101 replies to this topic

[Athena007]

He cited both "The Tailor Of Panama" and Brosnan`s remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair" where fellow actors Geoffrey Rush and Rene Russo, "acted him off the screen".

HA! This makes me laugh. Rene Russo was horrible in The Thomas Crown Affair, I thought she really ruined the movie with all her "fake" acting. Brosnan was great in that film and in The Tailor of Panama -- he was majorly creepy in 'Tailor' but not a bad actor.

Now Brosnan is not the best actor on the planet, but he's certainly not horrible or poor at it. Besides The Thomas Crown Affair and The Tailor of Panama there's Evelyn, Dante's Peak, The Deceivers, The Lawnmower Man, Laws of Attraction, Live Wire, Raw Heat, Robinson Crusoe, Mrs Doubtfire, Don't Talk to Strangers... oh hell, I'm starting to name too many here. Not all of these movies were great (while some were) and some were poorly made (others not) and he may not have been giving an award winning performance, but he's certainly enjoyable and not unwatchable. I wonder if people watching some of these films are actually judging Brosnan's acting or the quality of the film.

As for your friends comment of him not bringing anything to the Bond Films.... I find that ridiculous and I'm not sure how to respond -- my response might turn into some 20 page essay. So I'll stick with this... if anything he brought the suave agent back to life for a whole new fan base who came to Bond Fandom because of him. And if Brosnan wasn't good at being James Bond there wouldn't be new fans who are now upset that Brosnan is out (and I wonder how many of these fans will not be as passionate about the 007 series now that he is gone). That is the biggest and I think the most important thing that he or any of Bond actor has brought to the role... fans.

[templer1972]

I think you and your friend are complete b******s. Brosnan is perfect as Bond and he made USD1.45billion for MGM. That kind of money is not an easy task even for A listed actor.Don't you think so?

No, not really. That's how much the film's made. MGM's income is a lot less. Brosnan comes in dead last in terms of actual studio income on average per film without even taking into account inflation. With all his films combined he barely edges past George Lazenby with his one film in terms of studio income - with inflation Brosnan comes in last here too.

I like Brosnan. I thought he was a good all around Bond who had some crumby films (TWINE and DAD), but he hardly brought anything new to the table. As stated he was "Bond for the masses". I tend to view him as Connery, Moore, and Dalton rolled into one. He has no signature - no stamp on the series like they did.

As an actor in other things beyond Bond, I don't really care for him. I honestly think he's overrated. Brosnan was born for one role and he's been playing it all his life.

Do you really think MGM spend 150m for DAD or 115m for TWINe, that amount consist of product placement.Studio depend a lot on product placement to save $$.I've read an article after the released of TND ,the budget was save almost 60% by product placement.So go figure? Brosnan Bond never loss money.

[killkenny kid]

Brosnan did this. Brosnan said that. Brosnan can't act. Yawn.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

He cited both "The Tailor Of Panama" and Brosnan`s remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair" where fellow actors Geoffrey Rush and Rene Russo, "acted him off the screen".

HA! This makes me laugh. Rene Russo was horrible in The Thomas Crown Affair, I thought she really ruined the movie with all her "fake" acting. Brosnan was great in that film and in The Tailor of Panama -- he was majorly creepy in 'Tailor' but not a bad actor.

Now Brosnan is not the best actor on the planet, but he's certainly not horrible or poor at it. Besides The Thomas Crown Affair and The Tailor of Panama there's Evelyn, Dante's Peak, The Deceivers, The Lawnmower Man, Laws of Attraction, Live Wire, Raw Heat, Robinson Crusoe, Mrs Doubtfire, Don't Talk to Strangers... oh hell, I'm starting to name too many here. Not all of these movies were great (while some were) and some were poorly made (others not) and he may not have been giving an award winning performance, but he's certainly enjoyable and not unwatchable. I wonder if people watching some of these films are actually judging Brosnan's acting or the quality of the film.

