71 replies to this topic

[Yellow Pinky]

Brosnan's a decent actor (not the best to take on the role, but far from the worst), and we've seen what he can do when given good material to work with. 

I'd be very curious to know who you would rank as the worst if Brosnan was far from the worst in your estimation. 

[tdalton]

 

Brosnan's a decent actor (not the best to take on the role, but far from the worst), and we've seen what he can do when given good material to work with. 

I'd be very curious to know who you would rank as the worst if Brosnan was far from the worst in your estimation. 

 

 

Lazenby.  Easily the weakest actor to take on the role and it shows in his performance. 

[Yellow Pinky]

I personally don't consider Brosnan to be far better than Lazenby, though I would agree that Lazenby is the least seasoned of any actor who played Bond.  I championed Brosnan and was beyond excited to see him in GE.  While I enjoy parts of that film, overall I don't like his version of Bond at all, and that genuinely surprised me then and continues to do so today.  It simply doesn't work for me.  I personally prefer Lazenby, but am honest enough to admit that I may be guilty of extending undue generosity and goodwill toward his performance based on the quality of OHMSS as both a film and my personal favorite of the Fleming literary canon.
 

P.S. Though we don't always agree, tdalton, I do enjoy reading your well thought out and informed opinions on all things Bond.

Edited by Yellow Pinky, 17 April 2014 - 03:46 PM.

[tdalton]

Don't get me wrong, Brosnan's take on the role doesn't exactly appeal to me either. I also think that, rightly or wrongly, that he probably deserves less blame for that than his predecessors and Craig do for their shortcomings, mostly due to the fact that it never really seems as though Brosnan got to dictate the artistic direction of the films in the way that Connery, Moore, Dalton, and Craig got to. With Moore, it went in the direction that he was most comfortable with, which was the comedic route. Dalton dragged the franchise back in a much more serious, Fleming-inspired direction. Craig has so much control over the direction his films take that one could almost think of him as a co-producer on these films.

But with Brosnan, I've never gotten that sense. We've heard him talk about his ideal Bond film before, even during his tenure, yet that never made its way to the screen. The 1990s was the time for high-octane action films that relied on effects and the mantra of "bigger is better", and EON took the films in that direction. Just for the sake of seeing it, I wish they'd let Brosnan make a one-off Bond film, with the kind of creative control that Craig enjoys on the current films. Let him pick the director, the source material (or come up with the story, if he chooses to go original), his cast, the writers, and so forth, and see what happens.

As for Lazenby, his take on it just doesn't do it for me. I like the physicality of it, but that's about it. He can't act, and it's really the rest of the cast that makes OHMSS what it is. The strength of Fleming's story and the terrific cast (namely Rigg and Savalas) help the film overcome a novice actor in the lead and some questionable editing choices.

Edited by tdalton, 18 April 2014 - 01:54 AM.

[ChickenStu]

As you guys know Brosnan is my favourite and Goldeneye is my favourite out of the movies. It's cause of this guy and that movie that I am here. I'm no one special particularly but I'd love to meet Brosnan one day and tell him what an impact HE had on me. Yeah, I've re-discovered all the other movies since, I've read all the original books (and more) since and have become a Bond aficionado - but for me  it all comes back to Pierce Brosnan. I never turned my back on him when everyone else did.

 

OK TND, TWINE and DAD all obviously look a bit a daft to me now - but I'm 36. I was in my late teens/early twenties when they came out though and back then I enjoyed the absolute hell out of them. 

 

He shouldn't be so hard on himself. He did a lot of good in that part, more than he knows from the looks of it. 

 

This guy needs a new franchise. There's been rumours of a Battlestar Galactica movie for a while now which is based more on the original series than the SyFy channel's early 00's reboot. I reckon old Pierce would make a BADASS Adama. 

Edited by ChickenStu, 18 April 2014 - 12:56 AM.

