Brosnan's Last 3 Bond Films: The Problem?

edited May 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 140
There is a lot of criticism, on this board, of Brosnan's films. For me I do not feel the 'hate' for Brosnan that many appear to have here but I do not rate his last three entries though DAD is growing on me.

They all have some good scenes, Bond in Cuba (DAD), Bond with his Blue glasses (TWINE) and Bond at the launch of the paper thingy in (TND) to name a few but there is something about these entries that is 'off'. I just wonder if people have any views what it might be. Is it one specific item or a combination of several.

I would not include Brosnan's portrayal in this. He is Bondian on so many levels that I feel I have to defend him whenever his name is brought up here. For me there is something 'off' about the 1990's in general. It seems to be a decade without direction or defining themes. There is certainly an early aggressive PC that impedes on the plots. The stories are not 'epic'. They are quite personal in my view and uninteresting. A nutty Murdoch does not do it for me and the whole revenge element in TWINE feels 'not thought out'.

Any ideas?
«13456789

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited May 2012 Posts: 28,694
    THE SCRIPTS
    Missed opportunity
    Wooden Bond girls excluding Sophie
    Letdown villains that had so much potential
    Madonna
    Sheryl Crowe
    Purvis and Wade's inconsistent writing streak

  • Posts: 5,745
    THE SCRIPTS
    Missed opportunity
    Wooden Bond girls excluding Sophie
    Letdown villains that had so much potential

    Pretty much sums it up. The scripts resulted in the following three.

    And really, imo, a dry and unbelievable Bond. I was watching an actor, not a character in Brosnan's last three films.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I agree with some things mentioned regarding these films, but for me the problem was definitely not Brosnan. He was a good Bond, in my opinion, and I enjoyed his performance in every film.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 299
    I agree with all of you who have mentioned the writing. It certainly does go back to that. And JWESTBROOK is spot-on in his comment about Brosnan (actor vs. character). But the truth is, all the Bond films have at least one good scene. As serious fans, I think we can all agree on that. But these three films did lack an edge. They felt too safe in many ways. Though they did take some chances here and there, the whole thing in the end seemed a bit mis-directed. That's why CR felt so good - is seemed like it had actual purpose.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 12,837
    Brosnan was awesome, GE was awesome, TND was ok (bad villian), TWINE was good (but has bad moments), DAD was crap (even that has good scenes though).

    Overall I don't think Brosnans films were bad, but parts of the scripts were.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited May 2012 Posts: 4,436
    QOS inprovements on castings of more various Bond girls./kind of Bond girls and count of cars for example i see as problem of the Brosnan era and Daniel Craig his era. Olga is great and it be a high inprovement she wil retun, but Gemma is the better casting for QOS.

    At the moment we only got 2 Bond girls confirmd and i don't think it is enough, besides the doubt i have.

    Also the hugh inprovement in costume design and producting sign give a litle view of what i think there missing too. No doubt i like the idea of the ice palace.

    Die Another Day is the only Bond movie of the Brosnan era i think there is something wrong with script and that already started with Zoa. I have liked to see a fift movie from Brosnan to give for example 'the M back behind her desk' be true and do justes again with Charles, Moneypenny and 'R'. Stil i understand there must write first something/to escape to get M behind her desk and for a big part iam happy on the way it go with the chacter in Cr/QOS.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Something was off with the Brosnan era. I like Pierce, I dont mind his Bond but I watched his films get progressively worst as time went on until with DAD I was going to throw in the towell. That was it for me if the films were going to go in that direction.

    The problem?

    Purvis and Wades scripts
    Lack of Cubbys guidance on what would work in a story
    Continual change of directors
    Some spectacular miscastings of the principals.
    Absence of any direction for the films
    Truly ineffectual unworkable villains.

    I think the change of directors hurt it the most. Each director was pulling in a different direction. Not many were Bond or even action directors and MGWs dogma of using different directors for each film was hurting the series. Take TWINE for example. Was it an action film? A exploration of the human psyche? Both? Whatever it was it didnt work and I am still not sure what Michael Apted wanted.

    Interesting that this is the era with the least Fleming in it. Whenever in doubt they always went back to Fleming. Even the overblown seventies films had smidgeons of Fleming in there.