As for your friends comment of him not bringing anything to the Bond Films.... I find that ridiculous and I'm not sure how to respond -- my response might turn into some 20 page essay. So I'll stick with this... if anything he brought the suave agent back to life for a whole new fan base who came to Bond Fandom because of him. And if Brosnan wasn't good at being James Bond there wouldn't be new fans who are now upset that Brosnan is out (and I wonder how many of these fans will not be as passionate about the 007 series now that he is gone). That is the biggest and I think the most important thing that he or any of Bond actor has brought to the role... fans.

Great post with compelling points.

[killkenny kid]

Harmsway, may I be so bold as to throw down the gauntlet and ask you to name me a piece in which Brosnan has given a solid performance? (I'm not talking about the films and appearances that have played on his Bond persona i.e. Thomas Crown)

Mister Johnson!

[templer1972]

Harmsway, may I be so bold as to throw down the gauntlet and ask you to name me a piece in which Brosnan has given a solid performance? (I'm not talking about the films and appearances that have played on his Bond persona i.e. Thomas Crown)

Mister Johnson!

Brosnan was awesome in Noble House and wait till you see him in The Matador he was outstanding.

[Bondian]

I loved Pierce Brosnan in 'Mrs Doubtfire'. And in my mind it was an inspired piece of casting.

He handled the part extremely well with his sense of humour and well balanced comedy. The scene in the latter part of the restaurant when he chokes on the "hot jamelia" and the suffering on his was when Doubtfire/Danny was dissing him with snide remarks was brilliantly done. In fact he WAS Bond...but he didn't carry that 'refinedness' over in GoldenEye.

I always prefer Pierce in light comedy roles whereby he's the underdog and not the hero. He's too self conscious to play someone who should be over confident. But after saying that, it doesn't make him a bad actor.

Cheers,


Ian

[Turn]

He cited both "The Tailor Of Panama" and Brosnan`s remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair" where fellow actors Geoffrey Rush and Rene Russo, "acted him off the screen".

HA! This makes me laugh. Rene Russo was horrible in The Thomas Crown Affair, I thought she really ruined the movie with all her "fake" acting. Brosnan was great in that film and in The Tailor of Panama -- he was majorly creepy in 'Tailor' but not a bad actor.

Dead on about the Russo thing; I'm glad I'm not alone in that opinion. Her character is one of the reasons I don't hold TCA in as high a regard as many others seem to.

She is this supposedly tough investigator who turns all mushy by the end. I thought the tough approach was one of the things that attracted him to her. I'm not saying she needed to repeat her Lethal Weapon series character, but the whole thing at the end was worthy of some cheesy heroine of a '50s film or something.

[qtst]

[/quote]

Brosnan was awesome in Noble House and wait till you see him in The Matador he was outstanding.

[/quote]

I absolutely agree about Brosnan in Noble House. Very wonderful and surprising performance since I'm so used to seeing him playing light comedy in Remington Steele. I think he was also great in Around the World in 80 Days. If I'm not mistaken, he got nominated once for either an Emmy or Globes in one of the Mini series before Steele which proves that he ain't bad at all...

[K1Bond007]

I think you and your friend are complete b******s. Brosnan is perfect as Bond and he made USD1.45billion for MGM. That kind of money is not an easy task even for A listed actor.Don't you think so?

No, not really. That's how much the film's made. MGM's income is a lot less. Brosnan comes in dead last in terms of actual studio income on average per film without even taking into account inflation. With all his films combined he barely edges past George Lazenby with his one film in terms of studio income - with inflation Brosnan comes in last here too.

I like Brosnan. I thought he was a good all around Bond who had some crumby films (TWINE and DAD), but he hardly brought anything new to the table. As stated he was "Bond for the masses". I tend to view him as Connery, Moore, and Dalton rolled into one. He has no signature - no stamp on the series like they did.

As an actor in other things beyond Bond, I don't really care for him. I honestly think he's overrated. Brosnan was born for one role and he's been playing it all his life.