[DamnCoffee]

You know, it's sad but I really do agree with him. I absolutely love Brosnan, I think he was the one that defined 90's Bond. He was handsome, debonair, suave, but if you dig deeper, he is pretty much a Connery/Moore hybrid. GoldenEye, I still think is a phenomenal film. If any of you grew up on the 90's then you'd understand what I mean. It was the film that introduced James Bond to a brand new audience, and do you know what, I didn't mind it at all. It's taken me a while to actually appreciate it properly, but it's Brosnans best without a doubt. He will always be my Bond, and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

 

Everyone has a Bond of their childhood, and he was mine. For what it was worth, I had a damn good time. It's just a shame that his following films were so poor. Tomorrow Never Dies, well. They were going to have to do a media mogul sometime, but on the whole it's a snooze fest. Same with The World Is Not Enough, a good idea for a film, a personal angle that we hadn't seen for years, but both films are delivered so poorly. Why Roger Spottiswood? Why Michael Apted? It's as if both films were executed by really incompetent directors. It's all over the place, really. Imagine Fincher doing Tomorrow Never Dies? Or Peter Cattaneo having a crack at The World Is Not Enough? It was such a missed opportunity.

 

Die Another Day, for all the flack it gets, actually has something about it. To an extent. It's still pretty terrible overall, but, I don't even know how, but Tamahori managed to capture a classic Bond feel in some places. Plus, Bond and Moneypenny was a lovely way to mark the 40th Anniversary. (If only that was the final scene, it would've been a great ending) For those of you who game, I actually consider Everything or Nothing to be Pierces swan song. A great story, great villain, and one of the strongest Bond games. 

 

I do feel bad for Pierce, because his era (bar GoldenEye) was just plagued with really bad writing, and terrible directing. Brosnan proves he can do suave, but he doesn't feel like a real character. He's a decent enough actor, and I don't blame him at all. For what it's worth, he took some pretty terrible scripts and did what he could with them. He still managed to be the Bond of my childhood. 3/4 of his films were absolute naff, but for what it's worth, he did a pretty damn good job. 

[The Krynoid man]

I liked him in Goldeneye, but his other Bond performances come as bland to me. It's a shame because based on his performance in The Forth Protocol I think he could have been great as a cold and ruthless Bond. I guess they were trying to go for a more humours take on Bond in the vein of Roger Moore, which he could have also done very well. One only needs to watch Mrs. Doubtfire or Remington Steele to realise that. The trouble is that much of the humour in the films fall flat.
I don't think his performance is as bad as he or some people are making it out to be. You can tell he's trying his best with the material he's given, and there are moments where you can see glimpses of what a great Bond he could have been.

[The Krynoid man]

Also the frequent scenes of him running around with a machine gun mowing down every enemy in sight makes him more like Rambo or the Terminator than James Bond.
Don't get me wrong I like those kind of films but it's not why I watch a Bond film.

[Dekard77]

Brosnan needs some self confidence. Talking like that hurts the movies he's done. With rare exception of GE and CR most of Bond movies since 95 are all action heavy. Craig plays the reboot Bond but most of it which we have seen  at some point or the including the one liners. PB is a good Bond and without him I really can't imagine what 90's would've have been for me. DAD has some pretty silly moments but overall the film is pure escapism and I am happy it works like that rather than a Le Carre's movie (which is different side to the spy genre).

[Grard Bond]

I don't think Bronsnan was a bad actor as Bond at all!

I think GoldenEye was a realy good start, maybe in TND he was a little bad with the one liners, but overall ok,

but in his last two Bondmovies TWINE and DaD he was realy living the part, he showed some kind of matureness and selfconfidence in his acting, which was a terrific take on the part. Even if you consider DaD as one of the worst Bondmovies I don't think you can say that Brosnan's acting was not good in it.

He looked the part, he acted the part.

Even if almost everyone consider Craig a much better actor, Brosnan looked miles and miles better in a tuxedo then our Daniel ever will be....

[Guy Haines]

I was very disappointed that Timothy Dalton stood down as 007, and I admit I was apprehensive when Pierce Brosnan was announced as Bond back in 1994. But when GE was released I was pleasantly surprised. Brosnan's Bond, to me at least, seemed to have some of the virtues of his immediate predecessors Moore and Dalton with few of the vices, and he treated the character with respect, but without taking it over-seriously. I enjoyed all four Brosnan films - yes, even DAD.

