Pierce Brosnan admits he can't bear to watch himself as Bond

11314151618

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    peter wrote: »
    Pictures @barryt007. Pictures...!

    I will have to shave my crack first.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    If I may:..... kinky......
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,181
    Totally agree. Him and Connery are the only two Bonds, so far, that seem like they age very well.

    Personally I think Dalton looks fantastic at 72, but I'll admit to a streak of bias a mile wide.
  • edited May 2018 Posts: 11,189
    Most of the actors have aged pretty well I think.

    (apologies for not posting on here for a while).
  • Posts: 19,339
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Most of the actors have aged pretty well I think.

    (apologies for not posting on here for a while).

    Good to have you back Bain !!
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Totally agree. Him and Connery are the only two Bonds, so far, that seem like they age very well.

    Personally I think Dalton looks fantastic at 72, but I'll admit to a streak of bias a mile wide.

    No, you're right. Dalton does look fantastic for his age.
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Most of the actors have aged pretty well I think.

    I never thought Lazenby was a very attractive man to begin with, so I guess I can't comment on him too much. As much as I love Moore, he's the one that's probably aged the worst. Craig we'll have to wait and see.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Totally agree. Him and Connery are the only two Bonds, so far, that seem like they age very well.

    Personally I think Dalton looks fantastic at 72, but I'll admit to a streak of bias a mile wide.

    No, you're right. Dalton does look fantastic for his age.
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Most of the actors have aged pretty well I think.

    I never thought Lazenby was a very attractive man to begin with, so I guess I can't comment on him too much. As much as I love Moore, he's the one that's probably aged the worst.
    Of course. He is dead.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Totally agree. Him and Connery are the only two Bonds, so far, that seem like they age very well.

    Personally I think Dalton looks fantastic at 72, but I'll admit to a streak of bias a mile wide.

    No, you're right. Dalton does look fantastic for his age.
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Most of the actors have aged pretty well I think.

    I never thought Lazenby was a very attractive man to begin with, so I guess I can't comment on him too much. As much as I love Moore, he's the one that's probably aged the worst.
    Of course. He is dead.

    Oh I know :( I wasn't meaning to speak ill of the dead or anything. However, out of all of them he was the one that didn't age the best.
  • Posts: 11,425
    absurd. sir Rog aged wonderfully
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    homer-bush.jpg
  • Posts: 11,425
    Brozza had a decent Bond film in him. He just never got the right film and director Imo.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 815
    He did do a decent Bond film. It’s called Goldeneye. It has so many things though, that kept it from being a really good Bond film. I don’t blame him for that, I blame the filmmakers. Even still, one of the things that kept GE from greatness was Brosnan’s own performance. It kind of feels like he’s already going through the motions of what the audience expect from a typical Bond film, rather than trying to make the role his own, which Dalton before him and Craig after him did in their first outings rather well. A shame.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited April 2020 Posts: 1,081
    I guess I have that in common with Pierce. ;)

    Channel 9 in Sydney, Australia is currently running all Bond films and Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies have been aired with The World Is Not Enough playing tonight, which is my least favourite Bond film. I've noticed more then ever Brosnan mugging at the camera in an attempt to look cool and other nuances in his performance I find unnecessary and irritating. Goldeneye is #9 in my rankings but I find his performance to be the weakest attribute of the film. GE remains in my top 10 due to an element of nostalgia, but also because there are many characteristics that make it a strong entry in the Bond cannon, IMO. Eric Serra's truly unique score that completely embodies the Cold War tone of the film, Sean Bean's ruthless villain and being a true James Bond equal, Xenia Onatopp has to be a top femmale fatale in the series, Martin Campbell and the plot itself are all what makes this film worthy of being considered great, IMO. While I find Die Another Day to be Brosnan's best film, I think he's passable in this film as he's fair more restrained then what followed after. I'd argue it's his least self-assured performance, personally.
  • Posts: 1,925
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I guess I have that in common with Pierce. ;)

    Channel 9 in Sydney, Australia is currently running all Bond films and Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies have been aired with The World Is Not Enough playing tonight, which is my least favourite Bond film. I've noticed more then ever Brosnan mugging at the camera in an attempt to look cool and other nuances in his performance I find unnecessary and irritating. Goldeneye is #9 in my rankings but I find his performance to be the weakest attribute of the film. GE remains in my top 10 due to an element of nostalgia, but also because there are many characteristics that make it a strong entry in the Bond cannon, IMO. Eric Serra's truly unique score that completely embodies the Cold War tone of the film, Sean Bean's ruthless villain and being a true James Bond equal, Xenia Onatopp has to be a top femmale fatale in the series, Martin Campbell and the plot itself are all what makes this film worthy of being considered great, IMO. While I find Die Another Day to be Brosnan's best film, I think he's passable in this film as he's fair more restrained then what followed after. I'd argue it's his least self-assured performance, personally.