    No offence but its the worst era for me, its problems are all up on screen.
  • Posts: 4,762
    Except for the latter half of Die Another Day, where the cheesy camp returned to the Bond series, I really don't see the supposed "problem" with Brosnan's last three. Quite honestly, Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is not Enough rank very highly with me, I thoroughly enjoy them both. Brosnan truly IS 007 in these, the stories are compelling and detailed yet simple enough to hold attention and keep you engaged, the scores for both are excellent, the action is some of the best the series has to offer, and the villains are highly memorable and enjoyable, namely Elliot Carver, Stamper, Elektra King, and Renard. I never have understood the criticism. So what if it doesn't have "Fleming's Bond" in them? Who cares? They're terrific movies nonetheless! There's no denying that you can be 100% entertained for the entire 2 hour run-time, because these movies are loaded! Even Die Another Day has its share of awesome moments, despite the corny cheese that was added in its second half.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Brosnan!
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 1,497
    TND and TWINE came out while I was in high school before I was a Bond fan and to be honest, I had no interest to see them. They just seemed like product to me; churned out of the EON machine, nothing more than cheap knockoffs of Goldeneye. Having seen them after that, sadly I didn't feel much different.

    I think what was lacking was inspiration. Again, it just feels like product, ticking off the Bond boxes, playing it safe, without any life or energy to them. They had the perfect cookie-cutter Bond in Brosnan, with the huge budgets to back it up, but no substantial talent behind the production. DAD then takes this formula to the extreme: a cash-cow series at it's most bloated. CR was at least a step away from that.
  • I would say, they tried too much to make a good Bond film with all the elements. But they should have tried to tell a good and working story first and foremost, and then add the typical things. Broccoli and Wilson had no time to make the franchise their own. They tried too much to go on like Cubby did, with a film every two years. With CR they stepped back from the Cubby formula for the first time, and made a Bond film with real passion. Thats my impression at least.

    And I have the feeling that Brosnan too much wanted to be tough like Connery. But he is rather the Moore type, with a good sense of humor and irony, as seen in The Matador. Maybe his films would have worked with more courage for absurd humor.
  • Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 14
    Okay, I will admit that there is no such thing as a bad Bond film, however the Brosnan era was the weakest of the entire series. Main problem was the lack of Ian Fleming material in all four films. Also, Brosnan tried too hard to be like Sean Connery and then would switch to Roger Moore while trying to mimic Timothy Dalton's attempt to make him darker. Bad move on his part since he was originally touted as the new Cary Grant when he played Remington Steele. Brosnan is not that good of an actor to pull off dark material, he is best suited towards light humor and this is why Cubby liked him at their first meeting. Daniel Craig can get away with performing Bond in a dark way because we know very little about Craig as an actor. He does not have a popular following like Brosnan did with Steele. There lies the problem with the acting portion. I'm not saying Brosnan is a bad actor, but merely limited when he tried to stretch into the darkside of OO7. Let's face it, if you are an agent and your life is full of scars, you are not going to be a sensitive agent when it comes to Electra or feel extreme pain from fighting other enemy agents. You're going to be a tough SOB and this is the main reason Craig is so successful. His Bond can fall from great heights, bounce off car hoods, and keep on running. We the audience, are glued to the screen because we are seeing 'SuperBond' in action and this time we can believe it.

    Now about the scripts and titles of the Brosnan era. GoldenEye started out fairly well but since OO6 was about the same age as Bond, it makes it very hard to believe he was part of the Russian Bolsheviks when an actor such as Anthony Hopkins (an original choice) would have been best in that part. Not to mention he would have been Bond's teacher in the service. Tomorrow Never Dies suffers from a bad title that was mis-printed but despite an outrageous plot the film stays true to the cinematic formula. Unfortunately for The World Is Not Enough, the formula is turned upside down since the action and pacing of the film is in reverse. Story and action scenes should grow in size as the film progresses but TWINE has the weakest of all endings and a fantastic, if not overlong, pre-credit sequence, not to mention a very blasé ski chase. When we finally get to Die Another Day, we have a film that has a great first act, but by the time we get to the ice palace, anything goes including the script. Director, Lee Tamahori, and editor, Christian Wagner, tried to re-invent Peter Hunt's editing style by mixing up shots and scenes as well as sped up footage. The results are best noted during the final car dual between Bond and Zao. The scene was supposed to be like a ballet but ended up looking like the food fight scene in Animal House. Which is how the second act is to the viewer - a huge mess with no where to go.