Do you really think MGM spend 150m for DAD or 115m for TWINe, that amount consist of product placement.Studio depend a lot on product placement to save $$.I've read an article after the released of TND ,the budget was save almost 60% by product placement.So go figure? Brosnan Bond never loss money.

No Bond film has ever lost money. I've seen the figures reported by MGM. I'm not lying to you here. A film's box office gross != the studio's income which is the argument I was trying to make here. I never said Brosnan didn't make money or that he didn't bring out the fans, or whatever.

[powermidget]

I think Pierce is a fine actor and as previously posted, I would also submit Mr. Johnson as the movie to see. Geez, how many movies have we seen De Niro and Nicholson play the same type character over and over, and everyone thinks they are the greatest! Then there is Tom Hanks. Yes he is likeable, but I have never thought he was a very good actor. I think the big problem with Brosnan's Bond movies are the horrible scripts he has been handed. Goldeneye was ok, but it went downhill from there. I don't think anyone could do much with such poor writing and mangled plots. The producers seem to be hoping the eye candy (female) will make up for this. I remember when Denise Richards made her entrance as the "rocket scientist", the whole theater burst into laughter when she opened her mouth. Not quite what the producers had in mind I'm sure. As far as I am concerned, Brosnan is Bond and no one else will be able to fill his shoes.

[Harmsway]

Then there is Tom Hanks. Yes he is likeable, but I have never thought he was a very good actor.

[killkenny kid]

I think Pierce is a fine actor and as previously posted, I would also submit Mr. Johnson as the movie to see. Geez, how many movies have we seen De Niro and Nicholson play the same type character over and over, and everyone thinks they are the greatest!  Then there is Tom Hanks. Yes he is likeable, but I have never thought he was a very good actor. I think the big problem with Brosnan's Bond movies are the horrible scripts he has been handed. Goldeneye was ok, but it went downhill from there. I don't think anyone could do much with such poor writing and mangled plots. The producers seem to be hoping the eye candy (female) will make up for this. I remember when Denise Richards made her entrance as the "rocket scientist", the whole theater burst into laughter when she opened her mouth. Not quite what the producers had in mind I'm sure. As far as I am concerned, Brosnan is Bond and no one else will be able to fill his shoes.

Thank you, and welcome to CBN.

[Qwerty]

As far as I am concerned, Brosnan is Bond and no one else will be able to fill his shoes.

Welcome to the CommanderBond.net forums, firstly. Not going to give anyone else a chance though?

[medrecess]

Brosnan's best acting was in the merchant ivory movie in the 80s.

[powermidget]

Give someone else a chance hmmmmmmmmmm, not unless they can come up with someone other than the names being thrown around now. None of them have "the look" to begin with and some are just flat out ugly. (yes I'm a woman) I'm also not really keen on a young Bond, because Bond should be seasoned and worldly. Brosnan fills the bill on everything I look for, and I have seen all the Bond films numerous times.

[Trevelyan_Moneypenny]

Pierce Brosnan is the first Bond I ever saw...so he IS Bond for me. I tried the other movies and unfortunately they just don't compare! Brosnan is the best looking of the Bonds anyway! Not that that is ALL that matters, but Bond IS supposed to be handsome.

P.S. GREAT actor, too.

Your friend is definitely wrong.

[V007]

In TWINE and DAD, some serious scenes looked goofy. It was like he tried too hard for those scenes. Brosnan's a great actor except when it comes to dramatic scenes.

[Trevelyan_Moneypenny]

In TWINE and DAD, some serious scenes looked goofy. It was like he tried too hard for those scenes. Brosnan's a great actor except when it comes to dramatic scenes.

Really? I thought he did pretty fine...but I guess it's all a matter of opinion. At least there are enough Bonds for us to choose from, lol.