 

So yes, I think Pierce Brosnan is a tad harsh on himself. And I think it's a pity that he didn't get to do one more Bond film before bowing out. Not CR - I think the producers were right to save that for a new man as Bond - but one which tipped its hat in the direction of original Fleming source material. The closest we got to that was the "revenge on England" super weapon plot in GE and the knighted "national hero" who isn't what he seems in DAD - both elements taken, of course, from the novel Moonraker.

 

One other point. I think he made a better Bond by starting when he did, rather than by succeeding Roger Moore in TLD in 1987. It was out of his hands I know - the Remington Steele producers retained him for one more series when he should have started filming TLD - but in retrospect he did better working with a new production team - director, screenwriters etc. - than he would have done if forced into another Bond's shoes with the same production team as before, imho. I've argued elsewhere on Cbn that Timothy Dalton's Bond ought to have marked a new start, good as his two films were. Pierce Brosnan's  first Bond film was, to an extent a new start, and as with Roger Moore in the 1970s kept the series going - at a time when it seemed as if Bond might have had his day. (Interesting, isn't it, that when the actual "reboot" of Bond finally happened in 2006, it was Martin Campbell, director of GE who was brought back to helm CR.)

[David_M]

I don't think Brosnan's being "hard on himself" at all.  He's not saying he failed to deliver what was expected of him, or that there were films (or even scenes) where he miserably botched the performance.

 

What he's saying (it seems to me) is that his tenure was uneven at best and pretty directionless, overall. "I felt I was caught in a time warp between Roger and Sean," he says, which I interpret as meaning the series was stuck in "hover" mode, trying to prolong the formula past its sell-by date and coasting along on momentum.  Certainly it's hard not to get that impression from DAD, which is assembled Frankenstein-like from bits and pieces of earlier, better films.  

 

"The violence was never real," he says, "the brute force of the man was never palpable." Here I detect his usual complaint that he wasn't allowed to "go tough" in the way Craig later was.  But he's right that the violence was strictly cartoon fare, and thus at odds with the pretentious stabs at "serious characterization."  Which brings us to...

 

"...the characterization didn't have a follow-through of reality, it was surface."  This is probably the pithiest critique to me:  all the Brosnan entries take a stab at making the character "deeper" or "more human" or "more real" through some artifice or other -- the disloyal friend, the back-stabbing love interest, the loved-then-lost-then-loved-again-then-killed girlfriend, the abandonment by M -- but ultimately they're all tacked-on, half-hearted and fake-feeling, just padding between copious sequences of cartoonish action and bad jokes.  It's like trying to turn Moonraker into The English Patient by throwing in a couple of scenes from "Days of Our Lives."  The best (worst?) example is "Die Another Day," where Bond is captured, tortured and left for dead by MI-6, only to show up bearded and soaking wet in his pajamas in the lobby of his hotel, in a scene played strictly for laughs.  Rarely does a film change tone so completely and so quickly, and never does it go well.

 

I like that Brosnan is taking some responsibility for the wrong turns his films took, but I wouldn't interpret his remarks as "they gave me a job to do and I blew it."  Indeed, the fact that he got to do it four times and brought in big bucks each time proves he was giving his bosses what they wanted, in spades.  But I do think it's possible to look back on something you did earlier in your life or career -- even if it was considered a success at the time -- and wish it had gone differently.  So I'm conflicted: on the one hand, I'm not sure what he could've done, personally, to change the direction of his entries, but on the other hand as the "point man" for those entries, the guy whose face is front and center, it's hard to resist the urge to pin a lot of it on him.  Especially when, as I've noted, casting him was the first tip-off to where EON was planning to take us.

[Trevelyan 006]

The reason why the Brosnan era wasn´t raw and hard-edged?

 

Because at that time nobody wanted that.  Audiences flocked to light entertaining action bonanzas.  That´s what the Bond films reacted to during that time.

 

My thoughts exactly. The majority of Brosnan's films were nineties action films. Period.

The plots and material reflected what was popular with audiences going to the cinemas at the time.

I Still enjoy them and believe Brosnan played an exceptional Bond... He's easily one of the most recognizable after all.

Edited by Trevelyan 006, 24 April 2014 - 12:41 AM.