    For quite some time certain fans gave the producers a hard time for firing Brosnan and moving on with Craig. For me, that was the best solution. It gave Eon a chance to start over and bring in new blood while trying to resurrect Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. They knew that Brosnan's films were missing something crucial and that continuing down that road was going to be disasterous. As for me, I use to leave the theater after seeing an OO7 adventure and saying 'Wow! That was great fun." Unfortunately, I never felt that way with the Brosnan films. It was missing that key element of exiting the theater and wishing I was Bond and that I could conquer every form of evil and every form of sexy femme fatales. That was the problem and I began to wonder if I had reached the age where Bond was no longer relevant, no longer fun to watch. That he was more for the younger ages of 12 to 22.

    However, with Casino Royale and even Quantum of Solace (despite the Jason Bourne editing), the fun returned and Bond was cool again.

    My apologies to any Brosnan fans here. I know that many of you grew up with him being your Bond, similar to me growing up with Sean Connery during the 1960s (yes, I'm an old guy). But Daniel Craig literally breathed new life into a cardboard character that can go on for a very long time. Something Brosnan could never do and did not try to do when he had the role, by being that random secret agent who could turn the tables on his foes, escape with panache, and make love to a woman simply by looking at them then leaving them wanting more. That is Bond, and all I can say is that it's great to have him back.

    http://shatterhand007.com/Oddblog/
  • Okay, I will admit that there is no such thing as a bad Bond film, however the Brosnan era was the weakest of the entire series. Main problem was the lack of Ian Fleming material in all four films. Also, Brosnan tried too hard to be like Sean Connery and then would switch to Roger Moore while trying to mimic Timothy Dalton's attempt to make him darker. Bad move on his part since he was originally touted as the new Cary Grant when he played Remington Steele. Brosnan is not that good of an actor to pull off dark material, he is best suited towards light humor and this is why Cubby liked him at their first meeting. Daniel Craig can get away with performing Bond in a dark way because we know very little about Craig as an actor. He does not have a popular following like Brosnan did with Steele. There lies the problem with the acting portion. I'm not saying Brosnan is a bad actor, but merely limited when he tried to stretch into the darkside of OO7. Let's face it, if you are an agent and your life is full of scars, you are not going to be a sensitive agent when it comes to Electra or feel extreme pain from fighting other enemy agents. You're going to be a tough SOB and this is the main reason Craig is so successful. His Bond can fall from great heights, bounce off car hoods, and keep on running. We the audience, are glued to the screen because we are seeing 'SuperBond' in action and this time we can believe it.

    Now about the scripts and titles of the Brosnan era. GoldenEye started out fairly well but since OO6 was about the same age as Bond, it makes it very hard to believe he was part of the Russian Bolsheviks when an actor such as Anthony Hopkins (an original choice) would have been best in that part. Not to mention he would have been Bond's teacher in the service. Tomorrow Never Dies suffers from a bad title that was mis-printed but despite an outrageous plot the film stays true to the cinematic formula. Unfortunately for The World Is Not Enough, the formula is turned upside down since the action and pacing of the film is in reverse. Story and action scenes should grow in size as the film progresses but TWINE has the weakest of all endings and a fantastic, if not overlong, pre-credit sequence, not to mention a very blasé ski chase. When we finally get to Die Another Day, we have a film that has a great first act, but by the time we get to the ice palace, anything goes including the script. Director, Lee Tamahori, and editor, Christian Wagner, tried to re-invent Peter Hunt's editing style by mixing up shots and scenes as well as sped up footage. The results are best noted during the final car dual between Bond and Zao. The scene was supposed to be like a ballet but ended up looking like the food fight scene in Animal House. Which is how the second act is to the viewer - a huge mess with no where to go.

