101 replies to this topic

[marktmurphy]

'Self conscious'- yes; that's the phrase. He always looked like he was pretending to be cool- puff out the chest, purse the lips, squint the eyes and wave your hands slowly in vague movements. He probably could have been better without those terrible 'emotional' bits (jut your jaw, squint the eyes a bit more, wipe your mouth slowly) but they did for him.

He's no great actor, but he has a fantastic charisma. The screen and the audience love him, which is all you need to hold together a Bond film. Roger and Sean were both more slightly more masterly: Roger is a worse actor but makes the charisma look effortless- Pierce has to work a bit more. He is still a great centre to the films and if he could have been left to play cool without the 'acting' bits and had been reassured a little more to stop posing and just be James Bond I think he could have been even better.

Daniel Craig's 'not giving a ' attitude makes me more hopeful for his Bond being a bit more real; if there's one thing Craig ain't, it's poser, and just like Sean he looks very comfortable in his own skin.

[JimmyBond]

Agreed, Daniel Craig looks like he can naturally pull off Bond's hard edge, still have to wait and see how he will be with the charisma though.

As for Brosnan...I like him, I liked his Bond, but he was not natural at all. He didnt look right holding guns, he didnt look right playing the "emotional" scenes, but he did have Charisma, and if he would have let the producers play up that aspect, then his films would have been better than they are, but he wanted to "push the envelope" well, he apparently wasnt up to the challenge.

[Santa]

Brosnan is only a 'good actor' technically speaking in a few of the films I've seen him in. The majority of them he has been weak, nondescript. I'd class him as a movie star -yes- but not an actor. He's the kind of man who is famous for famous' sake, but has done little else to warrant his success other than Bond, frankly.

I look forward to the Matador though.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Yep, me too. I'd love to love Brosnan, but he just doesn't warrant it. Nothing wrong with him exactly, but he is rather annoying and not the man he's trying to be. Nice bloke though, I'm sure.

[Tinfinger]

I like Brosnan, which means I really do not fit in with this site.

[Bon-san]

I like Brosnan, too. And I don't take a bloody microscope to evaluate his acting prowess, because, well, these are flippin' James Bond films.

I really tire of this kind of thread. But in the interest of free and open discussion, you get some of this.

[Redtail]

Nothing wrong with him exactly, but he is rather annoying and not the man he's trying to be. [/quote]

I can't understand the "he's not the man he's trying to be". Is it referred as Bond, as an actor in general or as a person?

I like Brosnan as an actor, I think he made some great films and tv series (from Noble House, Nancy Astor to Grey Owl, Evelyn, The Tailor of Panama and yet The Matador) and I guess Seraphim Falls will be terrific.

In my opinion he's a very good actor and I'm wondering if people who judge him a bad actor are judging him so only because he's not their favorite Bond actor. I mean, have you seen some of his other films only after Goldeneye or have you seen them before he was Bond? Could it be that the fact that you didn't like him as Bond influenced your view of him as an actor?

[David Schofield]

In my opinion he's a very good actor and I'm wondering if people who judge him a bad actor are judging him so only because he's not their favorite Bond actor. I mean, have you seen some of his other films only after Goldeneye or have you seen them before he was Bond? Could it be that the fact that you didn't like him as Bond influenced your view of him as an actor?

Quite the opposite in my case as you see from my post in this thread dated 10 October 2005: Brozza is excellent in films that suit his style and range - unfortunately, Bond did not do that, at least not Bond as it was written for Brozza to perform. However, in many non-Bond films where Brozza is not tied by pre-determined guidelines, he can be very good.

[Redtail]

Yep David, I read your post.....I was referring to people who said Brosnan is not a good actor......actually I'm wondering why there are so bad feelings towards him.....people usually like or not like an actor but I've seen no one keep discussing about other actors in this way and for so long time. The same is for other actors who have been Bond, some people prefer Connery, others Dalton, others Moore and some Lazenby and it's ok and when the discussion is about them it's more quiet. When the threads regard Brosnan there are so many hard critics, I feel there's something towards him but I can't understand what.

I'm not referring only at this threads or this forum, it's something I find also elsewhere and I'm curious to understand why. It seems like if people can like or dislike actors like Connery, Moore, Dalton, even Pitt, Hanks, and so on, but when it's about Brosnan it seems changing and people like or hate him.

[SecretAgentFan]

Brosnan is a very good-looking actor.

Good looks are always a plus for an actor/actress in order to get a job. But they are also a reason for many people to underestimate or hate the actor.

