114 replies to this topic

[han4bond]

I'm curious: I've read a lot of blanket statements here about the Brosnan era and how his films stack up against each other or older films, but I'm perplexed as to why people feel the way they do. I've always held a pretty strong opinion about the quality of the Brosnan films, probably because I was introduced to Bond during that era. I'd be very interested to see a more detailed breakdown of one or more of the films from some of the people who have been posting on this thread.

(It appears that GoldenEye is held is pretty high regard by most, so I'm less interested in reading about that one than the others.)

By way of contributing to that discussion, let me share a few of my own thoughts about each Brosnan film:

1) GoldenEye
The rather serious, dark tone, electronic score, and realistic baddies make this feel very much like one would expect a third Dalton picture to have felt. The space-age plot is tempered by the otherwise grounded Cold War elements, lending it a balance that makes the villain's ploy almost believable. Brosnan himself seems to be wearing a mask for the majority of the film, but this seems like a conscious choice, delivering a very reserved performance. In particular, the way Bond allows himself to be dragged to the dungeons (as it were) for the first half of the film in order to get to the bottom of the mystery makes it all the more exciting when he finally springs into action, going from the end of Ourumov's gun to pointing a tank cannon at Trevelyan in no time flat. Overall, it's a Tom Clancy thriller by way of Die Hard; sounds like a winner to me.

2) Tomorrow Never Dies
This one is often described as "good" next to the "great" GoldenEye, but I can't wrap my head around that. Despite a couple of creative action sequences like the parking garage chase, the plot is even more predictable than usual, the dialogue is corny, and the climax relies way too much on machine guns and an indestructible main character. The whole affair feels more like an imitation of a Bond film than a worthy installment.

3) The World is Not Enough
Again, I find myself on the other side of the fence; I found the slower-paced, more character-driven approach to be a big step in the right direction. Keeping Renard mostly in the shadows during the first half makes for an effective presence. I was genuinely surprised by the plot revelations late in the film, though Bond wasn't fooled. The action scenes in the teaser and the underground tunnel are much more dramatic than what TND ripped from any number of Schwarzenegger films. The main weakness, aside from Denise Richards, is an over-long and poorly-planned climax (soaking-wet fist fight?).

4) Die Another Day
In this case, I align more closely with the negative majority opinion, though not to the same extent. This film's biggest issue is its increasing reliance on CGI (not a bad thing on its own, just wrong for a Bond film). However, as a celebration of all things Bond, I had a great time watching this in the theater. The opening in North Korea is sufficiently fun and exciting, and the incarceration/set-up plot holds promise that carries the film to its midpoint. Even the sword fight at Blades and the frozen lake car chase, while completely ridiculous, are fun, exciting, and right at home in a Bond film. Unfortunately, the sci-fi elements, like the ice palace and space laser, make it impossible to take the film seriously anymore, and the villain is neither menacing nor interesting. All in all, this one is more of a mixed bag than an outright failure.

I look forward to your responses. Thanks!

[DR76]

Brosnan had the weakest era. I watched the 4 bond films yesterday and the only one I enjoyed is Goldeneye. It's crazy how our opinion changes when we grow older. Anyone else agree that he had the weakest era?

No, I don't. I believe it was no better or worse than the other era.

Unfortunately, the sci-fi elements, like the ice palace and space laser, make it impossible to take the film seriously anymore, and the villain is neither menacing nor interesting.

As much as I disliked the ice palace sequence, I still have a higher regard for "DIE ANOTHER DAY" than for the likes of "TOMORROW NEVER DIES", "THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN" or "GOLDFINGER".

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I did not say Brosnan's films did better financially, i said Brosnan's bond attracted more people to the bond series, I think Brosnan's best films were Goldeneye, TND, and TWINE. The first best era was Connery's, the 2nd best was Brosnan's. If it wasn't for Brosnan's bond the bond franchise wouldn't be as big as it is. I think Brosnan did one hell of a job as Bond!

... Brosnan did "one hell of a job" making Bond to look a like a caricature version of himself, based in all of the cliches that Hollywood associate with the character.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 27 August 2011 - 04:15 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

I did not say Brosnan's films did better financially, i said Brosnan's bond attracted more people to the bond series, I think Brosnan's best films were Goldeneye, TND, and TWINE. The first best era was Connery's, the 2nd best was Brosnan's. If it wasn't for Brosnan's bond the bond franchise wouldn't be as big as it is. I think Brosnan did one hell of a job as Bond!

... Brosnan did "one hell of a job" making Bond to look a like a caricature version of himself, based in all of the cliches that Hollywood associate with the character.

... based in all of the cliches worldwide audiences associate with the character, if I may add.