    For quite some time certain fans gave the producers a hard time for firing Brosnan and moving on with Craig. For me, that was the best solution. It gave Eon a chance to start over and bring in new blood while trying to resurrect Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. They knew that Brosnan's films were missing something crucial and that continuing down that road was going to be disasterous. As for me, I use to leave the theater after seeing an OO7 adventure and saying 'Wow! That was great fun." Unfortunately, I never felt that way with the Brosnan films. It was missing that key element of exiting the theater and wishing I was Bond and that I could conquer every form of evil and every form of sexy femme fatales. That was the problem and I began to wonder if I had reached the age where Bond was no longer relevant, no longer fun to watch. That he was more for the younger ages of 12 to 22.

    However, with Casino Royale and even Quantum of Solace (despite the Jason Bourne editing), the fun returned and Bond was cool again.

    My apologies to any Brosnan fans here. I know that many of you grew up with him being your Bond, similar to me growing up with Sean Connery during the 1960s (yes, I'm an old guy). But Daniel Craig literally breathed new life into a cardboard character that can go on for a very long time. Something Brosnan could never do and did not try to do when he had the role, by being that random secret agent who could turn the tables on his foes, escape with panache, and make love to a woman simply by looking at them then leaving them wanting more. That is Bond, and all I can say is that it's great to have him back.

    A brilliant analysis here, sums it up perfectly. My Dad told me that when he went to see TSWLM, once the Union Jack parachute appeared, the whole cinema cheered...I would love to see a moment in a Bond film that would make me and the rest of the cinema cheer
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    Goldeneye works extremely well and is in my top 5. Great story, villain, henchmen, and Bond girl. And a good introduction for Pierce.

    Tomorrow Never Dies less so but gets the job done, skillfully and sometimes with style. Pierce was much cooler in this. The action was slick, the score was slicker, Michelle Yeoh was kick ass, and Stamper was a great henchman. The plot is nuts but it plays out nicely and allows your brain to turn off without treating you like a simpleton, unlike DAD.

    The World is Not Enough has its issues, but I always admired the fact they tried to invest a bit more emotion into it, even if it didn't always work. The only thing that really irks me about it is the finale and the way Renard's character turns out. A bit of a waste. Elektra is a great femme fatale, and her scenes with Bond are among my favourites in the whole series. Especially "I Never Miss." PTS is awesome, and the score again is great.

    DAD was an exercise in excess, way too much of everything. Too many one liners, too many crazy stunts, too much crappy CGI, and too much of a campy villain. Elliot Carver ain't got anything on Gustav Graves. Too much techno in the music, ruins an otherwise great score. Bond girl not very memorable, Berry was outshined by Pike. Zao was hindered by a ridiculous backstory, as was Graves. There's just so much of everything going on, with the bare minimum holding it together. The PTS was great again, as were the Cuba scenes and the Swordfight, and the car chase. But I dunno, it doesn't get any better with time.

    Overall, Brosnan's first three films work for me. The last one, even though it has its moments, is definitely one of the weaker offerings of the series and really casts a dark cloud over the previous three.
  • Posts: 4,762
    @CraigMooreOHMSS: My feelings as well, the first three are amazing classics, and Die Another Day takes that greatness away in many fans' eyes, which is pretty unfair I think.
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    i agree that the scripts werent strong but all of Brosnans films have a place in my heart
    i mean Tommorow Never Dies was just pure fun nonsense with Johnathan Pryce really hamming it up- there were some great moments like Bond killing Kaufman and David Arnolds Score was brilliant...if only they got Monica Belluci instead of Teri Hatcher....