Also, Brosnan is one of those actors whose acting isn

[David Schofield]

actually I'm wondering why there are so bad feelings towards him...... When the threads regard Brosnan there are so many hard critics, I feel there's something towards him but I can't understand what.

I'm not referring only at this threads or this forum, it's something I find also elsewhere and I'm curious to understand why. It seems like if people can like or dislike actors like Connery, Moore, Dalton, even Pitt, Hanks, and so on, but when it's about Brosnan it seems changing and people like or hate him.

I think general antipathy toward Brozza can be put down to many reasons (I'm not trying to argue whether they're justified). Here's a few in - I suppose - chronological order:

1) He never submitted to Dalton being Bond after the Remington Steele renewal fiasco: he was always keen to remind people in interviews that it should have been him in TLD and TLK.
2) By doing GE, he deprived Dalton of his third film - though this is in no way Brozza's fault.
3) For all the fanfare on him taking the role, his Bond films were pretty dire and never played to Brozza's strengths. While the writers and directors can be blamed for much, Brozza enphasised his desire to "pealback layers" and in the scenes of this type that were written for him he was - well - crap.
4) Brozza is very proprietorial toward the role and full of his own success in rejuvinating it. He gives little credit to Laz or Tim - despite the fact that they gave better performances and appeared in better films. He pays false lip-service to Connery while modestly admitting that for all his won success, he can't top Connery.
5) He initially refused to walk away with dignity, felt he owned the role and that EON owed him a living. His lack of grace in admitting his time was up has left a bad taste.

These are reasons that simply occur to me as to why Brozza vexes many Bond fans. They may be wide of the mark - but I do think they are part of the reason there is a personal dislike of the man among many.

[tdalton]

I think that Brosnan can be a decent actor when given the right material. I thought that he was very good with the comedic elements in After the Sunset (which is probably my favorite Brosnan film). He was good in in The Thomas Crown Affair and his best performance as Bond for me came in The Tailor of Panama. If he could have brought that style of performance to Bond, I would rank him higher, but still probably at #4 behind Dalton, Moore, and Connery.

But, I certainly have no dislike of Brosnan as a person. He seems to be arguably the most personable of the Bonds (maybe edged out by Roger Moore), and just seems like an all around decent guy.

[Redtail]

Thanks for the explanation David, I felt there were something beyond his Bond films and you made me understand something.
I don't know so much about Brosnan before Goldeneye (except for his films) because I don't live in USA and at that period he was quite hardly in the news. So I never read about him speaking of Dalton and Dalton's Bond and his lost of Bond's role in the 80's.

[David Schofield]

Thanks for the explanation David, I felt there were something beyond his Bond films and you made me understand something.
I don't know so much about Brosnan before Goldeneye (except for his films) because I don't live in USA and at that period he was quite hardly in the news. So I never read about him speaking of Dalton and Dalton's Bond and his lost of Bond's role in the 80's.

When he used to comeback to the UK in the late 80s, he'd invariably end up on chat shows like Wogan (the Irish connection) and Jonathan Ross. OK, he was asked the question, but he always found time to tell of the Remington Steele/Bond miss-out. Most UK glossy mags, Sunday sups and the like, of the time, always covered the topic too.

[krypt]

I've been a Brosnan fan since the "Remington Steele" days and honestly I've liked him in pretty much everything I've seen him in. I thought he was a fine 007 for the kind of films that his Bond flicks were: popcorn-fueled amusement park rides. Having said that, I still feel that Dalton should have been allowed to do at least one more Bond film. GE should have been Dalton's.

[MooreisMore]

I think Brosnan is a great actor and a great guy. People hate him for that stuff he said in the media but I think others were far worse.

Connery's incredible on-screen but whenever I see him in interviews he does seem a bit evil. Lazenby was just a tool, haven't seen much Dalton even though he's probably my favourite and as for Roger Moore.....well, he's obviously the nicest one in real life. You can see he enjoys the series a LOT and his charity work is...SAINTly.

[killkenny kid]

Cinefantigue Mag. Oct.1995

"Connery was always my favorte Bond, And I'd being lying if I sais I didn't feel the pressure to measure up to him. However, I can't compete with either Connery or Moore's style." Yep, sounds like false lip service to me.


And about not giving credit to Dalton. It was Martin Campbell, not Brosnan who said in the Satellie Enteraiment Guide Nov, 1995.

"For me, Tim wasn't a good Bond. He's a terrific actor, but I found him too angry and too aggressive about the whole thing." But, I guess Brosnan made him say this.

[JimmyBond]

Brosnan has actually confessed to never having seen the Dalton films. So his opinion would be immaterial.

