140 replies to this topic

[Bond Maniac]

Looking Back at all the Brosnan Era i feel kind of Sad. Pierce is a good Actor, not the best but good. His movies as Bond, for me, were the worst of the Series. Let

Edited by Bond Maniac, 04 June 2007 - 07:51 PM.

[Santa]

I agree with you, possibly for different reasons, but no doubt you'll hear harsh words from some. Maybe from those wondering who is Brosnam...

[Judo chop]

Yep. The weakest error.

Um

[Bond Maniac]

Ops....my mistake...just corrected it.
I know that some people will get heavy on me but that

[Santa]

That would have to be a spectacular explanation.
In the interests of fairness, you did say the Brosnan era (well, nearly ), so I think it's quite reasonable to point out that while I am no fan of Brosnan, he wasn't best served with scripts, co-stars etc. On the other hand, I think there is a reason for this but there's no need to get into that here. Let's keep it clean

[Bond Maniac]

so I think it's quite reasonable to point out that while I am no fan of Brosnan, he wasn't best served with scripts, co-stars etc. On the other hand, I think there is a reason for this but there's no need to get into that here. Let's keep it clean

My toughts exactly.

[LadySylvia]

It wasn't bad. But I think that the problem with the Brosnan Era was that I found it to be uneven. They tried too hard to adhere to the old Bond forumla . . . yet, at the same time, be different. I think that eventually the "old Bond formula" style won over - especially in the horribly generic TOMORROW NEVER DIES - and it made the Brosnan Era very mediocre.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Ok... so Timothy Dalton's 2 movies were better than all of Pierce's?... I don't think so, but I won't get into that. His film's (Pierce's) were good. All the Bond movies had there weak points. His era was just as good as Timothy's only 2 films to me and George Lazenby's 1 even though he didn't get the material George had. His era entertained me.

[Bond Maniac]

I think it is unfair to compare Brosnan Era (4 movies) against the Dalton

[HH007]

I agree completely with your assessment of the Brosnan era... almost.

Goldeneye I actually really like. It's a fun, stylishly directed thriller that I thought captured the spirit of the classic early Connery films. Plus it had the always awesome Sean Bean and the beautiful Isabella Scurupco in the supporting cast. It was a promising start for Pierce... a promise that none of his subsequent films lived up to.

Tomorrow Never Dies was a HUGE disappointment. As said earlier, it's a very generic 90's action movie. Lots of explosions and stunts, but no real excitement or tension, it's just noise.

The World Is Not Enough was made watchable at first by Sophie Marceau and Robert Carlyle, but then Denise Richards showed up, and things went rapidly downhill from there.

Die Another Day was just plain awful. Really awful. For all the reasons that have been stated. It was so awful that I was going to give up on the Bond films for good, before Daniel Craig and Casino Royale made me a fan all over again.

Yes, ultimately the Brosnan era was a missed opportunity, and my first instinct is to say that the screenwriters and the directors just let him down. And while this may be true, I do have to wonder if Pierce would've had the acting chops to play a more human, multi-dimensional Bond like Craig. Personally, I'm just not sure he could have pulled it off as well. What do you think? Anyone care to speculate about that?

btw, I am a big fan of the Dalton era. I think he's the most underrated Bond, but that's a different discussion for a different forum.

[tdalton]

I'd have to agree with those who are saying that the Brosnan Era was a missed opportunity. I think that they had a great opportunity to make some great films in the Roger Moore-style, but too much drama was forced upon these films where it wasn't really warranted. TWINE tried to walk the line between being a Roger Moore-style film (with the one liners and comedic moments such as Bond straightening his tie underwater), with some very heavy drama. Had they stayed with one or the other, it would have been fine, but too often in Brosnan's films there was the effort to bring the two extremes together, and it never worked. Had they made the films in the style of the Moore Era, then I think that Brosnan would have had a very good tenure in the role, but the styles of the films were all over the place and that was what made the films, as a whole, disappointing.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

Yeah I agree, there were several missed opportunities, but the films were not the weakest in the entire series. I Can't agree with that at all. None of the Bond movies were that weak where I would have to put a whole era down.

[tambourineman]

Definately the weakest era by far. I still like Goldeneye a lot, but could totally live without ever seeing the other three again.

[LadySylvia]

Ok... so Timothy Dalton's 2 movies were better than all of Pierce's?... I don't think so,

I agree. After all, I consider GOLDENEYE better than LICENSE TO KILL.

