114 replies to this topic

[Peckinpah1976]

To my mind only the sixties films and the last two are actually good films in the wider sense (and even YOLT is stretching that a bit but is extremely well made); others get by being flawed but interesting to a greater or lesser extent (the Dalton films, for instance are seriously flawed but at least try to get the character right) - the Brosnan films are neither good films or particularly interesting IMO and even the much loved GE is a complete turd of a film that looks at least a decade older than it actually is, has a horribly schematic screenplay and features some of the worst acting I've ever seen in a big budget, mainstream movie.

[Mr. Blofeld]

has a horribly schematic screenplay

I can understand the acting complaint, but how do you mean by this?

[Miles Miservy]

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?

Not so sure I agree with that. I wouldn't categorize an era. If I were forced to, I'd have to lean towards T. Dalton's movies. For me, what makes of breaks a film is the overall villain. For example, Goldfinger, Stromberg, Drax, Carver (Blofeld is a given); these were all guys that were bent on wrecking to world for EVERBODY. Scaramanga, Whittaker, Sanchez; these guys... not so much. I mean, if Bond hadn't succeded in those missions, who'd notice?

The battle over who's the best 007 is endless & always will be but I think each era is a definitive window into the period of time each of the films represent.

[Miles Miservy]

No, not at all. Maybe just Quantum of Solace, but not Casino Royale.

Oh, BTW, I have to put up with all the Brosnan haters here. But you all are entitled to give your own opinion. We live in democracy boys! Sleep well everybody, I'm not gonna lower your reputation score just because you think different than me.

I never understood why people disliked QOS so much .I enjoyed it. I mean, the film did well; it certainly was profitable. It struck me as the type of film that, if you hadn't seen CR, you'd run out & rent it because of QOS.

[Miles Miservy]

I personally believe Moore's era was the worst. I know a lot of people liked him and his movies, but I personally feel like he's the laughing stock of the series.

With all of these fellows, sans the flash in the pan that was George Lazenby, it's simply a matter of timing. Roger Moore worked in the 70's & early 80's because of the culture of that time. Pierce Brosnan was highly anticipated for TLD and when it fell apart, timing was just right for Dalton. When Brosnsn finally came into his own, it worked. He did well with what he had to work with; even DAD. (Try & imagine Pierce playing Bond for LTK... I can't see it. Kudos for you if you can. Without Dalton, it'd be an entirely different movie)

"Compared to the Lazenby era, the Brosnan era is plenty strong."

WTF? Lazeby didn't have an era..... he had one movie.

Think of it as an add-on guesthouse to Connery's OO7 estate.

[BoogieBond]

Its all a matter of personal opinion. Just taking the films though. If we look at those Actors with(so far) solid eras of more than 2 films, we have Sean, Rog and Pierce.
in my opinion Sean has 3.5/6 movies that I think are good(half mark to YOLT) Moore has 4/7 movies I like. And Pierce has 1.5/4(half mark for TWINE) . Therefore Pierce comes off worse in the comparison for me. I do like Goldeneye and certainly will enjoy TWINE also though.

[Peckinpah1976]

has a horribly schematic screenplay

I can understand the acting complaint, but how do you mean by this?

As in Simplistic and formulaic; it's obvious in a 'Bond-by-numbers' kind of way.

[Mickeba]

I think Dalton had the weakest era, and it was simply because his Bond was a product of it's times. It was the age of AIDS, so Dalton's sexual encounters were downplayed. Anti-smoking sentiment was big as well so the smoking in Dalton's films was downplayed as well. And I just think when Dalton came around the series was a bit out of gas. Goldeneye was a great film, but it benefitted from the layoff period. It was fresh to the audience again, and you can tell the production team was recharged as well.

[Pussfeller]

Dalton's era was stymied by a zeitgeist that was profoundly anti-Bondian. Calibacy and absemiousness were glorified, as were authoritarianism and brutality. This cocktail of repression and aggression was completely contrary to the essence of Bond, and probably responsible for the franchise going off the rails.

[Mickeba]

But, it was NOT Timothy Dalton's fault. He was in a pretty impossible situation.

[Pussfeller]

I agree. I wish Tim had started a lot earlier. Like in 1969.

[BourneAgainBond]

i still say the weakest era was dalton and brosnan which i consider the same era
had dalton or brosnan had one more film it would have brought their era to the same level as
the connery and lazenby era (the first seven 007 films) and
moores era (which was made of seven 007 films)
had they had seven 007 films between them (dalton and brosnan) i think it would have stood up to the previous eras

Edited by BourneAgainBond, 27 January 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[Trevelyan 006]

WTF? Lazeby didn't have an era..... he had one movie.

