18 replies to this topic

[ChickenStu]

Pierce Brosnan is MY Bond. He was the first who I saw at the cinema. Before his movies came along, the Bond films to me were a bit like the Carry On films. Old English films that my parents liked when they were kids, that were always on at Christmas or on a Bank Holiday Monday. Brosnan made them cool for me. He is my favourite of them all, and I'm pleased I've got to this point in my annual marathon. Cause all the wonderful memories of childhood are starting to rush back. As great as Daniel Craig is, I really hate the Brosnan backlash that seems to have become fashionable in recent years. There had not been one of these movies for many years and doing a new one was a gamble. If Brosnan wasn't the man in the tux, I think the venture would have been a failure. So now, onto perhaps my favourite of the Bond eras.

 

GoldenEye

 

It is always such a treat to watch this. Brosnan just absolutely knocks it out of the park as our man, despite the script obviously having been written for Timothy Dalton. As the result of that, I find Brosnan's performance more serious and the tone more somber compared to what followed. This story successfully takes our man out of the Cold War world to tell a story that was current, up to date and cutting edge for the time. Judi Dench is a revelation as "M" and her verbal sparing scenes with our man are a joy to behold. Sean Bean is an excellent villain (I always though it was rather inspired to have a baddie who was a former 00 agent like our man). Famke Jannssen is great fun as the femme fatale Xenia Onattop, and Izabella Scorupco makes for a pleasing leading lady.

 

Some of the the model work is a bit obvious now, and Eric Serra's score is a bit of an embarrasment but generally speaking I would say that GoldenEye is a winner. 

 

Also, it would be remiss to mention this film without acknowledging the Nintendo 64 game Goldeneye 007. It was that game and this film that made me look at our man in a different light. It made me look at the earlier films in a different light, and I then became the fan that I am today. 

 

For me, there is a magic to Brosnan playing our man that not even Connery had. Pierce Brosnan is MY Bond and these films are MY era. For me, it's here that it all becomes very special. My memories of the time when this film came out are wonderful. 

[ChickenStu]

Tomorrow Never Dies

 

Again, great memories of this although watching it now the film doesn't quite hold up aswell as it did when I was a kid. Back then I thought it was seriously awesome! Brosnan knocks it out of the park as our man, confirming he was born to play the role in the magnificent pre-title sequence. Judi Dench again shines as M, and Jonathan Pryce is an interesting and offbeat villain. The topical story is amusing. David Arnold delivers an excellent score.

 

Thing is, this is more action packed and cartoonish as previous adventures with our man and watching it earlier I found it to be a tad tiresome. It was fun for the first half but I kind of lost concentration in the second. Just BAM BAM BAM. Constant without pause for breath.

 

Still, Brosnan shines and is a badass action hero.

 

Overall the film isn't bad, it just isn't great. 

[ChickenStu]

The World Is Not Enough

 

A riveting performance from Brosnan as our man. An excellent supporting cast with Sophie Marceau, and Robert Carlyle does amazing work as the villain. David Arnold provides a muscular score, the stunts are amazing and the production design superb. The script is full of twists and turns...

 

It's such a shame then, that it's so bloody boring. 

 

Die Another Day

 

 

The less said about this the better. What a horrible film for Brosnan to go out on.

[SecretAgentFan]

The World Is Not Enough

 

A riveting performance from Brosnan as our man. An excellent supporting cast with Sophie Marceau, and Robert Carlyle does amazing work as the villain. David Arnold provides a muscular score, the stunts are amazing and the production design superb. The script is full of twists and turns...

 

It's such a shame then, that it's so bloody boring. 

 

That conclusion after those arguments seems very odd.

[ChickenStu]

It's called irony mate! 

[David_M]

Okay, so let's recap:

 

It's your favorite period of the Bond series, and you rate the entries as follows:  one very good (in no small part because it spawned a great video game), one not bad but not great either, one "bloody boring" and one so awful you don't want to talk about it.

 

I  guess the real question is, if an era with such a so-so track record is your favorite, how awful must you find the rest of the series?

[ChickenStu]

I still like HIM. That's the point, 

[ChickenStu]

http://debrief.comma...a/#entry1270422

 

Please scroll down to Post Number 3. I explain the seemingly contradictory attitude I have to the Brosnan era there, it came out organically in me discussing my opinions of the Daniel Craig era. 

