, it’s incredibly easy to let ones perceptions of each actor inform how they view their performances as Bond. I get how some think Brosnan didn’t add anything new, but going by that king of logic, I could say the same of the other Bond’s. At face value, I love all the Bond actors, perhaps some more than others, but the idea of criticizing performances for not being “original” does not hold up at all when held to scrutiny.
Sign In or Register to comment.