[ChickenStu]

Anyone who thinks Brosnan is a crap actor should watch TWINE again. The scene where he forces himself to kill Elektra King, then cradles her dead body is a case in point.
The combination of self loathing, pathos and grief he shows in that scene is phenomonal, and in that one scene who shows more acting talent than Roger Moore showed in ALL SEVEN of his Bond movies.
When I look back at the Brosnan films in the future, that one scene will be Brosnan's defining moment as Bond for me. It was even more heartbreaking than the end of OHMSS (which was a little undercooked IMO).

[Trevelyan_Moneypenny]

To ChicknStu and powermidget-- You guys have pretty much said it. Brosnan is the best!

[Harmsway]

Anyone who thinks Brosnan is a crap actor should watch TWINE again. The scene where he forces himself to kill Elektra King, then cradles her dead body is a case in point.
The combination of self loathing, pathos and grief he shows in that scene is phenomonal, and in that one scene who shows more acting talent than Roger Moore showed in ALL SEVEN of his Bond movies.
When I look back at the Brosnan films in the future, that one scene will be Brosnan's defining moment as Bond for me. It was even more heartbreaking than the end of OHMSS (which was a little undercooked IMO).

The scene where he kills Elektra in TWINE is single-handedly the most ridiculous moment in all the Bond series, or possibly that moment and the one where he touches the tear on the screen. He just doesn't come across as hard-edged at all, and it's hardly believable that Bond would suddenly be in love with a woman he met only a few days back.

[Dunph]

Bingo, Harmsway. Brosnan appears too self-aware to act properly. He is not a good actor. He can play to type, yes, but he cannot act.

[Turn]

Anyone who thinks Brosnan is a crap actor should watch TWINE again. The scene where he forces himself to kill Elektra King, then cradles her dead body is a case in point.
The combination of self loathing, pathos and grief he shows in that scene is phenomonal, and in that one scene who shows more acting talent than Roger Moore showed in ALL SEVEN of his Bond movies.
When I look back at the Brosnan films in the future, that one scene will be Brosnan's defining moment as Bond for me. It was even more heartbreaking than the end of OHMSS (which was a little undercooked IMO).

The scene where he kills Elektra in TWINE is single-handedly the most ridiculous moment in all the Bond series, or possibly that moment and the one where he touches the tear on the screen. He just doesn't come across as hard-edged at all, and it's hardly believable that Bond would suddenly be in love with a woman he met only a few days back.

Agreed, Harmsway. The real Bond would have seen through her facade and turned her to his side.

Although I think it's a bit overrated, the scene of Moore kicking Locque's car off the cliff in FYEO has much more of an impact. Just his delivery of the line "He had no head for heights" takes Moore's Bond to a different level for me.

[Blue07]

Brosnan was and is a very good actor. He will never be given the credit he deserves because of the work he did prior to Bond. He was never seen as a 'serious' actor. But I think he was always very underrated. Anyway his work as Bond was tremendous. Not being given the chance to go dark as Dalton was and Craig probably will be never helped him. Only fleetingly was he ever given chance to act outside the Bond formula. I think he got the balance right - the charm, cool and charisma has been well documented and, for me, is vital for anyone playing Bond but in my opinion the best of Brosnan is in the small looks and mannerisms that sometimes go undetected in the films. Both 'GoldenEye' and TND have these moments. The moment Trevelyan is 'shot' in the pre-title the look on Brosnans face - quick, fleeting and no more than a second - conveys a million emotions it would take a page of dialogue to get to. Also in the final showdown check out the looks when Trevelyan has him at gunpoint and Boris is fiddling with the pen. Being so fleeting it all seems insignificant but I think thats one of the hardest things for an actor to do - convey more than one conflicting emotion in one look. Difficult. Also the wonderful head turn at the end of GoldenEye as a bullet hits just above him as he is priming the detenator is a moment of unbeleivable cool. Not many could pull that off. TND has some good scenes with Bond and Paris. Look at the scene with Kaufman and Bond and check out Brosnans mannerisms and looks - a thousand things going on behind those eyes - quality. That too me is why he is not only my favourite Bond but also a very good actor. When you figure in the fact some of the scripts he had for his Bonds werent great he did even better to convey any emotion at all. He may always be Bond but I expect some great work from Brosnan in the future.