 

The following is a cut and paste of the paragraph

 

I've got a bit of flack over in the other thread for saying I love Brosnan and then being less than charitable with my opinions on some of the films. What I SHOULD have pointed out there is, I was 17 when Goldeneye came out, 19 when Tomorrow Never Dies came out, 20 when I first played Goldeneye 007, 21 when The World Is Not Enough came out and 24 when Die Another Day was unleashed on the world. Back then I LOVED them. Of course, I'm 35 now and some of those don't seem too great these days - but that doesn't mean I still don't ADORE Brosnan, cause my memories of those times are pretty special. It was during that era I became the fan I was. Remember, I'm reviewing them as a 35 year old man now, and opinions change over the years. 

Edited by ChickenStu, 31 October 2013 - 01:44 AM.

[Tiin007]

Allow me to (attempt to) explain ChickenStu's reasoning as I find that I have similar feelings towards Brosnan and his films.

 

Just like ChickenStu, Brosnan was my introduction to the franchise (granted, I was a bit younger, having been born in 1989). And to this day I maintain that Brosnan had a certain flare about him, a suaveness which endeared him to audiences across the globe. He was (and, when rewatching his films, still is) the epitome of cool. Did he add something particularly unique to the franchise? No. But he personified the description of Bond as "the man who every man wants to be, and every woman wants to be with." There was this aura which surrounded him as he delivered his lines (especially in DAD, ironically), which to this day makes me think "now that is James Bond." His ability to combine what worked from previous actors (a fact which is often vilified nowadays as "unoriginal") is a testament to his understanding of the Bond character, not a weakness.

 

Just to be clear, I love all the Bonds, and I view the Craig era as a new Golden Age of Bond. I think Craig brings something incredibly unique to the role, which-- to be honest-- not even Dalton had (and yes, I love Dalton's portrayal as well). But, as ChickenStu mentioned, the Brosnan-bashing often feels a bit excessive. Let's not forget, Brosnan was a massive success as Bond. Audiences adored him. He may not be as hard-edged as Craig, but the 90s were different times.

 

That being said, his films are a different matter completely. Quality Bond movies require more than a talented actor in the role. As the old saying goes, as Brosnan got better, his films got worse. I find that the Brosnan era in particular (more than any other Bond actor's tenure) was fraught with a lack of direction of what the films were trying to be. They tried too hard to be both melodramatic and light, resulting in a very erratic sequence of films (the lack of stability in the director's seat didn't help matters). Quite frankly, I wouldn't rank any of Brosnan's films in my top five (which usually consists of FRWL, OP, TLD, CR, and a "rotating" film in the final spot dependent on my mood).

 

But despite the sub-par nature of the Brosnan era (at least as far as Bond films go), Brosnan's portrayal of Bond was superb for the most part (granted, there are certain scenes where I can nitpick his performance, but that can be said of any of the Bonds).

 

So yes, Brosnan can be a quality Bond even if his films do not measure up.

[ChickenStu]

Sounds about right! Also, I think it's important to point out (as I did earlier) that our perspective on things changes over time. I'm a little ashamed to say this but when I first saw Die Another Day at the cinema I thought it was awesome! I was walking around saying it was the best one in years!

 

However, 11 years later - I can see it for what it is. Pretty much the exact opposite of that. 

[Turn]

Sounds about right! Also, I think it's important to point out (as I did earlier) that our perspective on things changes over time. I'm a little ashamed to say this but when I first saw Die Another Day at the cinema I thought it was awesome! I was walking around saying it was the best one in years!

 

However, 11 years later - I can see it for what it is. Pretty much the exact opposite of that. 

I think having the changing perspective keeps it interesting and fresh. With so many films it's great to go back and discover something, less so when you find out something's not quite as good as you recalled, but it's that way with a lot of things.

 

I don't think you should feel ashamed you thought a film was awesome. For years DAF was my favorite film and I'm still a big fan for it being my first Bond in a cinema as well as it being just fun, although it's down in my rankings, whereas I once had little respect for FRWL and now count it top 5.

