The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1141517192029

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    CR is a great movie, but a good Bond movie it is not. It's a poor Bond film but as a regular movie? It's fantastic
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    CR is a great movie, but a good Bond movie it is not. It's a poor Bond film but as a regular movie? It's fantastic

    This is an absurd argument. A great movie but a poor Bond film? Total nonsense.

    It is neither of these. It's a decent Bond movie. Slightly overrated around hear IMO but neither a great movie nor a poor Bond film. Somewhere happily in the middle.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,533
    The Brosnan era was automatically more fun for one simple reason. No lengthy gaps between films.
  • Posts: 2,913
    Quantity over quality.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Tbh the Brosnan movies were quality over Quantity. The Connery movies more so got hit by that bug after Goldfinger or so I'd say
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Tbh the Brosnan movies were quality over Quantity. The Connery movies more so got hit by that bug after Goldfinger or so I'd say

    I prefer Thunderball over Goldfinger.

  • Posts: 2,913
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Tbh the Brosnan movies were quality over Quantity. The Connery movies more so got hit by that bug after Goldfinger or so I'd say

    The first three Connery films are better than the second three, but with the exception of DAF their quality is evident, even as mere spectacles. The Brosnan films by contrast are postmodern pastiches of Bond films larded with American action film cliches, and their "quality" is only evident to those who had the misfortune to grow up on them and consequently afflicted by nostalgia.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    The Nostolgia argument is a really stupid one tbh. Also it's unfortunate to grow up with them? Sir that's ab absolutely ridiculous statement, I may not like Craig but you don't hear me saying it's a crime or unfortunate that people had to grow up with his lousy excuses for bond movies do you?


    As for Thunderball over Goldfinger, I can see that if the pacing in TB wasn't so bad. Honestly GF is quite flawed and isn't anywhere near as great as the hype train would lead you to believe it is. I think Dr. No, DAF and of course FRWL are miles better than Goldfinger honestly.
  • Posts: 2,913
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    The Nostolgia argument is a really stupid one tbh.

    It's not necessary to keep affirming your honesty--no one doubts the sincerity of your opinions, just their wisdom. Most people have a soft spot for the Bond movies they grew up with, and if you were a couple decades older you'd mostly likely be a partisan of Roger instead.
    I may not like Craig but you don't hear me saying it's a crime or unfortunate that people had to grow up with his lousy excuses for bond movies do you?

    Probably because very people would agree with you about the Craig films being lousy. On the contrary, the Craig era has tended to make the Brosnan era look retrospectively worse in the eyes of many people, as can be seen on any Bond message board.
    Honestly GF is quite flawed and isn't anywhere near as great as the hype train would lead you to believe it is.

    There isn't a hype train. There's just the fact that GF was an immense success with the public and permanently put the series on the map of the global consciousness, providing a template the series continues to work from and embedding itself into pop culture. That's why even Brosnan drove an Aston Martin in his films. Those who knock GF would do better to try understanding why it had such a seismic impact. If it doesn't seem fresh to you today, it's because almost every succeeding Bond film has tried replicating its ingredients.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Well yeah Goldfinger was a huge success for many reasons. I myself used to have it as my number 2 favorite but it's since gone down in my ranking hard but I still like it even if it's problems are kinda major enough to not be overlooked. GF was successful for a good reason and it's definitely a classic and it helped establish the Bond formula even more after Dr. No laid down the ground work and FRWL did some serious additions to the formula but GF is what completed it really. It has my respect for that reason, after all Bond as we know it today probably wouldn't exist if not for Goldfinger
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    I really enjoyed all Brosnan films as Bond even if they aren’t the most autor style or have less depth. I liked the approach his films took die another day went a little too far with the surfing wave but overall i enjoyed Pierce Brosnan bond flicks.

    My only true issue probably his Bond girls they lacked that Bond girl poise and sophistication and it’s all because they weren’t Europeans.
    Craig got better looking Bond girls because they were exotic European women.

    Brosnan sadly got generic American beauties.


    I think the only case where the American is more exotic and spectacular is
    no time to die definitely Ana de Armas is much more beautiful and stunning than Lea Seydux.

    But yes at the end all the problems with Christmas Jones was Denis Richards portraying her I watched a video review on the world is not enough and the guy kept repeating that the film would have been better if the cigar lady from the pre titles sequence would have portrayed Christmas.