[killkenny kid]

Brosnan has actually confessed to never having seen the Dalton films. So his opinion would be immaterial.

Funny, I read opinions on CR, here every day.

[bondrocks14]

Brosnan couldn't be a better Bond if he tried. He was perfect for the role. 2nd best behind Connery.

[JimmyBond]

Brosnan has actually confessed to never having seen the Dalton films. So his opinion would be immaterial.

Funny, I read opinions on CR, here every day.

Is it so wrong to have a good feeling about the film based on what we know? No it's not.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Brosnan has actually confessed to never having seen the Dalton films. So his opinion would be immaterial.

Well, I can understand his never seeing them. Brosnan was so close to being James Bond--less than one day away--and then NBC renews his contract for Remington Steele and suddenly he can't be Bond, which very well could have been his dream job. To watch the Dalton films--particularly before his becoming 007 in 1995 would have been tough to stomach. Just thinking about them, much less seeing them, probably brought up frustrated and angry feelings--not an unreasonable response I would think. Now since 1995 that pain has probably subsided since he finally got to be Bond so he may have seen them more recently. But whether or not he has doesn't matter, besides, I believe I've read where Moore hasn't seen most, if not all of any of his successors' films. (I'm sure Connery hasn't seen all of his successors' films either.)

Anyway, I too find this Brosnan bashing weird and excessive. I suppose some of it has to do with many posters not liking his latter two films but more so I think regarding his vocal frustration and disappointment at not getting to do a fifth 007 film. I think the Playboy interview turned quite a bit of people off, but I suppose that was his release valve. After letting off his steam in that interview, you have heard nothing bad coming from Brosnan about Bond, in fact he has been very supportive of his successor, Daniel Craig.

But my main belief for all the Brosnan bashing lately is because he is the latest ex-007. It happened with Lazenby, it happened with Moore, and it happened with Dalton. Now it is Brosnan's turn for the meat grinder. After a period of time those actors eventually got a renewed and more positive outlook from fans. Lazenby is much better thought of nowadays. Moore is not derided as much for being so light nor Dalton for being too serious. The time will come for Brosnan to be looked after much better too--but probably only toward the end, or at the end, of Craig's reign.

Regardless of when that credit and respect comes, Brosnan was and is a great 007.

[David Schofield]

Brosnan has actually confessed to never having seen the Dalton films. So his opinion would be immaterial.

Unusual, that.

I recall Brozza on the Wogan show in the UK in the late 80s being asked if about Bond and if he'd seen TLD. He said it had been on on a flight he'd been on and his son (Sean) had asked when Daddy was going to appear.

I suppose Brozza himself might not have been looking at the screen,though...

[SecretAgentFan]

One shouldn

[JimmyBond]

Brosnan has actually confessed to never having seen the Dalton films. So his opinion would be immaterial.

Unusual, that.

I recall Brozza on the Wogan show in the UK in the late 80s being asked if about Bond and if he'd seen TLD. He said it had been on on a flight he'd been on and his son (Sean) had asked when Daddy was going to appear.

I suppose Brozza himself might not have been looking at the screen,though...

There's an interview in a James Bond book where he gives that same answer (the question was have you ever seen any of Tim's films), after he gives that answer though, he adds, "But I've never actually seen them" So presumably he went to sleep or read a book.

[Loomis]

Brosnan is only a 'good actor' technically speaking in a few of the films I've seen him in. The majority of them he has been weak, nondescript. I'd class him as a movie star -yes- but not an actor. He's the kind of man who is famous for famous' sake, but has done little else to warrant his success other than Bond, frankly.

I look forward to the Matador though.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Yep, me too. I'd love to love Brosnan, but he just doesn't warrant it. Nothing wrong with him exactly, but he is rather annoying and not the man he's trying to be. Nice bloke though, I'm sure.

I also agree with Dunph. But then I think all actors are Good In Some Films, Not So Good In Others.

I've seen "weak, nondescript" performances from Brosnan (THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR comes to mind, and I found his work in EVELYN so hilariously awful that I was virtually bellowing at the TV screen with mocking laughter). I've also seen "good" performances (THE TAILOR OF PANAMA, parts of some of his turns as Bond). Only in THE MATADOR have I seen really unbelievably world class excellent stuff from the Brosmeister.

There we are. Me opinions.

[Seannery]

Brosnan is only a 'good actor' technically speaking in a few of the films I've seen him in. The majority of them he has been weak, nondescript. I'd class him as a movie star -yes- but not an actor. He's the kind of man who is famous for famous' sake, but has done little else to warrant his success other than Bond, frankly.