[Zen Razor]

I found it a surprise to see not many people are a fan of Brosnan he has to be my favorite. I grew up with him and loved every one of his films. When I got older I understood some of the jokes that were more sexual but he still plays and outstanding Bond and TWINE is underrated.

[glidrose]

I Still enjoy them and believe Bronson played an exceptional Bond... He's easily one of the most recognizable after all.

Charles Bronson did a Bond movie? Awesome! Did he still have the 'stache?

[Trevelyan 006]

 

I Still enjoy them and believe Bronson played an exceptional Bond... He's easily one of the most recognizable after all.

Charles Bronson did a Bond movie? Awesome! Did he still have the 'stache?

 

 

All fixed now, of course... I was just ahead of myself.

[DavidJones]

I think Pierce is being mature there, but it's worth pointing out that he's talking about the films themselves, not his performance. He's talked about it enough, I think, for me to believe him and not just think he's being pretentious. He wanted to give it some bite, and he wasn't able to do that. There were moments - killing Elekra, for example, in TWINE - but, on the whole, it was the old Bond re-heated. The late 90s themselves were the '60s reheated, so it fitted in with the time. We were nostalgic for lounge music, The Look of Love and Andy Williams, with Austin Powers, Mission Impossible, Oasis/Beatles etc.

 

So correct me if I'm wrong: From what I heard, Pierce wanted to do Casino Royale with Tarrantino, but EON didn't want Tarratinto - they thought he would have too much clout over it and they would have less. Also, Pierce wanted $25 million, which was not unreasonable considering how much he had helped the franchise make over the previous seven years. Roger had also asked for more money after his contract expired (though considerably less, it has to be said, but inflation etc...). Then when they said no, Tarrantino wanted to do Casino on his own with Pierce - making it a 1950s, back-and-white, two-and-half hour period piece. But EON refused to sell him the rights, as it had taken them so long for themselves to aquire it.

 

Pierce has been philsopical about it all, and he wouldn't be thinking of it at all, I don't think, if he wasn't asked about it.

 

Anyway, I'm off to see The Love Punch....

[SecretAgentFan]

As far as I know there never was a serious discussion between EON and Tarantino at all.

 

Brosnan was chatted up by Tarantino, loving the idea - but of course that kind of film would have been very different from the EON canon.  Also, Tarantino would not have wanted to work within the parameters EON is setting.  And they wanted to do their own "Casino Royale" anyway, so the whole thing was a non-starter, only interesting for the internet outlets.

 

By the way, please tell us whether you like "The Love Punch"! 

[S K Y F A L L]

Sometimes I wonder if Brosnan's open discussions about and with Tarantino was what set him up to be retired. 

[DavidJones]

It seems he thought he was in a strong position to ask for more money - though he denied that he ever did. He would have liked one more film, but I wonder if he would have been willing for that to be a new story and not Casino Royale? They apparently tried to write a new one, but the project stalled, and their choosing CR as the next film rankled Tarrantino for a long time. I wonder what his CR would have been like, anyway. A black-and-white, period-set Bond film with Pierce in would most likely have confused a great many of the audience.

 

Btw, The Love Punch was great fun. A romantic comic caper with Pierce and Emma Thompson great as bickering ex-spouses who decide to get back at the tycoon who stole their life savings by trying to steal the $10 million diamond he has just won at Sotheby's. Thompson's character finds herself falling back in love with Pierce's Richard. There's farce, a little bit of action, plenty of wry humour (though it's not laugh a minute - it's gentle and endearing) and has reliable support from Timothy Spall and Celia Imrie. The two most frequent strands of humour are marriage and aging, which will make it especially relatable to over 50s, though the three 19 year olds I was with loved it too. I'd give it 3 out of 5.

Edited by DavidJones, 24 April 2014 - 10:15 PM.

[SirCliff]

Have to agree with much of what has been said. I grew up with brosnan so he has a place in my heart for that reason but after goldeneye his heart never seemed into it for me.

i think it's a little silly on his part to have this Craig envy. Brosnan played the sophistication of Bond far better than Craig will ever do. Whereas Craig is the hardman, i cant imagine brosnan doing the stairwell fight from casino at all.

if in being cruel he was bland bond not as easy to categorise as any of the others e.g. Moore jokey etc. But he brought the series back into the limelight and into the post cold war era and his performances never blew me away but the issues in some of the films were not because of him.

he should be proud of his tenure.