[Double Naught spy]

This just occurred to me:

 

At least with Dalton's and Brosnan's swansong 007 film, I can see where some folks have come up with the theory that "James Bond 007" is just a codename for various individuals.  The persistent, ongoing theory likely originated with Lazenby's throwaway quip of, "This never happened to the other fellow."  But the theory surely must have hit a (temporary) dead-end when Sir Roger visited Tracy's grave in FYEO.  Grieving over a wife Lazenby married surely trumps Lazenby's throw-away line (which we could 'stretch the imagination' and conclude was merely an off-handed reference to Cinderella's Prince Charming holding her glass slipper as much as one could conclude was a reference to Connery-007's success with women.)

 

Although I can't believe that the ending of AVTAK would make anyone think that "Moore-007" was quitting the "codename" as he was receiving his "just rewards' from Tanya Roberts while the "Peeping-Tom" Q-robot was looking on, the next "passing of the baton" does set the stage for the reemergence of the old theory.  With the conclusion of LTK, acolytes of the "multiple 007s" must have rejoiced  given the fact that Dalton-007 resigned from MI6 earlier on in the film. 

 

With the introduction of Brosnan-007, the theory's "faithful" would have had to "gloss over" the PTS "time stamp" in GE, but no one has every accused them of being "sound of mind." But, seeing the last appearance of Brosnan-007 on a 'diamond-studded bed' with Jinx (not to mention the fact that Brosnan-007 was unceremoniously held in a North Korean Gitmo until he became 'useful' again to MI6), it's not too much of a stretch to believe that "Brosnan-007" resigned from MI6 shortly after DAD.  And at this point, the theory of "multiple Bonds" takes off in full force with the revelation that Dame Judith is portraying M as Craig-007 achieves his "00" status at the beginning of CR. 

 

Now, personally I think the whole theory is total bunk,  Connery's 007 is the same as Moore's 007 is the same as Craig's 007 - period.  Any inconsistencies are for us fans to suss out/ignore.  However, I do present these oddities that occur at the end of Dalton's and Brosnan's tenure as "food for thought" regarding whether or not the producers wanted to 'subtly' promote  the "codename James Bond 007" theory to explain their casting decisions.  (Keep in mind - they DID once flirt with the notion of explaining Lazenby's appearance as "plastic surgery" on Connery's character.)

Edited by Double Naught spy, 05 November 2013 - 10:22 PM.

[Agent 76]

In Brosnan's defense, his era had the best gunbarrel scene ever, well IMO at least 

 

Tomorrow Never Dies gunbarrel is just perfect

[ChickenStu]

This just occurred to me:

 

At least with Dalton's and Brosnan's swansong 007 film, I can see where some folks have come up with the theory that "James Bond 007" is just a codename for various individuals.  The persistent, ongoing theory likely originated with Lazenby's throwaway quip of, "This never happened to the other fellow."  But the theory surely must have hit a (temporary) dead-end when Sir Roger visited Tracy's grave in FYEO.  Grieving over a wife Lazenby married surely trumps Lazenby's throw-away line (which we could 'stretch the imagination' and conclude was merely an off-handed reference to Cinderella's Prince Charming holding her glass slipper as much as one could conclude was a reference to Connery-007's success with women.)

 

Although I can't believe that the ending of AVTAK would make anyone think that "Moore-007" was quitting the "codename" as he was receiving his "just rewards' from Tanya Roberts while the "Peeping-Tom" Q-robot was looking on, the next "passing of the baton" does set the stage for the reemergence of the old theory.  With the conclusion of LTK, acolytes of the "multiple 007s" must have rejoiced  given the fact that Dalton-007 resigned from MI6 earlier on in the film. 

 

With the introduction of Brosnan-007, the theory's "faithful" would have had to "gloss over" the PTS "time stamp" in GE, but no one has every accused them of being "sound of mind." But, seeing the last appearance of Brosnan-007 on a 'diamond-studded bed' with Jinx (not to mention the fact that Brosnan-007 was unceremoniously held in a North Korean Gitmo until he became 'useful' again to MI6), it's not too much of a stretch to believe that "Brosnan-007" resigned from MI6 shortly after DAD.  And at this point, the theory of "multiple Bonds" takes off in full force with the revelation that Dame Judith is portraying M as Craig-007 achieves his "00" status at the beginning of CR. 