I look forward to the Matador though.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

Yep, me too. I'd love to love Brosnan, but he just doesn't warrant it. Nothing wrong with him exactly, but he is rather annoying and not the man he's trying to be. Nice bloke though, I'm sure.

I also agree with Dunph. But then I think all actors are Good In Some Films, Not So Good In Others.

I've seen "weak, nondescript" performances from Brosnan (THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR comes to mind, and I found his work in EVELYN so hilariously awful that I was virtually bellowing at the TV screen with mocking laughter). I've also seen "good" performances (THE TAILOR OF PANAMA, parts of some of his turns as Bond). Only in THE MATADOR have I seen really unbelievably world class excellent stuff from the Brosmeister.

There we are. Me opinions.

Well yeah, I really have to disagree strongly with Dunph and those who agree with him. To narrowly define acting by technique is not IMO a good way to judge screen acting. Those actors who show all the bells and whistles are often overrated while those who embody their roles without strain ,like Brosnan and Roger also, are underrated. There is a bit of elitism there methinks. Brosnan IMO has had a bunch of good to excellent performances.

[scottright]

Brosnan's been a fine Bond, but it's always unfair to judge anyone in the role because it all depends on what the actor is given. Sean Connery walked through "You Only Live Twice" because there was nothing for him to really do in the movie except be a foot taller than anyone around him. On the other hand, he hits his high water mark as 007 in "Goldfinger" because the script is well written and gives him something to work with. The point is that the writing matters - because that's what differs Bond from, say, the overrated Jason Bourne movies.

Brosnan's Bonds didn't reinvent the wheel - if anything, they reinforced it. After the relative thud that met the Dalton Era, no great strides were made in developing the character - the producers wanted to give their audience Classic Bond, and in Brosnan they got it. But if you look closer, Brosnan has some key moments - his scenes with M are uniformly excellent and he's entirely credible in the action sequences (if not all that imposing).

The problem with Brosnan's Bonds is that they try to be everything to everyone - and as a result, so does Brosnan. There are moments in the movies where is required to be Connery-esque, and there a moments in the movies where he is asked to provide the light touch of Moore. Add to that the erratic nature of his films - where dramatically you take one step forward and then you add an invisible car and take two steps back. It's tough to be convincing in the middle of all that. Roger Moore got around it by virtually winking at the audience, as if saying "jeez, isn't all this marvelous". Connery's Bond got lost in the larger productions, but cruised through on sheer charisma.

Perhaps Brosnan's ultimate crime was that he made it look all too easy. He wore the suits well, and did his best to make even the most preposterous moments look convincing (such as para-sailing off an iceberg).
But ask Timothy "Shakespeare " Dalton is he thought the role was easy.

[killkenny kid]

I think, I'm going to like scottright. And hi, jimmybond.

[JimmyBond]

I think you hit the nail on the head scottright (and only four posts in, and what a marvelous post it is ). Brosnan tried to combine the best elements from all the Bonds: Connery's charisma, Moore's light touch, and Dalton's hard edge. He didnt quite succeed (imo), he ended up trying too hard emulating the edge that Dalton and Connery's Bond had. Watch TWINE again, Brosnan is gamely trying to be a complex Bond, but he's just not pulling it off (the poor dialogue that he's ask to say as Bond doesnt help either). If they would have wrote to Brosnan's strengths, he could have been a great Bond in the Moore mould, but he wanted to be "complex."

[Publius]

Simply put, I think Brosnan is a good actor, and certainly enjoyable in most of his roles, but never anything spectacular (that I've seen of his work, at least).

Likewise, his Bond had certain strengths, but was altogether nothing special. He was the "greatest hits package" and the cookie-cutter Bond, fun to watch but without much of an imprint on the role.

But, most of that wasn't really his fault. Had he been given scripts similar to TND, but "beefed up" in terms of quality and fleshed out a little better, I would probably hold his tenure in much higher regard. I didn't mind the action angle of that film, it's just that they got a bit lazy with the villains, locales, and plot. Otherwise, it was Pierce at his best.

Solid action of the old-school (i.e., non-CGI) variety, combined with Brosnan's true strength of lighthearted, casual humor, was his best bet for success. DAD could have easily had that magic, but for some reason the powers that be chose the "easy way out," and the movie ended up for the worse.

So, I only hold Pierce accountable to the extent he tried to go down the "peeling back the layers" route. Had he consistently stayed away from the "darkness" he wasn't very good at evoking, and been dealt better scripts to boot, he could have very well been one of the greats. Too bad.

Still an all-around fun guy to see as Bond, though.