    The name was a little homage to the Moore era or something classic bond like pussy galore or plenty otoole. Everyone’s problem is that the character was that it wasn’t an exotic European girl like Caterina Moorino or Berenice Marlhoe.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    Szonana wrote: »
    My only true issue probably his Bond girls they lacked that Bond girl poise and sophistication and it’s all because they weren’t Europeans.
    Craig got better looking Bond girls because they were exotic European women.

    Brosnan sadly got generic American beauties.

    I too really like Brosnan's Bond, and love the first two of his Bond films, but what you say is factually incorrect, not to mention a big generalisation, and IMO not a fair one.

    GE's Izabella Scorupco is Polish; Famke Janssen (I am including "bad" girls here for completeness' sake) is Dutch. Both are fun to watch.

    TND's Teri Hatcher is American, but IMO she holds up well as a Bond girl looks-wise. Michelle Yeoh is Malaysian-Chinese, and she gave a first-rate performance.

    TWINE's Sophie Marceau is as "exotic European" as it gets, though I'll grant you that Denise Richards looked and acted like a cookie-cutter cheerleader, completely out of place.

    DAD's Halle Berry's character was poorly written and, yes, she is American, but Brit Rosamund Pike did not fare much better, also, IMO, due to poor writing.

    I think that on balance, the only obviously miscast Brosnan-era Bond girl was Denise Richards.

    And Ana De Armas is originally Cuban ;)
  • Posts: 9,840
    Getafix wrote: »
    For my money GE is garbage. A cheap, poorly written little 90s actioner. Have never been able to fathom its popularity.

    The first half of TND is Brosnan's finest hour. Half decent PTS and some nice production design. And Jonathan price is an okay old school pantomime villain. I even think Michelle Yeoh adds a bit of class and Brosnan seems to like her - there's a sense of camaraderie if not a believable romance. The second half degenerates really badly but for me that was the closest they got to the right formula for Brosnan.

    TWINE is hands down the worst film in the series for me. Just unwatchable.

    DAD has a crazed energy, like Tamahori was trying to end the franchise by totally wrecking its reputation. As a result it is actually more entertaining to watch than TWINE and has a car-crash, through your fingers watchability.

    I have nothing against Brosnan the man. He always strikes me as thoroughly charming and decent. And I think he could have been a much better Bond with decent writing and some stronger direction.

    Having said this, he has to take some of the blame for the fact he never seemed to get a grip on the character. Who is Brosnan's Bond? I don't know and I am not sure Pierce had much idea either. Just a generic international playboy.

    You can blame Rare

    Sorry I enjoy Goldeneye but why does everyone put it in their top ten it seems … the bloody video game in fact I hadn’t heard a review NOT mention the game in a long time lol
  • Posts: 131
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Sorry I enjoy Goldeneye but why does everyone put it in their top ten it seems …

    I never played the game, and can give you my reasons.
    Subjectively, it was fun to watch in a way that four out of five Craig films were not, for me. Just my impression.
    • The plot never lagged, there was plenty of action but also enough cohesive story to make it all hang together.
    • Brosnan as Bond in GE was certainly "lighter" than Dalton's LTK Bond, and slightly so than TLD's Bond, but he still had a serious edge that had been missing in Moore's Bond. He was sophisticated enough to pass as a playboy, but still believable as a killer.
    • Sean Bean was superb as Trevelyan.
    • This was Judi Dench's first outing as M, and she hit the ground running.
    • Natalia was a believable Bond girl with a brain and a heart.
    • Famke Janssen's Xenia was crazy fun.
    • Boris Grishenko and Valentin Zhukovski were comical enough to be entertaining, but not over-the-top so to be annoying, and even nuanced enough not to be black-and-white "good" or "bad" guys.
    • The stunts were very enjoyable. The PTS was a delight, and the tank sequence in St Petersburg was both hilarious and thrilling.
    • Bond's final fight with Alec added a well-acted personal side to the climax.
    It is not Oscar material, but I find it both re-watchable and still-entertaining on repeat viewings.
  • To me the Brosnan ETA was fun at the time especially Goldneye and TND but not memorable and hard hitting like the Craig era.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,730
    shamanimal wrote: »
    At the time, TWINE was seen as the best Brosnan Bond. It was referred to as his FYEO, in that it had a more dramatic storyline. I think that had to do with the fact he actually seemed to fall for Electra. The first proper Bond romance since TLD I think. But certain parts of it haven't aged well, and I see it's often at the bottom of the list. At the time, it was considered an improvement over TND.
    I think the only major miss-step was the second half of DAD. And even then it wasn't a case of laziness, I think they tried too hard to do everything. DAD was the kitchen-sink Bond.
    It worked much better in the cinema, also.