    TWINE despite its flaws was another solid entry, Sophie was amazing, Renard was probarly a unique villian that couldnt feel pain, and lets not forget that it was Desmond's Last bond film as Q which still pulls the heart strings as he bows out for the last time RIP...

    only Die Another Day poisioned the waterhole- i think this is the film that fans remember the most and blame Brosnan for- but come on there are some good moments- The Pretitlesequence, Bond Tortured, Rosmaund Pike getting her clothes off... and lets not forget it was Brosnans most comfortable role..

    sure Brosnans era isnt the strongest but it was the 90s...look at film and tv shows in the 90s it was campy but awesome...and lets face it all of Brosnans films were masterpieces compared to Qantum of Solace
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I don't hate Brosnan's films. I'm not one to consider him the best Bond, nor even a close to Fleming Bond. He's what happens when you cross the Moore comedian Bond with the Fleming Bond. GE was great, and I happen to like TND quite well, because it was very current in '97, with the media sh*t. TWINE should have waited ten years, when oil was really a huge problem (granted, it has been for over 30 years now, but...), and DAD should have just cut out the gene therapy BS and toned the gadgets down quite a bit (Bond, Zhao, Moon/Graves, Jinx, f*cking Moneypenny!).

    Now, the villains were all well acted (minus Electra King, who was not acted well), and I even say that about Gustav Graves. I give a great deal of credit to Toby Stephens for taking what had to be the worst role in cinema in 2002 and at least acting him with the right amount of snarl. Elliot Carver was great, with his actor doing the super-powerful media mogul just right. Sean Bean was an excellent Alec Trevelyn, as well, he just made him a little too cocky at the end.

    As for Brosnan's supporting cast. Judi Dench was an excellent M, but I prefer the Bond/M relationship in the Craig films far better ("I thought 'M' was just a randomly assigned letter, I had no idea it stood for-"/"Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed!"). Samantha Bond was a decent Moneypenny, but it was obvious from the little screen time she had (even less than Lois Maxwell, I'd say) that I think the EON people were just waiting for the right time to dump the character. Desmond Llywellyn was obviously the perfect Q. Nobody played him better. John Cleese was great as the new guy, though, first as R and then as Q, and was certainly just as funny as Desmond was.

    So, no, Brosnan's last 3 films were not the problem. The problem was our expectations. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as every other problem.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited May 2012 Posts: 5,949
    The problem was that the Bond series was in a period of transition. Cubby was on his last legs, Bernard Lee was dead, Lois Maxwell was gone, and Desmond Llewelyn was aging. Dalton had been rejected by the public. The Cold War ended.

    GE did restart the franchise credibly with good villains, but with retro Moore-retread Brosnan, the series had little forward direction, aside from Dench. It was starting to feel like your grandfather's Bond.

    Couple that with questionable casting decisions (notably, but not limited to, Denise Richards--I'd throw in Cleese as tonally off, as well as a revolving door of less-than-menacing villains in Pryce, Carlyle, and Stevens).

    The scripts also were a letdown in this era. But aside from Maibaum, most of the screenwriters burned themselves out: DAF-LALD-TMWTGG (Mankiewicz) gave way to TWSLM-MR (Wood) gave way to FYEO-OP-AVTAK-TLD-LTK (Wilson) gave way to GE-TND-TWINE (Feirstein). It remains troubling that Purvis and Wade's sole solo credit is DAD. I think a screenwriter change is looming.
  • Posts: 5,745
    Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O

    Dench was a beacon of light in an otherwise dull acting decade from Brosnan.
  • So, no, Brosnan's last 3 films were not the problem. The problem was our expectations. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as every other problem.

    Would you say that it is Bond fans that stop the series from really progressing as we are 'stuck in our ways' on what we like/find acceptable to the franchise? Are the producers wary of trying some things for fear how the Bond fanbase will react, even though it will be well received by the casual cinema go-er?
  • JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O

    Dench was a beacon of light in an otherwise dull acting decade from Brosnan.

    By beacon of light, I can only presume you refer to the tower/lighthouse she was locked up in in TWINE? ;)

    Seriously, Dench's M is awful imo. It has gone way too far and is harming the series. I accept, however, that in GE, her initial scene with Bond was sharp and very good and in TND, her scenes were akin to a more traditional M/bond relationship. TWINE just about stepped the mark and 'did something different'.

    After that, Dench goes on a power trip that harms the series
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    JWESTBROOK wrote:
    Let's not forget "Modern Bond's" biggest downfall...Judi Dench.

    And Purvis and Wade, how they're still writing the screenplays is beyond me :O

    Dench was a beacon of light in an otherwise dull acting decade from Brosnan.