And this worldwide audience actually wants to know when Q and Moneypenny will join the Craig era.

Of course, there are some fans who want Bond to be as close to Fleming´s creation as possible. But those people possibly would not even fill one movie theater.

[darthbond]

In regards to the Brosnan era of films, (I won't elaborate) GE and TWINE are great Bond movies, TND is fun if a bit bland, and the first two-thirds of DAD are just as solid a modern Bond movie as you would want.

I actually think that the weakest periods of the films would be the early seventies, and the eighties before Dalton. Some of the films produced in each of these eras were fun and different, but for the majority, they seemed like regular entries. Kind of like the standard "C" English paper that gets turned in every assignment. The films in particular didn't have many memorable features; apart from Christopher Lee, some nicer acting by Roger Moore, and the "Live and Let Die" and "For Your Eyes Only" songs.

darthbond

[Lachesis]

At the end of the day its more than a little concieted to name the 'weakest era' all any of us can do is identify the era they like least which is a very different thing. For Myself that would be Roger Moore's era, it contains two of my least favourite Bond films and none of them get a look in on my top ten Bond films, its also the era I feel has dated most quickly...though the seventies is a decade that seems to be its own cliche and by the 80's Rogers age was becoming an issue....Moonraker is perhaps the oddity in that with some judicious pruning it could probably be a briliant Bond film.

Brosnan bashing seems still in vogue but I think the biggest problem with his era is the prodction team couldnt get a handle on how they wanted the character presented, theres an inconsistency in his films that makes it difficult to identify what was Brosnans Bond. That said I really enjoy GE and TWINE and can tolerate DAD quite easily.

[JimmyBond]

I'm not sure what you're saying, Moonraker is a brilliant film. Best Roger Moore Bond film right next to AVTAK

You are right though, this thread is more of the original poster's opinion and not a statement of fact.

[Capsule in Space]

I'm not sure what you're saying, Moonraker is a brilliant film. Best Roger Moore Bond film right next to AVTAK

You are right though, this thread is more of the original poster's opinion and not a statement of fact.

Excellent! I love seeing defenders of Moonraker out there!

[JimmyBond]

I flip flop around which Moore film I love more (AVTK or MR), but they always remain as my two favorites of his.

[SecretAgentFan]

At the end of the day its more than a little concieted to name the 'weakest era' all any of us can do is identify the era they like least which is a very different thing. For Myself that would be Roger Moore's era, it contains two of my least favourite Bond films and none of them get a look in on my top ten Bond films, its also the era I feel has dated most quickly...though the seventies is a decade that seems to be its own cliche and by the 80's Rogers age was becoming an issue....Moonraker is perhaps the oddity in that with some judicious pruning it could probably be a briliant Bond film.

Brosnan bashing seems still in vogue but I think the biggest problem with his era is the prodction team couldnt get a handle on how they wanted the character presented, theres an inconsistency in his films that makes it difficult to identify what was Brosnans Bond. That said I really enjoy GE and TWINE and can tolerate DAD quite easily.

The aspect of a film that´s "dated" makes no sense to me at all.

Everything dates. Every era has a particular look, shows off a particular fashion, has its own visible zeitgeist.

If you consider the 70´s or 80´s clichéd, then you have to admit that the 60´s are too. AND the 90´s. AND the 00´s And so on.

The Brosnan era (90´s) are clearly showing off the 90´s zeitgeist.

But that´s one of the wonderful aspects of the Bond franchise IMO. They clearly are a time machine, conveying the mindset of its production time.


Returning to the thread´s title, IMO the 70´s were a wonderful Bond era - giving us variations on Bond with genres like blaxploitation, kung fu, even sci-fi.

One might argue that the literary Bond and the MOONRAKER climax don´t mix that well. But to me, MOONRAKER is a highly enjoyable film - and during its time, audiences simply LOVED it.

The weakest era, IMO, must be the Brosnan era because it treated Bond too much like a generic action hero.

That, of course, is a sign of its times, as well. But even if I love Brosnan´s Bond I must admit that in that era the development of the character was going forward very slowly.

[JimmyBond]

The weakest era, IMO, must be the Brosnan era because it treated Bond too much like a generic action hero.

That, of course, is a sign of its times, as well. But even if I love Brosnan´s Bond I must admit that in that era the development of the character was going forward very slowly.

That's ultimately my biggest issue with the Brosnan films as well. Inventive action sequences and imaginative plots were thrown out the window for run of the mill action sequences and sophomoric humor. Saying that though, I do enjoy three out of the four Brosnan films, so it can't be a huge issue for me But at the end of the day they just don't hold up for me as well as other Bond films.