[Bond....James Bond]

Here's my order of the Brosnan era:

1. GoldenEye
2. Die Another Day
3. Tomorrow Never Dies
4. The World Is Not Enough

[DavidSomerset]

For some strange reason, I do consider GE the weakest of Brozza's Bonds. The first half of DAD is much better than the whole of GE. The 2nd half of DAD is as bad as TMWTGG. I would prefer Brozza's worst to LTK anyday. If only Dalton could smile and do a "little finger", he would have been great. All the humor in Dalton's era was a winking fish. Atleast Xmas came twice with Brozza

[Bond Maniac]

I do have to wonder if Pierce would've had the acting chops to play a more human, multi-dimensional Bond like Craig. Personally, I'm just not sure he could have pulled it off as well. What do you think? Anyone care to speculate about that?

No, i don

[LadySylvia]

Yeah I agree, there were several missed opportunities, but the films were not the weakest in the entire series. I Can't agree with that at all. None of the Bond movies were that weak where I would have to put a whole era down.

I must say that I agree with you. I can think of at least two Connery films and two Moore films that are worse in my opinion. And I consider one of Brosnan's films to be quite excellent and another to be pretty good - despite a crappy last half hour.

[Bond Maniac]

Which one you consider excellent and wich one you like but looses it self at the last half hour?

[plankattack]

[quote name='Bond Maniac' post='744518' date='5 June 2007 - 07:53'][quote]I do have to wonder if Pierce would've had the acting chops to play a more human, multi-dimensional Bond like Craig. Personally, I'm just not sure he could have pulled it off as well. What do you think? Anyone care to speculate about that?[/quote]

No, i don

[Santa]

The thing that I find sad really is that back in 1995, I had the same 'born to be Bond' feeling about Pierce that so many had. I loved the Bond films, both the dramatic and comedic in tone and Lazenby too, I thought Pierce was the perfect choice, so where did it go so wrong? I found very little to like in all four of his films.

[LadySylvia]

The thing that I find sad really is that back in 1995, I had the same 'born to be Bond' feeling about Pierce that so many had. I loved the Bond films, both the dramatic and comedic in tone and Lazenby too, I thought Pierce was the perfect choice, so where did it go so wrong? I found very little to like in all four of his films.

It could have been the movies, themselves. Chances are that Brosnan's talents were wasted during his tenure as Bond. Especially when you look at a few of his other movies like THE FOURTH PROTOCOL, THE TAILOR FROM PANAMA and THE MATADOR, in which he portrayed some very interesting characters.

[Santa]

The thing that I find sad really is that back in 1995, I had the same 'born to be Bond' feeling about Pierce that so many had. I loved the Bond films, both the dramatic and comedic in tone and Lazenby too, I thought Pierce was the perfect choice, so where did it go so wrong? I found very little to like in all four of his films.

It could have been the movies, themselves. Chances are that Brosnan's talents were wasted during his tenure as Bond. Especially when you look at a few of his other movies like THE FOURTH PROTOCOL, THE TAILOR FROM PANAMA and THE MATADOR, in which he portrayed some very interesting characters.

I'll be charitable and say it could have been but I haven't particularly enjoyed watching him in other things either. I've been honest enough in the past and said that I just don't take to Pierce full stop, and while the scripts, casts etc. have their part to play, I think one of my main problems with them is that they seem perfect for Pierce. They seem tailored to the parts of him that don't appeal to me. I've been confused before when people say that Pierce asked for this and that, but why do they think he didn't get what he wanted and that the films would have been so much better if he did? I think yes, he said he'd like to see certain things done in the films and they were done. Trouble is, those things just weren't very good. Just as Daniel Craig was quite clear that he insisted on a good script before signing, and I think it's safe to say he'll make objections to what he doesn't like in future scripts, why can we not assume it was similar for Pierce - we know he has no problem speaking out when he has issues. No-one forced him to speak the terrible dialogue. My point is the the scripts, cast, leading actor etc. have a symbiotic relationship which leads me to place blame on Pierce's shoulders while taking into account the limitations of the script etc. In defence of myself (it seems necessary these days ), I pointed out in another thread, I don't remember which, that I felt Daniel Craig deserved plenty of credit, for the same reasons.

[Bond Maniac]

I agree with you in this point too. His scripts were definitly tailored for him, with his "abilities" as an actor in mind. All his other movies, mentioned in another post here look like Brosnan

Edited by Bond Maniac, 05 June 2007 - 07:50 PM.

[SeanValen00V]

The thing that I find sad really is that back in 1995, I had the same 'born to be Bond' feeling about Pierce that so many had. I loved the Bond films, both the dramatic and comedic in tone and Lazenby too, I thought Pierce was the perfect choice, so where did it go so wrong? I found very little to like in all four of his films.

It could have been the movies, themselves. Chances are that Brosnan's talents were wasted during his tenure as Bond. Especially when you look at a few of his other movies like THE FOURTH PROTOCOL, THE TAILOR FROM PANAMA and THE MATADOR, in which he portrayed some very interesting characters.