Think of it as an add-on guesthouse to Connery's OO7 estate.

Ouch..




Then Does That Make Dalton Only A 'Guesthouse' To The Moore 007 Estate ?
I THINK NOT!

[BourneAgainBond]

IMO it is the daniel craig era so far that is the weakest era.
i haven't been really thrilled about seeing any of his movies until skyfall but that is mostly because of the 50th anniversary or the 4 year wait
its bias because i'm just disappointed that they didn't make a 5th Pierce film which i though would have been his FYEO
i keep thinking i wont really appreciate his films till the end of his tenure.

[nickjb007]

What a great topic. I guess everyone's opinion is going to vary, because we are biased in our viewpoints and we are all attached to certain films. I loved The World Is Not Enough, which is probably tied to it being the first Bond film I saw in the theaters. If I had to pick an era that is the weakest I might suggest most of the Moore era. And I like Moore, he is my favorite Bond (which is related to the fact that I saw his films first). During this era the movies did not seem to have any consistency, it was like peaks and valleys for his films. LALD was great but then the series dropped with TMWTGG, then rose again with the TSWLM, then dropped with MR, then rose again with FYEO, stayed at the same peak with OP and fell off with AVTAK. I feel like Brosnan's era experiences these peaks and valleys.

[BourneAgainBond]

the first bond film i saw was GE on tv and i started watching it at the Q scene. then someone told me about the series and played me GF on a vhs. the first film i seen in theaters was TND. and like the loser i am i saw it alone. funny looking book at it now i wonder was i the only brosnan fan?

[Vauxhall]

I still enjoy GOLDENEYE and consider it top entertainment. Having watched DIE ANOTHER DAY again recently though, I felt it had already aged terribly. There are some decent moments, but nowhere near enough to hold together the dross.

[DominicGreene]

I think Roger Moore's era was the weakest in my opinion. All of his Bond movies seemed the same; Same cinematography, same directing, same editing; I just find them boring, even The Spy Who Loved Me wasn't great (in my opinion). I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one.

[solace]

I think Roger Moore's era was the weakest in my opinion. All of his Bond movies seemed the same; Same cinematography, same directing, same editing; I just find them boring, even The Spy Who Loved Me wasn't great (in my opinion). I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one.

I would love to disagree with you but I can't. I think Roger is a fantastic actor and can, given the right script etc play the hardman well.(Wild geese, Gold.) My problem has always been use humour as Bond chucks a villain out of window, but don't make 007 the clown.

[mrevans]

I think Roger Moore's era was the weakest in my opinion. All of his Bond movies seemed the same; Same cinematography, same directing, same editing; I just find them boring, even The Spy Who Loved Me wasn't great (in my opinion). I know a lot of people are going to disagree with me on that one.

I would love to disagree with you but I can't. I think Roger is a fantastic actor and can, given the right script etc play the hardman well.(Wild geese, Gold.) My problem has always been use humour as Bond chucks a villain out of window, but don't make 007 the clown.

Good point. I read recently an interview with Roger Moore at the time of AVTAK. He admits to not takeing the character seriously citing how unrealistic the concept of James Bond is. Shame. I think this really hurt his performance. I think his earlier work as Bond is stronger than his later work. Perhaps he took it more seriously then. I think his view is flawed. The original Fleming character strikes me as realistic. It is like moore drew his inspiration from from the more outlandish movies in the franchise rather than the original source material.

[thecasinoroyale]

The first Bond I saw at the cinema was 'Tomorrow Never Dies' for a Christmas trip with school. Blew me away, as the first actual Bond film I watched was 'Licence To Kill' on my Grandad's collection of videos, so Brosnan was the cinematic Bond I was introduced to - big, loud, slick and bombastically Bond!

However when I watch previous films, and current Craig, I do find I enjoy the simplicity and the familiar tones of Connery, Moore and Dalton as they were not as generic somehow loud and big Bond films like Brosnan slipped into.

'GoldenEye' and 'Tomorrow Never Dies' were great come-backs for a 90's Bond, but I feel they didn't blend in well with the current crop of action films and stars, and that is why I feel Brosnan lacked something to make his films stronger than they could have been. Plus I think he aged badly into the character, he looked quite leathery in some later films and just a bit slimy, rather than suave and sophisticated like a sex-minded bloke. But Brosnan knew this I reckon and played on the success that he was the 'Best Bond since Connery' to bring 007 into the 90s, and so really in his mind nothing could go wrong with his interpretation.