[RJJB]

The weakest era for me is the Roger Moore era.
If I don't like the actor playing Bond, I don't like the movies that feature him.
It's that simple.

[Ozzman313]

I don't like the opinions of the blowhard above me, but I respect him!

I have to agree, it was pretty damn weak, with GoldenEye being amazing while TWINE was good but confusing. The other two films were just standard actioneers with James Bond thrown in, DAD was so damn bad it surpasses Moonraker and DAF.

Least Moonraker has the excuse of being a product of its era with the Star Trek/Star Wars hype going on. DAD tried to one-up its competitors and winked at the camera every five seconds saying, "see what I did there, I referenced another Bond film!"

Edited by Ozzman313, 16 September 2011 - 06:59 PM.

[Lachesis]

I think the Moore Bond was unashamed entertainment, fun as long as you took it in the right spirit that said overall its Roger's era I tend to regard as weakest for myself - it has no film I really love and my two least favourite Bonds.

Edited by Lachesis, 16 September 2011 - 10:50 PM.

[00 Brosnan]

The Timothy Dalton era is the only logical answer here b/c Lazenby's one film doesn't count as an "era."

His tenure lasted two films. One of them (TLD) is "classic Bond" all the way with Dalton turning in an excellent performance alongside a great cast, thrilling plot, excellent score, & awesome stunts & gadgets.

However, LTK was made on the cheap and it shows. The plot is basically every other action movie of the time w/ some guy named "Bond" and a mixed bag of supporting actors/actresses. The fact is that Dalton (despite being ahead of his time in his portrayal & excellent in the role himself) saw interest in the franchise decline on his watch.

When the future of the franchise is questioned b/c of poor box-office results and a star who doesn't garner much interest from the movie-going-public, well...how can that not be the weakest era?

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 19 September 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[Lachesis]

The aspect of a film that´s "dated" makes no sense to me at all.

Everything dates. Every era has a particular look, shows off a particular fashion, has its own visible zeitgeist.

If you consider the 70´s or 80´s clichéd, then you have to admit that the 60´s are too. AND the 90´s. AND the 00´s And so on.

The Brosnan era (90´s) are clearly showing off the 90´s zeitgeist.

But that´s one of the wonderful aspects of the Bond franchise IMO. They clearly are a time machine, conveying the mindset of its production time.

I find the era of the 70's most intrusive to the finished products we are considering here, moreso than other era's but it does largely depend on the individual film, the 60's Bonds don't feel dated to me yet the 'Flint' films made in the same era do. Every film is indeed a timemachine but the relative import or evidence of their original era is but a component of other elements that are timeless....the film ends up a composite of many parts and its that bias that leaves the feeling of age more acute in some cases than others.

[SecretAgentFan]

Hmm, I get the feelling that it´s more about the parodistic approach of some 70´s Bond films (or the 60´s Flint films) that you disapprove of. Which is, of course, totally fine. But the Bond film´s of the 60´s are clearly "dated", don´t you think? Which I, as you will already know, embrace with great delight!

[Lachesis]

Hmm, I get the feelling that it´s more about the parodistic approach of some 70´s Bond films (or the 60´s Flint films) that you disapprove of. Which is, of course, totally fine. But the Bond film´s of the 60´s are clearly "dated", don´t you think? Which I, as you will already know, embrace with great delight!

Whereas all the films are subject to stylistic snd techinical elements unique to their origin the films as a whole reatin a timeless element...I can Enjoy the comedy 'Duck Soup' 1933 without being distracted by the era it is made in...however for whatever reason, perhaps perosnal, the 70's seem to intrude into the Bond films in a manner which is detrimental or distracting to my overall enjoyment. It's by no means an exact science, The French Connection is peculiarly caught in its time but probably allows me to enjoy it more...it boils down to the package as a whole and the way the diverse elements form to make a whole. I am not sure the fact the 60's films were made in the 60's actually makes me appreciate them any more or less?

[00 Brosnan]

... Brosnan did "one hell of a job" making Bond to look a like a caricature version of himself, based in all of the cliches that Hollywood associate with the character.

That had happened long before Brosnan got the role.

... based in all of the cliches worldwide audiences associate with the character, if I may add.

And this worldwide audience actually wants to know when Q and Moneypenny will join the Craig era.

Of course, there are some fans who want Bond to be as close to Fleming´s creation as possible. But those people possibly would not even fill one movie theater.

I have to agree here. Sure sometimes the execution and material can vary, but these are the elements that made me fall in love with the series. I'm sorry, but I will never get tired of the "Q" scenes & I never had any problem with Moneypenny. Both could be worked into the new direction of the films.

