Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1515254565760

Comments

  • edited December 2015 Posts: 503
    I think Brosnan nailed the suave sophisticated aspect of the traditional Bond film persona perfectly, and I grew up on his movies and games... but overall his films fall short. I think both GE and TWINE are pretty good flicks (TWINE is underrated IMHO), and even DAD has a good beginning, but the latter half of DAD and TND bring his tenure way down the list for me.

    One thing I really didn't like is when they remade the GoldenEye 007 game and cast Daniel Craig... at the very least it should have been a generic Bond persona in respect for the Brosnan era.
  • Posts: 4,325
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    LICENCE TO KILL works for me. Aside from the extended truck chase, most of the action works is on the side of believability and makes sense within the story. (Mostly) Bond takes out the enemy through stealth, picking them off in smaller numbers or turning them against each other.
    IMO, as much as I like some of the Bond films after, LTK was the end of an era. Brosnan was very 'Nineties' & Craig is very post 9-11. It'll never be the same again...

    I can see why you'd pick LTK, but TLD seems like a better fit for me. It was the last to feature the Russians and the Cold War and the last before the series developed its obsession with always declaring "THIS TIME IT'S PERSONAL!"

    That's not to say there haven't been great Bonds since then (GE, CR, SF), but it truly was the end of an era.

    Didn't the Russians and the Cold War also feature in GoldenEye?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    RC7 wrote: »
    I watched TWINE this morning, something I've not done for quite a bit, and thoroughly enjoyed it. There's some great stuff in there.

    Strangely enough the same thing happened to me over Christmas as well. Quite enjoyed it. They could have used Renard's strange affliction more creatively, but otherwise it was ok.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    Bond wrote: »
    I think Brosnan nailed the suave sophisticated aspect of the traditional Bond film persona perfectly, and I grew up on his movies and games... but overall his films fall short. I think both GE and TWINE are pretty good flicks (TWINE is underrated IMHO), and even DAD has a good beginning, but the latter half of DAD and TND bring his tenure way down the list for me

    Well i think that aspect Pierce Nailed is the one i find the most important in Bond and that's big part of why Pierce is my favorite.

    And even if his scripts werent the best his films as Bond are still very fun and full of action so that for me compensastes the lack of depth and maybe its a justficcation many Pierce fans use but if Pierce didn't have great scripts and were much more action based its because the times asked for it.



  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The Brosnan Era never really caught hold with me, but lately I'm finding myself enjoying those films quite a bit; more than ever before. Maybe it's a reaction to the dull funk I came away from SPECTRE with. I appreciate the punch, the color and the playfulness.

    I totally get that.

    We live in a different world than in the 20th... we grew up expecting a lot, then we got less...
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited January 2016 Posts: 3,000
    chrisisall wrote: »
    We live in a different world than in the 20th... we grew up expecting a lot, then we got less...

    I know. Don't get me wrong, I like Craig's Bond, but it seems like the culture as a whole, not just in regards to Bond, but to all cinema, TV, and even video games, is so obsessed with seriousness, grit, and "realism" that it can't have fun anymore. Anytime a movie or show does something fun and/or over the top, it's criticized for being "cliched" and "outdated". Apparently we're all to grown up for that now. Sometimes I wonder if, somewhere down the line, the Bond movies are going to have to stop trying to appeal to the masses and become a cult franchise, if they are to retain any sense of the fun that makes Bond, Bond.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2016 Posts: 5,131
    For me anything that is closer to Fleming's character or the tone of his books is the most Bondian. This tends to be the more serious films. I couldn't care less about the masses....and that's to whom the Brosnan era appealed to.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    Posts: 1,727
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The Brosnan Era never really caught hold with me, but lately I'm finding myself enjoying those films quite a bit; more than ever before. Maybe it's a reaction to the dull funk I came away from SPECTRE with. I appreciate the punch, the color and the playfulness.

    I totally get that.

    We live in a different world than in the 20th... we grew up expecting a lot, then we got less...

    Story of my generation... raised by baby-boomers, I then naturally expected to have the same kind of life. See how that turned out.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited January 2016 Posts: 3,000
    I suppose I'm a bit controversial in thinking that EON (in earlier days) perfected what Fleming started. I don't really care how close to "Fleming's Bond" an actor or movie is.
  • No he wasn't bad at all, the title is offensive and flat out false to Brosnan, he had tremendous pressure and actually delivered well especially since Tomorrow and onwards and plus made some excellent non-bond movies during his bond tenure.