I agree, the Bond producers didn't take any chances with Bond, as Brosnan himself said, they want to play it safe, they thought audiences just wanted action over story and character. A film like Tomrrow Never Dies is almost Bond classic, where they can go overthe top with the action towards the end, but they could of added a extra 20 minutes of Bond character scenes with villians, girls or anything just purely on character, just to space out the adventure action ride, it wouldn't of been difficult, Brosnan was just a tool, wasn't it like Michael G Wilson said, they start out with the intention of making a Bond film like From Russia with love, then it bogs down to silly casting decisions, too many action scenes, and a lack of story when you need some script polishing from a oscar winning writer like Paul Haggis's work on Casino. Pierce Brosnan was a big star Bond, but the scripts should of matched his big name, but sadly he didn't improve on Bond as he wanted too, whatever it was, studios/producers, playing it safe, and then when time comes to not play it safe, and Brosnan gets focal about the scripts and character, that doing one more film to get it right, sounds all good, he then is let go, and Bond producers take risks without him, I find that very sad, Brosnan's confidence in Bond was there in some scenes in DAD, but he can't save a film from itself, and scriptwise Casino was polished. I really wish the producers/studio just let loose on Brosnan and let him explore his Bond.

If you combine Tailor of Panama and Thomas Crown Affair, you have a better James Bond then what the producers gave him.

[plankattack]

Pierce Brosnan was a big star Bond, but the scripts should of matched his big name, but sadly he didn't improve on Bond as he wanted too, whatever it was, studios/producers, playing it safe, and then when time comes to not play it safe, and Brosnan gets focal about the scripts and character, that doing one more film to get it right, sounds all good, he then is let go, and Bond producers take risks without him,

What? You're having a laugh aren't you? Since when did EON owe anyone a living? Cubby and Harry made the decision back in the day that the series was bigger than the star. So why are we owed a fifth Brozza movie? I hear all the time that the fifth Brozza film would have been the best - based on what? Brozza could've done CR - it would have been the best Bond ever? How so? CR was written for a younger Bond at the beginning of his career, so unless Brozza fans have built a time machine, then we're SOL. You could have changed the script I suppose but then would be ignoring the fact that it was Fleming's first novel.

Bonds change. EON made the mistake of keeping the star around too long before. Having a 58yr-old lead in AVTAK did as much to hurt the series' credibility as much as any double-taking animal. When the powers that be decide that DC is too old, too unmanageable, too unpopular, too whatever, then you know what, he'll get shown the door too. I happen to like DC, but when it's time I'll be right behind the producers 100%

Don't get me wrong - I've got great respect for Brozz's tenure (I love TWINE and I know that puts me in a minority) but aging stars hanging around has never led to classic Bond results (AVTAK, NSNA?). The only people robbed of a fifth Brozza film are Brozza fans. Regardless of who it could have starred, Bond fans got CR. Having Bond around is more important than the career of any star, including Sean.

[Bond Maniac]

NSNA was not bad because of the aging Connery, in fact i tought that the jokes involving his age were quite nice, it was bad for differente points.

But i agree that Brosnan is old enought to stay far away from a Bond movie. Him being in CR would have killed the movie. And i believe that the movie would be a shoot fest instead of a very good action spy triller.

[JimmyBond]

NSNA was not bad because of the aging Connery, in fact i tought that the jokes involving his age were quite nice, it was bad for differente points.

If the producers decided to keep Brosnan around, they probably wouldnt have done much to change the style of film either. But that's not what this threads about:

I've always felt Brosnan was two for two in his era, with TWINE and GE being pretty mediocre (IMO) and TND and DAD being good fun, of course I've always felt that way, and know it puts me in a bit of a minority here, but really...TWINE is just dull, dull, dull, all around, and GE features an actor who is not quite sure of himself yet. On the flipside Brosnan's performances in both TND and DAD ground the films and make them fun, it's clear Brozza is having fun, so in turn I'm having fun.

[Judo chop]

I've always felt Brosnan was two for two in his era, with TWINE and GE being pretty mediocre (IMO) and TND and DAD being good fun, of course I've always felt that way, and know it puts me in a bit of a minority here, but really...TWINE is just dull, dull, dull, all around, and GE features an actor who is not quite sure of himself yet. On the flipside Brosnan's performances in both TND and DAD ground the films and make them fun, it's clear Brozza is having fun, so in turn I'm having fun.

That's a good enough reason for me, Jimmy.

[LadySylvia]

I consider GOLDENEYE as excellent, but rather flawed. I think that THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is pretty good . . . until it does a nosedive in the last half hour.

Edited by LadySylvia, 07 June 2007 - 03:23 PM.