Cool gadgets, Bond theme, larger-than-life characters, beautiful women, beautiful locations, exciting action/chase sequences....THAT's Bond....to me.

Casino Royale showed an interesting ability to strike a "Bond vs reality" balance that worked, but QoS went way too far in the opposite direction of what makes a "Bond film" in my opinion.

[talos7]

" Casino Royale showed an interesting ability to strike a "Bond vs reality" balance that worked, but QoS went way too far in the opposite direction of what makes a "Bond film" in my opinion".
This concisely states exactly how I feel

[DR76]

I actually think that the weakest periods of the films would be the early seventies, and the eighties before Dalton.

I don't agree. I thought there were a great deal of weak moments for each decade of the Bond films. I think it has been a mixed bag for me out of the whole 50 years. However, out of the five movies released during the 1980s, I only love three of them. Three out of five. That's not bad . . . at least for me. the 1980s featured at least 3 of my favorite films. I could say the same for the

[The ides of Mark]

I feel the Brosnan-films form indeed the weakest era of the franchise. I regard them as contemporary action movies which lack the distinct Bond-feel and a sense of outrage and oddity. From this perspective it is easy to explain why Goldeneye is so popular among fans.

[Safari Suit]

I think you could say (and I have a nagging feeling I already have said it far too many times already, but there you go) that DAD was far odder and much more outrageous than GE. It could be proposed that DAD failed for many viewers because it second-guessed what they considered to be the definitive Bond characteristics.

[The ides of Mark]

Nah, DAD took the oddity and outrageousness way to far to the extend that it became plain stupid. Big difference here.

[BourneAgainBond]

the reason its the weakest ear is because they did not finish it.

sean connery and george lazenby did seven 007 films
roger moore did seven 007 films
timothy dalton and pierce brosnan only did six 007 films

they should had have pierce back to complete his eras magic number seven in the his series era
would have made up for not seeing a 3rd timothy bond film in 1992 for the 30th anniversary
and would be a great way to go, having each series and era having 7 films and only 1 or 2 actors

Edited by BourneAgainBond, 15 January 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[Vanish]

I'm not so sure I can pinpoint an entire era that was weak - the franchise has its moments of doldrums all over the place. The Brosnan Era is 50/50 for me, as I do side with the fan contingent that is pro GE/TND and anti TWINE/DAD.

Pre Brosnan, I feel that John Glen was easily the most workmanlike and style-deficient director in the series, but that being said he's responsible for 3 "great ones" in my opinion: Octopussy, TLD and LTK.

Honestly though, if we must discuss weak eras, then I've got to aim at Guy Hamilton's return to the series with DAF and LALD. Both of those just have an "Americanized" feel to the style, humor and action that has never sat right with me. That being said, I outright love TMTWGG, so as before, I can't say Hamilton's second round of movies was a total failure.

Edited by Vanish, 16 January 2012 - 01:22 AM.

[Pussfeller]

I detest DAF but love LALD. Both are silly and Americanized, but LALD has a generous, youthful exhuberance whereas DAF is crass, smutty, and cruel. I find Moore's era to be the most consistently watchable. It never rises to brilliance, it's always slightly silly, but it never takes itself too seriously, like LTK or most of the Brosnan films.

[mrevans]

All things considered I think the Brosnan era probably is the weakest. It got off to a great start with GE but after that becomes pretty forgettable in the grand scheme of the franchise. I don't think this is Brosnan's fault. I blame the film makers and the general direction they chose to go with the movies. Any problems with TND or TWINE are not his fault because if you examine his performance alone, he does well. As muddled as TWINE was, i feel he gave his best performance there. I think he thought it was going to be the best. On the other hand i think he looks just plain bored in half the scenes from DAD as if somewhere deep down, he knows this is not going to turn out as great as he imagined it in his head. Anyway, it is the weakest but I don't entirely blame Brosnan for that.

[Garth007]

I don't think Brosnans was the weakiest. Honestly (ill probly get hated on for this) But Roger more after The spy Who loved me his era became i think was the weakeist . I mean after that film his films felt dull to me. Even with timothy dalton doing 2 films i still think roger moores was the weakiest by far. (this is my opinion.)

[mrevans]

I don't think Brosnans was the weakiest. Honestly (ill probly get hated on for this) But Roger more after The spy Who loved me his era became i think was the weakeist . I mean after that film his films felt dull to me. Even with timothy dalton doing 2 films i still think roger moores was the weakiest by far. (this is my opinion.)

No I think you make a great point. I think that after moonraker they should have changed directions and went with a new bond. (Maybe Dalton) It would have been a great start for him to kill Blofeld at the beginning of FYEO.