    By beacon of light, I can only presume you refer to the tower/lighthouse she was locked up in in TWINE? ;)

    Seriously, Dench's M is awful imo. It has gone way too far and is harming the series. I accept, however, that in GE, her initial scene with Bond was sharp and very good and in TND, her scenes were akin to a more traditional M/bond relationship. TWINE just about stepped the mark and 'did something different'.

    After that, Dench goes on a power trip that harms the series


    I agree.
    Denchs portrayal of M is terrible and makes me cringe.
    Also Brosnan is not one of the best actors in the world and to play james bond well you have to be a very good actor.

  • Posts: 5,634
    Dench's M is head and shoulders above the awful Robert Brown but no-one will ever be able to replace, or better, even, the original Bernard Lee, it's too tall an order for anyone to compete with

    I only say two out of three of Brosnans last Bond releases were a problem. Not all his doing for sure, but as the main part he must shoulder his share of the blame for it. Goldeneye was a success, he did well, looked the part (just going over old ground again) but his second appearance in 1997 was a disaster for me, he redeemed himself with the excellent TWINE two years after, and no words are needed for his fourth and final appearance in 2002, we have exhausted that to death

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,425
    The problem did not start with TND, but with GE, which is a tedious exercise in film-making by numbers. I understand why they approached GE this way, but it set a bad precedent for the Brosnan era. TND IMO, was actually the best by a long way of all the Brosnan films. The first half had some decent, stylish scenes and there was even the odd stab at some proper dialogue. Michelle Yeoh also added a touch of class lacking in most of Brosnan's other Bond girls. The fact she was the same age (or thereabouts) as Pierce added to the believability of their relationship.

    Any way, this is all moot, because the basic, fundamental flaw with the Brosnan era was Pierce Brosnan. The way in which his apologists acknowledge that his films were awful but still claim it has nothing to do with Brosnan is becoming increasingly absurd. I have even read people claim that he should have made a 5th film just to give him a 'chance'. I'm sorry, but the elephant in the room is Brosnan's utter inability to ever make the role his own and his desperate lack of screen presence.

    Yes, the stories, scripts, cast, production design and film scores were often catastrophically awful, but the yawning chasm at the heart of all 4 of those films was not the absence of Cubby, John Barry, Maibaum or a decent director - it was the utterly inadequate actor wearing the tux.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Okay, I will admit that there is no such thing as a bad Bond film, however the Brosnan era was the weakest of the entire series. Main problem was the lack of Ian Fleming material in all four films. Also, Brosnan tried too hard to be like Sean Connery and then would switch to Roger Moore while trying to mimic Timothy Dalton's attempt to make him darker. Bad move on his part since he was originally touted as the new Cary Grant when he played Remington Steele. Brosnan is not that good of an actor to pull off dark material, he is best suited towards light humor and this is why Cubby liked him at their first meeting. Daniel Craig can get away with performing Bond in a dark way because we know very little about Craig as an actor. He does not have a popular following like Brosnan did with Steele. There lies the problem with the acting portion. I'm not saying Brosnan is a bad actor, but merely limited when he tried to stretch into the darkside of OO7. Let's face it, if you are an agent and your life is full of scars, you are not going to be a sensitive agent when it comes to Electra or feel extreme pain from fighting other enemy agents. You're going to be a tough SOB and this is the main reason Craig is so successful. His Bond can fall from great heights, bounce off car hoods, and keep on running. We the audience, are glued to the screen because we are seeing 'SuperBond' in action and this time we can believe it.

    Now about the scripts and titles of the Brosnan era. GoldenEye started out fairly well but since OO6 was about the same age as Bond, it makes it very hard to believe he was part of the Russian Bolsheviks when an actor such as Anthony Hopkins (an original choice) would have been best in that part. Not to mention he would have been Bond's teacher in the service. Tomorrow Never Dies suffers from a bad title that was mis-printed but despite an outrageous plot the film stays true to the cinematic formula. Unfortunately for The World Is Not Enough, the formula is turned upside down since the action and pacing of the film is in reverse. Story and action scenes should grow in size as the film progresses but TWINE has the weakest of all endings and a fantastic, if not overlong, pre-credit sequence, not to mention a very blasé ski chase. When we finally get to Die Another Day, we have a film that has a great first act, but by the time we get to the ice palace, anything goes including the script. Director, Lee Tamahori, and editor, Christian Wagner, tried to re-invent Peter Hunt's editing style by mixing up shots and scenes as well as sped up footage. The results are best noted during the final car dual between Bond and Zao. The scene was supposed to be like a ballet but ended up looking like the food fight scene in Animal House. Which is how the second act is to the viewer - a huge mess with no where to go.

