It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
A job I wouldn't hesitate to sign up for.
:D
Of course I'm glad she's got into a Bond movie after all this time, but to think she's in a better era of Bond is laughable. It is a different era.
You're my hero. What a great idea.
I sure hope Bellucci will not just get wasted like Severine or any other woman in the Craig movies for that matter (except Eva Green of course, but then she elevates everything she's in to a higher level)
Wow, just perfect. You wpuld be a great addition to Eon's creative team work.
I loved your poster and Monica looks great with Pierce.
Couldn't agree more but anyway if they can't make a Bond film together then they should make a hot heist movie like The Thomas Crown affair with at least three love scenes in it.
:\"> :x
It's a classical spy series, by the way, where things are OTT and the lead character is near indestructible, but believable too. Light and no drama, but nevertheless the violent when it's needed.
[sarcasm]Yes, it's laughable that the quality of talent in front and behind the camera since 2006 is better than the era of 1995 to 2002 not to mention the significantly greater cultural impact. [/sarcasm]What's really laughable is the inability of some people failing to be objective. If people don't prefer the Craig era then fair play but to say it's not a better era than the period between 95 to 02 is just cuckoo but then again one can only expect such notions from those convinced that CR is a testament to the producers running the series into the ground. Wow.
Thank you, I'm quite proud of this one. :)
I need more Brosnan Bond movies in my life. 8->
And im glad you're proud of it since you made a wonderful job
Another one who agrees here.
Now that I applauded you for that poster art and rightfully so, where is the bloody movie? Be a nice boy and deliver... :))
Well i read somewhere that she actually also auditioned for The world is not enough, i don't know what happened there but what about instead of Denisse and christmas Jones we would have Gotten Monica as the Good girl and Sophie as the villain.
Sure a big look alike between these two gorgeous woman but who cares
Its a nice idea. I could imagine her playing the role similar to her role in tears of the sun, that would have been quite different from Denise richards but thats a good thing right?! :D
But then i would have exchanged the girl in the PTS boat chace since she is a bit similar in looks to Monica. They could have given that role instead to richards. i for one would have loved to see how she blows herself up.
I have nothing against Denisse and i dont complain of her appearance but no, we get rid of her and actually find another one who even looks more like them( Sophie and Monica).
If some complain The Brosnan flicks were silly well at least keep audiences confused and trying to figure out who is the good Bond Girl and who is the bad one.
Many audiences with Schindlers list spent a long time confused on why schindler was hitting his maid if he was suppoused to be a good guy.
So why not confuse the audiences in the Bond flicks as well ?
and now that we are at this the next Bond girls in Bond 25 should be Keira Knightley and Natalie Portman.
They should have kept the level of GE right? At least Brosnan tried his part by for instance requesting Monica Belucci instead of Teri Hatcher. The guy kept asking for more talent all the time. He even wanted to do the "back-to-the-roots" Casino Royale.
Fortunately EON has learned that the increase in talent increases BO as well. I find it harsh of you to blame Broz and his era for it, while it is part of an evolutionary process IMHO. We are blessed with the increasing amount of talent joining the franchise.
Of course I have a grudge against the Brosnan era because it was largely mediocre and generic. The reason why I'm in this thread is because it's a Brosnan appreciation thread. I have nothing against the man. Brosnan was a good Bond and had flourishes of excellence that he'd convey every now and again but aside from GE the movies in his era lacked...significantly and did him no credible favours. He should have been given better talent and material to work with and tge fact that he wasn't after the critical and financial acclaim of GE is shocking.
Then again I personally feel that the DC movies after CR never matched that level, despite the increase in talent. It's almost as if CR is the GE of DC's era. Could it have been the director? Or was it the writing?
and to whom it may concern
Brosnan gets bashed "objectively" all the time in countless threads.
Sometimes his era or he himself even get downright insulted, sometimes in the most primitive way and there is never any outrage about it.
Fact is, the Craig era had much, much bigger budget from the get-go. The production values of the movies are incredible and the casting is even better than in the Brosnan-era.
The "objective" people here tend to forget or overlook that fact when comparing the Craig-era to the Brosnan-era.
Furthermore why always compare Brosnan to Craig? And seldom to Dalton or Moore?
One could think the outspoken Craig-fans have some inferiority complex and have to constantly ridicule Brosnan to make themselves more assured how fabulous the Craig-era is.
"Objectively" speaking the Craig-era has produced one truly great movie with Casino Royale which is obviously as loved as GE in general.
QOS certainly is nowhere near as good (overall) as TND, again "objectively" speaking.
Skyfall is more or less a remake of TWINE and certainly better despite its many plot holes. Again mainly because of much better production values.
I can't see how the Craig-era is so much better than the Brosnan-era. It's just adjusted to the kind of movies we are getting these days (since the mid-00's) who are in general much more expensive and look much better than 90's movies.
The standards are much higher today. Can you imagine someone like Roger Moore being Bond nowadays and getting away with it??
Funnily enough that can be seen but not that the same applies for Brosnan.
He may have pulled it off, he does have acting talent, but I'm not certain, but then it's unimportant as he was the 90's Bond.
Craig has set a new standard, but not because of himself, but because he happens to be in the Bond movies that are by far the most expensive and look the best.
Now imagine how high the quality of those movies could go if the stories were as good as in the 60's.
Of course that is all just my opinion and while this may be shared by some it certainly will get plucked to pieces by others. That's alright. Everybody is entitled to his opinion.