    He wasn't perfect but he's a better image of Fleming's bond portrait than Craig is atm. Craig is in better bond movies that's the difference.

    On the other hand anyone saw Daniel Craig interviews? He's by far the clumsiest and most awkward of all Bond!
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,870
    So just so we're clear, all of your posts are going to be in this similar negative style?
    Little substance, often troll like.
    It gets tiresome very quickly in case you haven't noticed.
    Why not look at some of the longstanding threads, where you can rate the actors, films and books. And give reasons as to why you feel the way you do about Bond.
    Too much negativity makes it awfully dull. Just a thought.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    No he wasn't bad at all, the title is offensive and flat out false to Brosnan, he had tremendous pressure and actually delivered well especially since Tomorrow and onwards and plus made some excellent non-bond movies during his bond tenure.

    He wasn't perfect but he's a better image of Fleming's bond portrait than Craig is atm. Craig is in better bond movies that's the difference.

    On the other hand anyone saw Daniel Craig interviews? He's by far the clumsiest and most awkward of all Bond!

    Brosnan is the worst Bond is the worst movies. He was neither as smooth as Moore or as suave as Connery. You need to read the books as Craig (bar the blonde hair and not being 6 ft) is very much like Fleming's depiction. Craig is a better actor, that's the difference.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    I've read the books, and I don't think Craig is anything close to being like how Bond is depicted in the books. He's more like a variation on the movie Bond as defined by Connery & Young.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Each to their own. But I disagree completely.
  • Posts: 7,653

    I've read the books, and I don't think Craig is anything close to being like how Bond is depicted in the books. He's more like a variation on the movie Bond as defined by Connery & Young.

    Well said, and Craig is anything but suave his performance is sometimes a cross between a thug and a bulldozer.

    Who is the better actor?- That depends on which movies you prefer but Brosnan has more of actor glamour style from the 40's & 50's. A kind of class which is difficult to find these days.

  • Posts: 19,339
    Thats a very good point from both of you..i think Brosnan gets an unnecessary shit end of the stick tbh...
  • dominicgreenedominicgreene The Eternal QOS Defender
    edited January 2017 Posts: 1,756
    No he could have really built on Goldeneye, but I often felt his films would always be up against it because Mike Myers Austin powers movies were out at the same time mocking everything Bond, and those films were super popular with the youth, I think this also led to a generation of Bond fans lost, because it was cooler to watch Mike Myers take the Mickey out of the Bond world. The films rest of Brosnan's films became silly and they tried to be overly futuristic to draw in the youth but it did not work. I think had Pearce gotten to do CR after Goldeneye he would have been very good and probably more respected, or CR before Goldeneye as that would make more sense story wise.

    I agree but also have to disagree. Bond was so cool back in the day, and Pierce Brosnan is arguably the most popular Bond of them all. Pierce made Bond cool again. Sure the films weren't anything spectacular take away GE and pre-dive scene TND, but they weren't unsuccessful by any means.

  • Posts: 1,009
    I need to repeat my statement: Brosnan was a great Bond. Half of his movies... Not so much. I'm not saying TWINE and DAD are awful. I like all Bond movies, even the unofficial ones, but they have some serious flaws.

    Mainly, TWINE, like QOS, is too generic IMHO, while DAD brings the comic book element to the max. I have a hunch that in 5-10 years and another generation of viewers, DAD could gain a cult following.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,779
    I will always look upon the Brosnan era with nostalgic fondness. TWINE on VHS was my first Bond experience. The video games TND and especially NF have a legendary status in my memory. Pierce was the Bond I grew up with and those 90's episodes will always make me smile.

    But even if I don't take that into account, Pierce made a great Bond. The way he moves across the screen oozes elegance. He also has a commanding and self-confident presence, even with cliched lines or silly gags. For instance, look at Craig struggling with the "Bond, James Bond" and "shaken not stirred" lines in SP, compare that to Pierce's deliveries of those lines to Elektra and the casino bartender in TWINE.

    Pierce continued the tradition of the suave, elegant gentleman spy with commanding confidence or as Valentin would say: charming, sophisticated secret agent. Something I have been dearly missing in this century so far.
  • Posts: 11,189
    As I've got older I have to confess I've noticed how cheesy Brosnan could be with the Bond tropes. There's a showy "boyishness" to him. Of course M even comments on this aspect in GE.

    That said, despite his lightweight build sometimes I think he had a strong presence about him on camera.

    He looks closer to Fleming's description of Bond than Craig does but that's really it in terms of his resemblance to Fleming.