    True. I remember TWINE getting a FIVE STAR review in 'Total Film' magazine in 1999, saying Michael Apted has delivered a Bond classic @-)
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited October 2021 Posts: 1,730
    The thing with Pierce was that, both his take on the character and the productions of his films felt like 'Bond by committee', especially after GE (which I do rate, despite it's dour locations and eardrum splitting score).

    It is NO coincidence that Brosnan's strongest screenplay was not written by Purvis & Wade...

    Pierce himself said that he always tried to be both Connery + Moore, and it shows.

    The films, by and large, seem to be put together so as not to offend anyone, yet truly please no one, all at the same time... they lack any edge, and feel like TV-movies, more than anything.

    I do love GE's script, TND's PTS & score though, and will re-watch those two on occasion. Brosnan's 3rd and 4th however I have avoided and am all the better for it.
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    Posts: 680
    The best part of the Brosnan era was the predictability. You knew what you'd get with each movie, but it was okay because it was Bond and we all knew what Bond was about. These are not art films.

    I didn't appreciate it as much at the time but looking back after the grandiose self-seriousness of the wildly-uneven (and IMO overall botched) Craig experiment, I miss that predictability.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,730
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The best part of the Brosnan era was the predictability. You knew what you'd get with each movie, but it was okay because it was Bond and we all knew what Bond was about. These are not art films.

    I didn't appreciate it as much at the time but looking back after the grandiose self-seriousness of the wildly-uneven (and IMO overall botched) Craig experiment, I miss that predictability.

    I can agree, up to a point. And that point is 1997 :-/

    I do agree that, despite DC bringing his A-game in all but SP and the films going higher in production quality than ever before, the grandiose self-indulgent 'experiment' as you aptly put it has turned out to be a botched job, by and large, certainly from a story and plot perspective.
    They have been making it up as they go along... no clear vision, no consistent creative decisions.
  • Posts: 6,705
    AceHole wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The best part of the Brosnan era was the predictability. You knew what you'd get with each movie, but it was okay because it was Bond and we all knew what Bond was about. These are not art films.

    I didn't appreciate it as much at the time but looking back after the grandiose self-seriousness of the wildly-uneven (and IMO overall botched) Craig experiment, I miss that predictability.

    I can agree, up to a point. And that point is 1997 :-/

    I do agree that, despite DC bringing his A-game in all but SP and the films going higher in production quality than ever before, the grandiose self-indulgent 'experiment' as you aptly put it has turned out to be a botched job, by and large, certainly from a story and plot perspective.
    They have been making it up as they go along... no clear vision, no consistent creative decisions.

    1997 is the year I draw that line as well. Great posts guys 👍
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The best part of the Brosnan era was the predictability. You knew what you'd get with each movie, but it was okay because it was Bond and we all knew what Bond was about. These are not art films.

    I didn't appreciate it as much at the time but looking back after the grandiose self-seriousness of the wildly-uneven (and IMO overall botched) Craig experiment, I miss that predictability.

    I must admit, after seeing NTTD I had a strong urge to watch Goldeneye when I got home...

    Perhaps I needed to cleanse my palate so to speak. I still have no idea where NTTD will figure in my rankings. I have only seen it the once and hopefully some repeat viewings on Bluray my view of it will become clearer.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,730
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The best part of the Brosnan era was the predictability. You knew what you'd get with each movie, but it was okay because it was Bond and we all knew what Bond was about. These are not art films.

    I didn't appreciate it as much at the time but looking back after the grandiose self-seriousness of the wildly-uneven (and IMO overall botched) Craig experiment, I miss that predictability.

    I must admit, after seeing NTTD I had a strong urge to watch Goldeneye when I got home...

    Perhaps I needed to cleanse my palate so to speak. I still have no idea where NTTD will figure in my rankings. I have only seen it the once and hopefully some repeat viewings on Bluray my view of it will become clearer.