[YOLT]

He was maybe the ultimate Bond for me in TND, especially in the first half. I really dont like Goldeneye and the performance of Brosnan in it. But he was also classy in TWINE. He also saved DAD being a disaster. He deserved a fifth.

[stamper]

You know what guys, Brosnan did not deal with the same team ie it was I think easier to deal with Brocolli and John Glen and Maibaum re integrating in the new screenplay the actor's input, than with Wilson and Barbara and the endless revolving door of directors coming in too late.

Now let me tell you :

- Change of Moneypenny in 85, Lois Maxwell asks to play M instead.
answer "M would never be a woman".

hahaha.

- Brosnan says since the beginning he wants to remake Casino Royale, or OHMSS, go back to real movie stuff, not just action pop corn.

His suggestions are ignored.

Flash forward 2006

My guess is the OHMSS remake is about 5 years from now.

Forgot to add : in Tailor of Panama or Thomas Crown, Brosnan is more Bond than in any of his 007 outings. Perhaps they should really have let him produce the movies...

Edited by stamper, 01 January 2006 - 07:36 PM.

[Bond Bug]

Harmsway, may I be so bold as to throw down the gauntlet and ask you to name me a piece in which Brosnan has given a solid performance? (I'm not talking about the films and appearances that have played on his Bond persona i.e. Thomas Crown)

Well, aside from Thomas Crown Affair and The Tailor of Panama, I thought he did a fine job in Evelyn. And he's getting considerably high critical marks for The Matador.

Agreed. Brosnan CAN act. He CAN leave behind the Bond/Remington characters when he tries. But I remember my first comment when I saw Brosnan in Goldeneye was how wooden Brosnan was. But maybe that's the way Eon wanted Bond to be played.

[ACE]

Brosnan was and is a very good actor. He will never be given the credit he deserves because of the work he did prior to Bond. He was never seen as a 'serious' actor. But I think he was always very underrated. Anyway his work as Bond was tremendous. Not being given the chance to go dark as Dalton was and Craig probably will be never helped him. Only fleetingly was he ever given chance to act outside the Bond formula. I think he got the balance right - the charm, cool and charisma has been well documented and, for me, is vital for anyone playing Bond but in my opinion the best of Brosnan is in the small looks and mannerisms that sometimes go undetected in the films. Both 'GoldenEye' and TND have these moments. The moment Trevelyan is 'shot' in the pre-title the look on Brosnans face - quick, fleeting and no more than a second - conveys a million emotions it would take a page of dialogue to get to. Also in the final showdown check out the looks when Trevelyan has him at gunpoint and Boris is fiddling with the pen. Being so fleeting it all seems insignificant but I think thats one of the hardest things for an actor to do - convey more than one conflicting emotion in one look. Difficult. Also the wonderful head turn at the end of GoldenEye as a bullet hits just above him as he is priming the detenator is a moment of unbeleivable cool. Not many could pull that off. TND has some good scenes with Bond and Paris. Look at the scene with Kaufman and Bond and check out Brosnans mannerisms and looks - a thousand things going on behind those eyes - quality. That too me is why he is not only my favourite Bond but also a very good actor. When you figure in the fact some of the scripts he had for his Bonds werent great he did even better to convey any emotion at all. He may always be Bond but I expect some great work from Brosnan in the future.

Wonderful post. I totally agree, Lappaman.

One of the difficult things Brosnan does (like Moore) is not show he is acting. He makes it look effortless. However, this style of acting is not fashionable.
Stillness and lightness is never rewarded by juries and acadamies but Brosnan is an excellent film actor.

[Stephen Spotswood]

The funny thing is that The Matador was a bigger bomb than Bond had to ever defuse with a few seconds to spare.

As for reported profits, studios will exaggerate them for one group and minimize it for another, especially to those they owe money to. They call it creative accounting.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 22 March 2006 - 09:26 PM.