    That said, had they toned down the overall cheesiness in the writing I think Broz could have been a lot closer.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Also, Craig is a good actor (better than Brosnan in that regard), but I'm not sure he's a particularly "accessible" actor outside of Bond. He's genuinely being helped along by the Bond brand.

    Broz still seems to be the more popular figure away from the series.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think Craig just has the habit of picking work more classical of his profession. He picks interesting character pieces that may not get him much notice, but he enjoys them. And like Dalton he does a lot of stage work, which of course gets missed by 98% of the public, and where it's proclaimed his best work is had. He's not a Hollywood pretty boy leading man type, and instead is a far more serious practitioner of the thespian occupation.

    Brosnan on the other hand responded more to the blockbusters and appeal of Hollywood, and as a result has made a decent career of it.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Each to their own. But I disagree completely.
    SaintMark wrote: »
    I've read the books, and I don't think Craig is anything close to being like how Bond is depicted in the books. He's more like a variation on the movie Bond as defined by Connery & Young.

    Well said, and Craig is anything but suave his performance is sometimes a cross between a thug and a bulldozer.

    Who is the better actor?- That depends on which movies you prefer but Brosnan has more of actor glamour style from the 40's & 50's. A kind of class which is difficult to find these days.

    "James Bond: James Bond is a blunt instrument wielded by a Government Department. He is quiet, hard, ruthless, sardonic, fatalistic. In his relationships with women he shows the same qualities as he does in his job, but he has a certain gentleness with them and if they get into trouble he is sometimes prepared to sacrifice his life to rescue them. But not always, and certainly not if it interferes with his job. He likes gambling, golf, and fast motor cars."

    "Neither Bond nor his Chief, M, should initially endear themselves to the audience. They are tough, uncompromising men and so are the people who work for and with them."

    Ian Fleming.

    Ignoring raw acting talent.....Style and glamour of the 50's and 60's would be Daniel Craig. He looks quite a lot like Steve McQueen and has the same presence. Brosnan is hardly in the same class as Niven & Grant.....only in a dream world.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Brosnan is hardly in the same class as Niven & Grant.....only in a dream world.
    Agreed. Not even close. He looks good in a suit though.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ignoring raw acting talent.....Style and glamour of the 50's and 60's would be Daniel Craig. He looks quite a lot like Steve McQueen and has the same presence.
    I don't agree that Craig has the style and glamour of the 50's and 60's though. He is definitely a 21st century thug in a suit. He physically looks like McQueen in some ways, but Steve had a certain classic style to him.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited January 2017 Posts: 5,131
    Steve McQeen played a more thuggish character than most of the leading men of that era? The Thomas Crown Affair (when he was smooth) was him acting away from type.

    He was the leader of a street gang, carried a gun everywhere, smoked weed every day, was a motorcycle and race-car driver, ran away to join the circus at one stage and was arrested on a number of occasions. Even his police mugshot is effortlessly cool and with just a hint of a smirk while flashing the peace sign at the arresting officer. He wasn't the usual clean cut leading man type.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That's true. He was generally more thuggish than most actors of that time, and he did play against type (very well imho) in The Thomas Crown Affair.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Agreed.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited January 2017 Posts: 6,779
    bondjames wrote: »
    That's true. He was generally more thuggish than most actors of that time, and he did play against type (very well imho) in The Thomas Crown Affair.

    And The Tailor of Panama.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think Craig just has the habit of picking work more classical of his profession. He picks interesting character pieces that may not get him much notice, but he enjoys them. And like Dalton he does a lot of stage work, which of course gets missed by 98% of the public, and where it's proclaimed his best work is had. He's not a Hollywood pretty boy leading man type, and instead is a far more serious practitioner of the thespian occupation.

    Brosnan on the other hand responded more to the blockbusters and appeal of Hollywood, and as a result has made a decent career of it.

    Very fair comment @0Brady.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I just think it's important to point out that all actors are different. I read a lot of posts on here from members at times that are worried about Dan's future and acting legacy, but really, what's the point? We can't be his agent, and if he doesn't care about his legacy, why should anyone else? Our Bond actors will do the work they want to do, no matter how much it does for their career or not. It also helps that our first and second Bonds are basically retired, our third is self-deprecating to the max and wouldn't claim to be a good actor in the first place, and our sixth doesn't really give a damn either way and is just in it for the art.

    Timothy and Pierce both continue to do varied work in all sorts of genres, especially the latter, and it's them that are the real interesting ones to watch post-Bond. Dan hasn't hit post-Bond yet, so he doesn't really count.
Sign In or Register to comment.