    At the risk of being accused of Brosnan bashing, this is a good point in that a lot of Brosnan defenders portray him as a hybrid Bond with the main characteristics of his predecessors, but just reminds me they did it first and better.

    On the plus side, his "Bond, James Bond" is always confident and assured, much better than Dalton or Craig. I also agree he got better as he went along, if we skip straight from TND to DAD. TWINE is painful all around. For what he had to do, it was a juggling act and I'm sure there was added pressure to DAD with all of the callbacks to previous films.

    Another weakness to that era is the creation of characters with a Bond past such as Trevelyan, Zukovsky and Paris Carver. We've got a new Bond and we're supposed to just take it he and another 00 are not just co-workers but friends. It would've worked so much better with Dalton instead of Brosnan in this way, especially when retconning their mission together back in '86 pre-Dalton.
  • BT3366 wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    I guess I have that in common with Pierce. ;)

    Channel 9 in Sydney, Australia is currently running all Bond films and Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies have been aired with The World Is Not Enough playing tonight, which is my least favourite Bond film. I've noticed more then ever Brosnan mugging at the camera in an attempt to look cool and other nuances in his performance I find unnecessary and irritating. Goldeneye is #9 in my rankings but I find his performance to be the weakest attribute of the film. GE remains in my top 10 due to an element of nostalgia, but also because there are many characteristics that make it a strong entry in the Bond cannon, IMO. Eric Serra's truly unique score that completely embodies the Cold War tone of the film, Sean Bean's ruthless villain and being a true James Bond equal, Xenia Onatopp has to be a top femmale fatale in the series, Martin Campbell and the plot itself are all what makes this film worthy of being considered great, IMO. While I find Die Another Day to be Brosnan's best film, I think he's passable in this film as he's fair more restrained then what followed after. I'd argue it's his least self-assured performance, personally.

    At the risk of being accused of Brosnan bashing, this is a good point in that a lot of Brosnan defenders portray him as a hybrid Bond with the main characteristics of his predecessors, but just reminds me they did it first and better.

    On the plus side, his "Bond, James Bond" is always confident and assured, much better than Dalton or Craig. I also agree he got better as he went along, if we skip straight from TND to DAD. TWINE is painful all around. For what he had to do, it was a juggling act and I'm sure there was added pressure to DAD with all of the callbacks to previous films.

    Another weakness to that era is the creation of characters with a Bond past such as Trevelyan, Zukovsky and Paris Carver. We've got a new Bond and we're supposed to just take it he and another 00 are not just co-workers but friends. It would've worked so much better with Dalton instead of Brosnan in this way, especially when retconning their mission together back in '86 pre-Dalton.

    I think you've hit the nail on the head. Although I liked the colder yet vulnerable side we saw in TWINE, which called back to how Fleming originally portrayed him.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    edited October 2021 Posts: 541
    Sad that he feels that way. He has millions of fans. We're all our worst critics.

    Brosnan rejuvenated the franchise; sales went from stagnating to record numbers not achieved since Thunderball. He introduced a whole new generation to Bond. He re-established a charisma and sex appeal to Bond that the series hasn't seen in decades.

    While there is a stark difference in tone between his movies and Craig, I don't think a Craig would exist without a Brosnan.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited October 2021 Posts: 698
    He's being too hard on himself. He brought the franchise back from cultural irrelevancy (and I say this as someone whose personal favorite Bond is Dalton), showed the world that Bond was still relevant in a post-Cold War context, and stood out as classy action hero at a time when the market was dominated by the Arnolds, Slys, Bruces, and later, Vins of the 90s and early 2000s. I probably appreciate Brosnan now more than I did back then.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,199
    I can’t blame him. From the start it sounded like he wanted to take it to a direction that was eventually done with Craig. Instead he got stuck saying cheesy lines like “one rises to meet a challenge”.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I wonder if Pierce does his "pain face" when he watches himself back?

    In all seriousness, I like Pierce as Bond and it's a shame he can't watch himself in the role
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    Pierce's era is really not my favorite, but I totally feel for the guy. I mean, after an unceremonious dismissal, EON went and did the exact kinds of films Pierce wanted to be doing. It had to have been as frustrating for him as when he saw Timothy on the posters in 1987.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I wonder if Pierce does his "pain face" when he watches himself back?
    Beat me to the Painface gag! :D
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    Just because Brosnan wanted to do a different toned Bond film, doesn't mean he could. IMO opinion, he just didn't have the chops to create a more dark, three dimensional character. I imagine the producers of the films didn't think he could either (hence why he was dismissed).
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    peter wrote: »
    Just because Brosnan wanted to do a different toned Bond film, doesn't mean he could. IMO opinion, he just didn't have the chops to create a more dark, three dimensional character. I imagine the producers of the films didn't think he could either (hence why he was dismissed).