I could be way off here, just my opinion. But yeah, Brosnan slid further in his 4 films that Moore did towards his end. Shame...but then we wouldn't have Craig if that didn't happen.

[SteveBolton]

The Brosnan era is defiantly not the weakest, i remember watching Goldeneye thinking it was the best thing i'd seen. It still remains a great film, i'm not as enthusiastic about it as i was back then. Tomorrow never dies and The world is not enough are Brosnan's best out of the four. If Brosnan continued after Die another day then it might of turned into the weakest era but the producers always are one step ahead and know when to re-vamp things. The Moore era in my opinion was the weakest, where each filmed seemed to mirror the last, it was as if they were frightened to stir things up a little.

[Pussfeller]

Funny. I'd describe the Brosnan era as the most cautious and non-innovative. Brosnan himself is a superficial amalgam of previous Bond styles, with no underlying philosophy or attitude towards the character. His films are generic nineties action movies. They avoid the pitfalls - the silly humor of Moore, the excessive taciturnity of Dalton - but there's nothing distinctive about them. The only exception, I think, is GoldenEye. But even there, I'd rather have Dalton than Brosnan. He just seems to have no reason to be there.

[DamnCoffee]

I’ve grown up with Pierce Brosnan as James Bond, but my god. His era is probably the weakest of the whole franchise. GoldenEye was phenomenal. Tomorrow Never Dies was alright. but The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day are awful!

I mean I do have a soft spot for Pierce, ‘cause he was my Bond. I really just look back on it in embarrasment really. If I’m honest. I just think the Pierce Brosnan era is so badly written it’s awful. All of my friends know that I am absoloutely James Bond mad, and I would go as far to say that I’m a very faithfull fan, but honestly. I remember when I was over my friendS, and we watched Die Another Day and we were just laughing hysterically at how awful it was. I don’t want that from a Bond film. We all watched Casino Royale the next day or some time after that, and we just sat in quiet appreciation for it. Telling eachother how great it is, and giving praise for Daniel Craig. That’s exactly what I want from a Bond film.

Feel bad for Pierce really. He’s not that bad of an actor. It’s just the writing totally let him down. It’s the exact same with Judi Dench as M. Love her in the Daniel Craig films, but jesus. You just can’t see their characters progress in the Brosnan era. I can’t imagine the GoldenEye Bond in Die Another Day, or the Tomorrow Never Dies M in GoldenEye. It’s awful and a poor excuse for scriptwriting. I absoloutely loved how Denchs’ M totally asserted herself to Bond in GoldenEye. If she went through the entire Brosnan era being a total dick to him like she was in GoldenEye then that would’ve been a marginal improvement. Bonds character is totally different, too. It really does irriate me.

Then there’s all the script rewrites that went on. Niel Purvis and Robert Wade actually are good screenwriters. Totally proved with Casino Royale. Take The World Is Not Enough for example, the original script had a lot of drama and mystery surrounding who the main villain was. Then, the wife of the director (A director who worked on Coronation Street of all things) pretty much read the script and went. “Nah, they should focus more on Bond and Elektra and make it a kind of love story, so Bond gets his heart broken and actually feels betrayed when it turns out she’s the villain.” Now, to be fair it is an interesting idea. But IT’S COMPLETELY SHOE HORNED IN. Bond doesn’t even give a crap when he kills Elektra. He just dives into the ocean and rescues Denise Richards (Who is a totally awful actress anyway and shouldn’t have been in the movie.)

Edited by Mharkin, 28 February 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[Pussfeller]

I also grew up with Broz, but I confess that I have never admired him as an actor. I find him dull, unctuous, and belabored. He lacks the keen feline quality that all the other Bonds have possessed. Even so, my view of Brosnan has recently undergone a favorable revision. Until recently I believed that he was a soulless mid-nineties amalgam, a cynical, postmodern "Bond impersonator" who, like Slick Willie and New Labour, brought nothing to the table but a jumble of stale promises in a glossy new package. Partly this is accurate. Brosnan's era is extremely derivative and conservative. But it doesn't do justice to Brosnan's characterization. He added something to Bond, and that something is puerility. It seems obvious in retrospect, but no previous Bond actor had emphasized Bond's boyish immaturity to such an extent. Brosnan's Bond is not merely youthful but stunted. His boyishness is not just a sign of youth, but a neurosis with negative consequences. Unlike his predecessors, Brosnan's Bond is not quite a full-grown adult. This becomes especially clear in his relations with women. I find this to be the most interesting aspect of Brosnan's characterization, and notice that it has been seemlessly adopted by Craig.