 

Now, personally I think the whole theory is total bunk,  Connery's 007 is the same as Moore's 007 is the same as Craig's 007 - period.  Any inconsistencies are for us fans to suss out/ignore.  However, I do present these oddities that occur at the end of Dalton's and Brosnan's tenure as "food for thought" regarding whether or not the producers wanted to 'subtly' promote  the "codename James Bond 007" theory to explain their casting decisions.  (Keep in mind - they DID once flirt with the notion of explaining Lazenby's appearance as "plastic surgery" on Connery's character.)

 

Usually old bean that is an argument I choose not to participate in. Being a fan of our man, I too have come across that theory many times. Since Moore and Dalton both reference an event that happened to Lazenby and Brosnan ALMOST mentioned it when asked if he'd ever lost someone... (at least that's what I figured) I never really gave the argument much thought. Not that it really matters though... they are after all is said and done "only movies". 

[sharpshooter]

 I particularly enjoy the first half of Die Another Day. 

 

It's probably the lowest Bond has ever been. Given up and spending 14 months in a foreign dungeon. 

The title sequence progresses the story along for the first time, and the song fits. 

DAD features the first bearded Bond and black and white sequences. 

Love or hate them, the 'time slow downs' were something different too - almost like the Bond focus feature in Everything or Nothing. 

The bridge walk which alludes to a firing squad death brings to mind Bond deathtrap scenarios of old. 

Given the needle afterwards highlights Bond isn't in control and just a piece of meat of bargain with.

His escape and walk into the hotel soaking wet is harmless fun. 

Raoul was a good character, I liked his 'fast car' assistance too.

Knocking out the loudmouth and putting him in the wheelchair, I like that.

The sword fight is excellent, typical Bond one-upsmanship. 

 

Once the film heads to Iceland it does change direction. That's when the tub of popcorn really comes out.

[freemo]

Facinating thread from the OP. First, the championing of the actor and his era, the love and enthusiam for the films that made the OP a Bond fan clearly shining through. Then, the strong expression of "hate" for the "fashionable" "backlash" that exists against the era. And finally, after closer inspection, the reluctant admission that, actually, at least two and quite possibly three of the four movies aren't really very good.

[ChickenStu]

Facinating thread from the OP. First, the championing of the actor and his era, the love and enthusiam for the films that made the OP a Bond fan clearly shining through. Then, the strong expression of "hate" for the "fashionable" "backlash" that exists against the era. And finally, after closer inspection, the reluctant admission that, actually, at least two and quite possibly three of the four movies aren't really very good.

 

Yep. That just about nails it old chum. 

[freemo]

For all of ChickenStu's personal nostalgia and warm memories, this could have been written by any one of many Brosnan Bond fans for whom PB was "their" Bond. The early Connerys aside, I doubt any one Bond film has made more Bond fans out of more people than GOLDENEYE, or holds as large and as enthusiastic a following. And Pierce Brosnan as James Bond is an iconic image of the 90s, even if the result of this thread suggests that it's one that's better to remember than to actually revisit (though CS still seems to have enjoyed himself). When CS and others tout Pierce Brosnan as James Bond as "magic" and "special", I believe them.

 

I've long resisted the notion that Brosnan "rejuvenated" or "saved" the series, partly because while I don't think he's a rotten Bond, for me he lacks the presence and ability to completely dominate a movie like a good Bond should, but mostly because I can't seperate him from his pretty terrible movies. But then, the films were very popular without actually being very good, so some credit must go to the likable lead actor. If not to him, then to whom?

[ChickenStu]

Freemo, I could not have put it better myself mate. Another thing I love about Brosnan is I understood him and the qualities he bought to his interpretation of Bond. 

The World Is Not Enough is NOT one of my favourite of the films. However, there are some things I like about it. Brosnan is HUMAN. I think he is the most human of them all. The bit at the start of the film where he quite seriously injures himself is not something I believe the filmmakers would have Connery, Moore, even Craig do. And that injury, that dose of humanity is an important plot point throughout the rest of the film. I liked that. Would they have ever shown Connery with his arm in a sling?

 

I love stories where the hero is in over his head, and I feel a lot of the Brosnan stories are like that. 

 

His reaction to finding out Janus is Alex Trevelyan in Goldeneye is another great moment. He sells his feeling of shock, disgust and betrayal very well. 

 

Brosnan bought character traits to Bond that I can recognise and understand. It's a real shame the majority of his movies weren't really up to the task of properly showcasing his talent and humanity. He's the only Bond who when I watch I think "Yeah, at a STRETCH that could probably be me."