[SecretAgentFan]

It seems he thought he was in a strong position to ask for more money - though he denied that he ever did. He would have liked one more film, but I wonder if he would have been willing for that to be a new story and not Casino Royale? They apparently tried to write a new one, but the project stalled, and their choosing CR as the next film rankled Tarrantino for a long time. I wonder what his CR would have been like, anyway. A black-and-white, period-set Bond film with Pierce in would most likely have confused a great many of the audience.

 

Btw, The Love Punch was great fun. A romantic comic caper with Pierce and Emma Thompson great as bickering ex-spouses who decide to get back at the tycoon who stole their life savings by trying to steal the $10 million diamond he has just won at Sotheby's. Thompson's character finds herself falling back in love with Pierce's Richard. There's farce, a little bit of action, plenty of wry humour (though it's not laugh a minute - it's gentle and endearing) and has reliable support from Timothy Spall and Celia Imrie. The two most frequent strands of humour are marriage and aging, which will make it especially relatable to over 50s, though the three 19 year olds I was with loved it too. I'd give it 3 out of 5.

 

Good to hear about "The Love Punch", thank you!

 

One more thing about Tarantino and "Casino Royale":  IMO, he had absolutely no right to be angry - since he never had the rights to the novel.  He is too full of himself, unfortunately, and just could not stand being not considered.

 

As for his prediction that his Bond film would get the critics back on Bond´s side... well, as we could see, no Tarantino was needed for that.

[DavidJones]

i think it's a little silly on his part to have this Craig envy...

 

Yes, I suppose it is envy, really. Craig's got the kind of harder-edged films that Pierce wanted to have. It must be annoying, although I don't think he's walking around the place chastising everyone for it - not when Bond has bought him places in Malibu and Kawaii. It does sound like an artistic grievance, especially as he made noises about it at the time. If not for that, it would sound for all the world like he was struggling with not being Bond, as if it made him a has-been.

 

David Tennant once said that when leaving Doctor Who, at the back of his mind a part of him thought, "They can't replace me!" and then of course they do, as he conscientously knew they would, with the next Doctor. So maybe it's a bit like that too: nobody likes to be replaced. It's tough when someone takes your place in the pub darts team, or at work, or you break up with a girl and now she's replaced you with someone else.

 

He was the only Bond actor to be let go. Connery left of his own accord, as did Lazenby (initially), Roger was okay with leaving as he knew it was time, and Dalton's contract expired (and he also got bored of the endless delays with what would become GE). Nobody likes to be told they're not wanted anymore. It's ironic, of course, that he was let go when Purvis and Wade, who were directly responsible for much of DAD's excesses, were retained almost indefinitely. If I ate a Mr Kipling cake and got food-poisoning, I wouldn't blame the drawing of Mr Kipling on the cover of the box!    I wonder why he didn't complain about the DAD script at the time. I mean, this was supposed to be the fruit of three year's work! Some of it - like the bad CGI - wouldn't have been evident until afterwards, immedaitley, but the shifts in tone and the much-maligned invisible car...!

 

As he's said in interviews, he's felt that he has played the same role for years and now wants to challenge himself and be an actor. And this is what we have now, this very interesting phase of his career when he is doing lots of diverse parts in very different films, like: Seraphim Falls, Mammia Mia, Butterfly On a Wheel, Salvation Boulavard and A Long Way Down. He has five films out this year alone, with November Man being the one which many of us are looking forward to most. He will get a taste of what he wanted his Bond to be in that. I've just got one of the original Bill Granger books to prepare for it.

Edited by DavidJones, 25 April 2014 - 01:35 PM.

[Turn]

I used to be a huge Tarantino supporter, but you really can't take the man seriously at all. I will always credit him with helping reenergize film making in the '90s, but if he did enough projects and created enough as much as he runs his mouth he may be able to let that do the talking. The 6-year gap between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill he claimed he'd written dozens of things and they never surfaced. He contributes to a lot of projects and his latest films are good, but if he's so prolific where is the goods? 