    Single malt drinker..? ;)
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 131
    I must admit, after seeing NTTD I had a strong urge to watch Goldeneye when I got home...

    Perhaps I needed to cleanse my palate so to speak.

    I did exactly that, for that very reason ;) ...then it turned into a mini-marathon of my favourites across all five Bonds ;)
  • Posts: 6,705
    I must admit, after seeing NTTD I had a strong urge to watch Goldeneye when I got home...

    Perhaps I needed to cleanse my palate so to speak.

    I did exactly that, for that very reason ;) ...then it turned into a mini-marathon of my favourites across all five Bonds ;)

    Me too. GE, TND, then OHMSS, FRWL, GF, TB and TLD.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,129
    Brosnan's always called the 'greatest hits' Bond and we can all see why but, pre-Craig and the revamp, he was pretty good wasn't he? Not much depth, but there didn't need to be - they were different kinds of films. Pierce's Bond doesn't resonate with me like Craig's does, but Moore's didn't do it for me like Connery's did either - doesn't stop me from enjoying them for what they are in their own right.
  • Posts: 131
    Univex wrote: »
    I must admit, after seeing NTTD I had a strong urge to watch Goldeneye when I got home...

    Perhaps I needed to cleanse my palate so to speak.

    I did exactly that, for that very reason ;) ...then it turned into a mini-marathon of my favourites across all five Bonds ;)

    Me too. GE, TND, then OHMSS, FRWL, GF, TB and TLD.

    Almost the same, just longer. GE right away, then TND, OHMSS, LTK, SF, CR, DN, GF, TB, YOLT, TSWLM, NSNA (I know, I know), over the past two weeks. Could have thrown in FRWL and FYEO, but somehow they are still fresh in my memory. I've been saving TLD for dessert :P
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 2021 Posts: 16,189
    AceHole wrote: »
    It is NO coincidence that Brosnan's strongest screenplay was not written by Purvis & Wade...

    I'm not sure about that actually. I'd say TWINE probably has the strongest, most interesting and surprising story of the lot of them - it just didn't turn out as a very good film.
    If that had been one of the continuation novels everyone would be crying out for them to them to adapt it because it's so full of new ideas.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Brosnan's always called the 'greatest hits' Bond and we can all see why but, pre-Craig and the revamp, he was pretty good wasn't he? Not much depth, but there didn't need to be - they were different kinds of films.

    Yeah he's a proper film star in them: he's exactly what they needed and you laughed and got excited along with him. I did watch DAD again only a few weeks ago and I must say, in such close proximity to NTTD and Craig's amazing performance, Pierce's shortcomings do become very apparent, and it does all seem extremely thin throwaway stuff, but he's doing what's required of him regardless.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 8,972
    I can only say once more that I only consider GE and TND as "good" films (to a different degree, though neither as "great") while TWINE and especially DAD are (at least) somewhere between bad and disastrous. My take is still that the so-called "Brosnan Era" started promising with GE, and then descended down with every further instalment, ending with the utter desaster that was DAD.
  • Posts: 131
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I can only say once more that I only consider GE and TND as "good" films (to a different degree, though neither as "great") while TWINE and especially DAD are (at least) somewhere between bad and disastrous. My take is still that the so-called "Brosnan Era" started promising with GE, and then descended down with every further instalment, ending with the utter desaster that was DAD.

    It is the broadly held view, which I also subscribe to, though the drop from GE to TND was not nearly as palpable as from TND to TWINE. That said, there is another thread floating around re: the first 30 minutes of DAD being good, and other than the surfing scene and the title song, I tend to agree. It has the makings of a good film until Bond gets to Cuba; then it disintegrates.
  • Posts: 12,433
    For my tastes, the Craig era beats Brosnan’s in most ways, including my own enjoyment (“fun”). I often see people say something to the effect of “as bad as DAD is, it’s not the worst for being so fun,” but for me all the wackiness in the third act actually is dull in its own way. It’s all subjective anyway - I have more fun with Craig’s tenure, some more with Brosnan’s. The only way I can define fun is one’s own personal enjoyment of any given thing.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,531
    For some reason I was checked out of Bond when TWINE and DAD came out, but GE made me a fan (probably similar for lots of Bond fans of my generation). What I usually say, is that GE filled the room with gas, and CR lit the match. I'd say the Brosnan era is a lot of fun for sure.
Sign In or Register to comment.