    For quite some time certain fans gave the producers a hard time for firing Brosnan and moving on with Craig. For me, that was the best solution. It gave Eon a chance to start over and bring in new blood while trying to resurrect Ian Fleming's Casino Royale. They knew that Brosnan's films were missing something crucial and that continuing down that road was going to be disasterous. As for me, I use to leave the theater after seeing an OO7 adventure and saying 'Wow! That was great fun." Unfortunately, I never felt that way with the Brosnan films. It was missing that key element of exiting the theater and wishing I was Bond and that I could conquer every form of evil and every form of sexy femme fatales. That was the problem and I began to wonder if I had reached the age where Bond was no longer relevant, no longer fun to watch. That he was more for the younger ages of 12 to 22.

    However, with Casino Royale and even Quantum of Solace (despite the Jason Bourne editing), the fun returned and Bond was cool again.

    My apologies to any Brosnan fans here. I know that many of you grew up with him being your Bond, similar to me growing up with Sean Connery during the 1960s (yes, I'm an old guy). But Daniel Craig literally breathed new life into a cardboard character that can go on for a very long time. Something Brosnan could never do and did not try to do when he had the role, by being that random secret agent who could turn the tables on his foes, escape with panache, and make love to a woman simply by looking at them then leaving them wanting more. That is Bond, and all I can say is that it's great to have him back.

    http://shatterhand007.com/Oddblog/

    I have to say this must be post of the month. An insigtful, articulate and coherent argument.

  • Posts: 1,492
    [
    Would you say that it is Bond fans that stop the series from really progressing as we are 'stuck in our ways' on what we like/find acceptable to the franchise? Are the producers wary of trying some things for fear how the Bond fanbase will react, even though it will be well received by the casual cinema go-er?

    Some fans I would say.

    I am of the generation who enjoyed AVTAK but was open mouthed in wonder with what they did with TLD. This was a series which the lead actor was shaking things up. This was a dashing dangerous Bond with murder in his eyes. A light year away from what we got with Roger Moore.

    So I like the left turn Bonds. I like things abit abstract. But alot of fans dont. They like their oneliners, their Aston Martin, their Miss Moneypenny, their Q briefing scenes, the gunbarrel at the start of the film, thei "Bond, James Bond.."

    They like things as they were. The Brosnan era was 'things as they we' but without the expertise.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 5,767
    I don´t have much of a problem with the Brosnan films.
    However.
    The films were often too busy trying to update Bond into the 90s, and forgot to be tight in themselves. The Bondness was more on the outside than on the inside.
    This was due in part to Brosnan´s lack of gravitas. He has marvellous scenes, for example the scene in TND were he tells Carver he´d be adrift writing biographies. But most of the time he is busy trying to point out he´s Bond, instead of being it, like for example Dalton and Craig did.
  • Posts: 1,052
    GE and TND were decent films and personally i think TND represents Brosnans best two hours as Bond, I just think in the last two they introduced too many unneccesary little things, M becoming too involved, Bond becoming a bit sensitive and wet.

    I always got the feeling that everyone involved thought they were making grittier / darker Bond films and as mentioned Brosnan beleived he was emulating Connery but he was definitley closer to Moore, the last time I watched GE, I was really suprised how Moore-like the whole thing was.
  • "Closer to Connery", "Closer to Moore", I think it's a shame that Brosnan didn't take his portrayal in his own direction, and stamp his own individual mark on the role. It's hard to get close to the two Bond knights. They are iconic (an overused but fair term to use in this case, I think) for a reason.

    I don't doubt the enthusiasm of the Bond team during the 90s, but I can't help thinking that they leapt on the franchise like a panther....and somewhat overshot it.
Sign In or Register to comment.