Just make sure next time someone dares to criticise the Craig-era you give them the same courtesy.
Personally I want to add that Brosnan even isn't my favourite actor in the series.
That's Dalton.
But I can't just stand by and let all this bashing happen without fighting it. And yes, would this be Moore or Dalton instead of Brosnan, I would do the same thing for them!
You are correct in that assessment. CR is the GE of this era. Campbell having directed both maybe is a coincidence, maybe not.
High production value can only disguise so much failings. QOS is testament to that. Still, even that movie has its fans. So does DAF (just to name one other that seems to be at the bottom of lists regularly).
The main challenge for the critics of Skyfall is its billion dollar box office. Can so many people be wrong? Yes and no. Avatar was so much more successful than SF, does it mean it is better than Skyfall?? But such train of thoughts are hurtful for some I believe.
Well, I have said my things now :P it won't change anything.
It still is 90% fun to be here and the many insights on this franchise one gets by reading all that stuff that people contribute here is fabulous.
:)
Having said that, there is a distinct difference between these two films imho:
-DC makes CR. The supporting performances are exceptional no doubt, but at its core, it is DC's performance that makes that film. Absolutely no holds bar genius acting to rival Connery as screen Bond. It actually almost brings a tear to my eye how good it is.
-PB does not make GE imho. He exists in it and is good in it, but the supporting cast elevate that film. I think that is clear to a lot of people who aren't invested in this franchise. Having said that, GE was his best performance as Bond (imho). I used to think it was DAD, but that view changed in my recent Bondathon. He is much more 'Bondian' in GE, while he is more 'Brosnan', but more confident in DAD.
In terms of production values, script and cast, that's neither here nor there for me. Moore had to act with some real idiots in his time, but he still 'brought' it in every way for every film.......and yes, a young Roger Moore can make a Bond film today and it will bring in the audiences like you wouldn't believe......there is no substitute for movie star charisma and Roger Moore has that in spades, like Downey Jr. Just look at him acting in films next to legends like Greg Peck, David Niven or Richard Burton........he holds his own brilliantly.
I agree that both PB and DC (at least it appears so to date) peaked creatively and in terms of their acting performance with their first film - that to me is not in question. I hope that DC can reverse that with SP.
Charisma is very important. I agree on the young Moore, maybe I was too harsh with that assessment that he could not pull it off today.
But then Brosnan has charisma in spades as well imo.
Craig is lacking in that department imo.
I feel very differently about CR. DC makes that movie?? I think it's the other way around.
CR makes DC.
CR would have worked with another actor as well.
If CR would have been mediocre or a mess like QOS, Craig would never had become popular.
The only actor so far who made a movie was Connery, he had it all and that's why he is generally viewed as the best.
But take away Eva Green from CR and you get a movie half as good. She is that good, she steals every scene and every movie she's starring in. That's what I call an actress that makes a movie. I wish they would find a male Eva Green as the next Bond.
Brosnan's performances are evolving through his four movies (as did Moore's).
I agree that Brosnan seems just to play himself in DAD.
Imo his best performance was in TWINE but that gets overshadowed by what must be the worst directing so far in the franchise.
Overall I like his performance in TND the best, in GE he sometimes seems to be nervous, you can clearly see which scenes he had to shoot first. But that is understandable having the weight of the fate of the franchise on his shoulders.
That is not the case in CR..........DC tames her quite clearly, in the film and in reality. To hold one's own against Eva Green, not to mention deliver a performance of the calibre he did in CR, borders on genius imho. It's the subtle aspects to his performance (there are so many) that elevate that film. Everything else is excellent but without DC that film isn't going anywhere. PB did not do that with the similarly charismatic Scorpuco in GE imho (she clearly overshadowed him in their scenes together).
So no, I don't think CR would have worked half as well with any other actor.....including any of the previous Bond actors except maybe a young Connery (if the writing was adjusted). DC is the only actor since Connery to make a Bond film imho and that is why he silenced his critics.
Having said that, and since he has been nowhere near as good since (imho), I put that down to Martin Campbell being able to bring the best out of him. I hope Mendes, in his 2nd crack, can do the same.
Yes folks, I realize this is a PB and not a DC appreciation thread, but I had to get this in.
I don't see anything wrong with wondering from one topic to another every now and then. ;;)
While I'm still convinced every Bond actor (except Connery) is/was exchangeable I agree on Daniel Craig giving a good performance in CR. Campbell's directing abilities are to thank for that I guess.
Maybe some of his subtle aspects of his performance are too subtle for me to see though, but then that's my failing :P
And now back to strictly Brosnan I guess :))
After my Connery/Moore Bondathon I will do the Brosnan/Dalton/Craig Bondathon.
It will be interesting to experience those movies in that order and I can imagine adjusting my opinion on Brosnan and Craig as I have promised to view them without prejudice or favouritism.
Sometimes I see things with a romantically glorified view. Being 21 when GE hit the theaters I was at the right age for such movies and many good memories go with those films.
Later in life, when one is maybe a bit more worldly-wise and/or sarcastic, movies don't have the same impact anymore.
Pierce Brosnan was a favourite of mine long before Bond. I was the hugest Remington Steele fan and I even skipped classes regularly just to catch the latest episode on TV as Steele was shown in late afternoons here :P
So I have something to look forward to I guess. I'll buy a set and check it out. Looking forward to it because I've heard good things about RS.