 

The thing that really turned me off was when he said Eon should be thanking or crediting him for the success of Casino Royale since it was his (unsolicited) idea to revive it. I admit I'd be curious to see what Tarantino could have done with his version of Bond, but most others gave credit where it was due, give it up that it was a success.

[glidrose]

He [Brosnan] was the only Bond actor to be let go. Connery left of his own accord, as did Lazenby (initially), Roger was okay with leaving as he knew it was time, and Dalton's contract expired (and he also got bored of the endless delays with what would become GE). Nobody likes to be told they're not wanted anymore. It's ironic, of course, that he was let go when Purvis and Wade, who were directly responsible for much of DAD's excesses, were retained almost indefinitely. If I ate a Mr Kipling cake and got food-poisoning, I wouldn't blame the drawing of Mr Kipling on the cover of the box!    I wonder why he didn't complain about the DAD script at the time. I mean, this was supposed to be the fruit of three year's work! Some of it - like the bad CGI - wouldn't have been evident until afterwards, immedaitley, but the shifts in tone and the much-maligned invisible car...!

He wasn't let go. The producers chose not to extend his contract. According to Cubby Broccoli, the same thing happened to Roger Moore. Moore thought he would be asked back for an 8th film, but ARB said "Sorry, no go." Moore initially denied it but now claims his leaving was a "mutual decision", which as we know is code for something else. Both John Gardner and Raymond Benson have said the same thing about why they stopped writing Bond.

Do we know that P&W were responsible for DAD's excesses? I think it's our own SecretAgentFan who has said many a time that unless you read P&W's first drafts - and who here among us has? - then you can't say for certain who deserves blame for what.

I know you're not implying that Brosnan leaving had anything to do with your dislike for DAD, but some may misread between the lines and assume just that!

[Turn]

I've always been led to believe that Dalton was let go, only he has never publically commented on it, only went out graciously. Supposedly John Calley, then heading up MGM, demanded Brosnan replace Dalton in the role in order to greenlight GE. That's how I read it, anyhow. Brosnan had the 3-film contract and then options for successive films from there, same as Moore had after fulfilling his first three and Dalton supposedly had the same deal, only he never had his third. Draw your own conclusions from there.

 

It seems a standard thought from a number of posters here it's all on the writers in not fulfilling Brosnan's potential as Bond. From what I've read, the finished products were often much different from what showed up onscreen. TND was supposed to be about the handover of Hong Kong and was scrapped and they ended up scrambling for a new script and part of why TND seems rushed.

 

I've heard Purvis and Wade claim their initial TWINE was much different. I don't know anything about the evolution of DAD's screenplay, but as glidrose mentioned, we weren't there to read who did what. But they seem to be the standard whipping boys when it comes to what people don't like about the last two Brosnan scripts. 

[DavidJones]

I heard that The Daily Mail said at the time that Dalton jumped before he was pushed, and then Dalton sued them for libel.

 

Barbara Broccoli also wanted Sean Bean as Bond, but was overruled by Cubby, who's last major decision as producer was casting Pierce. Perhaps that's why Pierce and Barbara Broccoli never got along (according to some, at least, but I don't know anything more than that).

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think Dalton ever sued them.  He was very close to the Broccoli family.

[Colossus]

I'm amazed each time we lambast the producers for doing this or that , then it's revealed something way worse could have occurred and they were the ones to put a stop to it. 

[hilly]

"Brosnan's films were a product of their times, just as all the Bond's are in their own way, and Pierce has absolutely nothing to feel angry, upset or embittered about."

 

They were indeed. And they were tremendously popular and successful. As others have remarked, prior to GE, there hadn't been a Bond film for 6 years and many wondered if the series was dead in the water. Brosnan ticked all the boxes and he played a huge part in revitalising the Bond films.. It's a shame that the revisionists started with the whole "The trouble with the Brosnan films was..." stuff as soon as CR was successful (especially when you consider the outcry when Craig was announced- too short/blond/ugly etc etc), just as Moore was too old and lightweight when Dalton arrived- and Dalton was too dour when Brosnam took over.... but I suspect that, as soon as Craig's successor is revealed, there will be a backlash against him too...