    Nailed it mate, I think this as well
  • peter wrote: »
    Just because Brosnan wanted to do a different toned Bond film, doesn't mean he could. IMO opinion, he just didn't have the chops to create a more dark, three dimensional character. I imagine the producers of the films didn't think he could either (hence why he was dismissed).

    I have to disagree there. Brosnan handled the dark and serious moments of his films perfectly. In spite of the scripts he was given, he’s had plenty of scenes where he proved that he could’ve played that dark, Fleming type Bond wonderfully, but he wasn’t afforded that opportunity, so it is what it is.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,592
    peter wrote: »
    Just because Brosnan wanted to do a different toned Bond film, doesn't mean he could. IMO opinion, he just didn't have the chops to create a more dark, three dimensional character. I imagine the producers of the films didn't think he could either (hence why he was dismissed).

    I have to disagree there. Brosnan handled the dark and serious moments of his films perfectly. In spite of the scripts he was given, he’s had plenty of scenes where he proved that he could’ve played that dark, Fleming type Bond wonderfully, but he wasn’t afforded that opportunity, so it is what it is.
    Agreed, there’s no way of knowing whether or not he had the acting sensibilities to handle a full “dark/deep Bond” portrayal other than to judge his outside work, much of which is a testament to how well he probably would have been able to do it if he were given the chance. The only reason he was let go is because the series needed a revamp and that came with needing a younger Bond.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited November 2021 Posts: 1,731
    I could be laconic and agree with Pierce (I do..), but that's been done enough in this thread.

    Pierce's issue was two-fold:

    1) He was unfortunate enough to be sandwiched between the two best actors (by some distance) to portray 007. Brosnan is an okay actor, but nothing more. He can't 'lift' average or poor material.

    2) He LOVED the character too much. He was so emotionally invested in it, to get it right, to DO right by his heroes Sean and Roger, that it partially paralyzed his ability to approach the role objectively and prevented him from doing his OWN thing with 007.
  • edited November 2021 Posts: 2,285
    AceHole wrote: »
    I could be laconic and agree with Pierce (I do..), but that's been done enough in this thread.

    Pierce's issue was two-fold:

    1) He was unfortunate enough to be sandwiched between the two best actors (by some distance) to portray 007. Brosnan is an okay actor, but nothing more. He can't 'lift' average or poor material.

    2) He LOVED the character too much. He was so emotionally invested in it, to get it right, to DO right by his heroes Sean and Roger, that it partially paralyzed his ability to approach the role objectively and prevented him from doing his OWN thing with 007.

    It’s funny I touched upon something like this in the “Brosnan Era is more fun” thread just now, but I can respect your view on the matter, I just can’t say I agree with it. The comparisons to Dalton and Craig don’t make much sense considering the type of Bond Brosnan was going for. It makes much more sense to compare him to Connery/Moore than Dalton/Craig, and even then, when compared to Connery/Moore, Brosnan brings his own elements, personality, and gravitas to the role. Plus you bring up his supposed “lack of acting abilities”, for one thing, films like Thomas Crown Affair, Tailor of Panama, Fourth Protocol, The Matador, and November Man all prove those abilities were there within Pierce, so again, it’s not Brosnan’s fault he was given poor material to work with most of the time.
  • Despite my preference for Daniel Craigs, era, I wouldn't be against a one off Brosnan "old man" Bond on one last assignment. That's assuming Tim Dalton couldn't be persuaded which would be a dream come true.
  • Posts: 6,710
    One thing about Pierce is that many say he didn’t get to do his own thing with the role, and I respectfully disagree. I think that with the proper distance to it, we’ll see he was his own Bond, and thread like these new ones that have popped up ever since Craig’s era ended, have been proof of this. IMO, of course.
  • Univex wrote: »
    One thing about Pierce is that many say he didn’t get to do his own thing with the role, and I respectfully disagree. I think that with the proper distance to it, we’ll see he was his own Bond, and thread like these new ones that have popped up ever since Craig’s era ended, have been proof of this. IMO, of course.

    I’ve always felt Brosnan was the perfect fusion of the previous actors, but have also felt the elements he brings during his tenure. My hope is that with the Craig era behind us, the trend of being overly harsh on Brosnan ends because he really doesn’t deserve any of it.
Sign In or Register to comment.