140 replies to this topic

[Steed]

It's my first post here but I post under the same name on the 'Absolutely James Bond' forum. Interestingly, the same discussion is cropping up over there and the general consensus is the same- this was really not the finest era of the series.

I have to say, the Brosnan era is officially the least watched and my least favourite of the Bond films as a whole. Now, I love 'Goldeneye', which is one of the best Bond films imho, but the other three are flawed to varying degrees. 'The World Is Not Enough' I find to be the best of the rest but there are things I don't like about that (too many bombastic action setpieces, I felt Renard's ruthlessness was wasted and I'm not a great fan of Christmas Jones' character either).

'Tomorrow Never Dies' is a bizarre mish-mash; I liked the first half a lot, the second half I can hardly bear to watch as it's just generic, overblown action fare, imho. 'Die Another Day' on first viewing in the cinema (the first I ever watched in the cinema- I think I was about 14 at the time) didn't really make much impact on me then but when I got the DVD, the cracks really showed. It wasn't until I got onto the internet that I realised how hated this film was and that it wasn't just me that didn't like it much- I remember at the time it had some good press reviews (as did the other Brosnan films). Pierce's performance was never an issue for me- I thought he really was excellent in 'Goldeneye'- but I felt he was going through the motions in DAD a little.

I personally find a LOT more to love about the Roger Moore era, but then he's my 2nd favourite Bond...

[ApostolicAlcoholic]

I've always felt that Pierce Brosnan wasn't really playing James Bond. He was playing a man who was playing James Bond.

I have a very hard time watching his films. They're incredibly generic, Bond's character is incredibly inconsistent in tone, and they're constantly trying to make the plots personal (ala LTK) with characters we've never heard of (006, Paris Carver).

Considering there was a big hiatus before Brosnan's tenure, and another after, it's easy for me to just forget they ever happened.

[Keir]

Die Another Day we all agree is dire. But I'd sooner watch it again than a Moore film. Brosnan brought excitement, a fast pace, confidence and vitality to a dying franchise. Just watch Goldeneye again and compare it to the Bonds that came before. I admire Dalton's series, but the Bond I'd daydream being is Brosnan's. That's what Bond is for, innit? A man's ultimate dream. Casino Royale's a great movie, and Craig is an edgy, almost fascist hero (as in when he says "No" after M suggests that getting over his last lover's death wouldn't be a problem for him. But he is not suave, cool, and utterly sure of himself. Sure he's new to the job, but one doesn't learn one-liners and a knowing wink. You can't learn how to act to Errol Flynn, after all.

[Harmsway]

Just watch Goldeneye again and compare it to the Bonds that came before.

I'll take the Bonds that came before, thank you.

[Keir]

Just watch Goldeneye again and compare it to the Bonds that came before.

I'll take the Bonds that came before, thank you.

Sorry- I meant the ones that came directly before that 10 year hiatus. Compare the geriatric Bond and the Taliban Bond with the opening of TWINE alone.

[Loomis]

Is the Brosnan era the weakest?

Yes. No question.

But it still has its moments. Most of which are to be found in GOLDENEYE and DIE ANOTHER DAY.

[Bond James Bond 007]

The Brosnan era is by far one of the best why?.....because before brosnan we had dalton who nearly killed the James Bond movie franchise.....so the worst era's would be the Lazenby era and the Dalton era.

[jaguar007]

I will take the Dalton era over the Brosnan era any day.

[jaguar007]

The Brosnan era is by far one of the best why?.....because before brosnan we had dalton who nearly killed the James Bond movie franchise.....so the worst era's would be the Lazenby era and the Dalton era.

The Lazenby era one of the worst????????? OHMSS is up with FRWL as one of the BEST Bond movies.

There was also an era called the Connery era - you may not be familiar with it, but it is definetly better than the Brosnan era(especially the first 4 films). There was also a Moore era that had its highs and its lows, buts its highs were certiainly better than Brosnans.

The only reason that the Dalton movies did not do well is because the Bond movies were dragging in popularitity prior to Dalton taking the mantle.

[Publius]

GE and TND were good with some great moments. TWINE not so much. DAD was just awful, yet it did have its cool moments. Probably the weakest era, but it's better than nothing, and at least the first two are almost always entertaining. Brosnan did deserve better, although Dalton's likewise deserved more support (they already had quality in spades).

Basically, good filler and usually fun at first, but became a serious drag on the series starting with TWINE.

[Cruiserweight]

I enjoy GE and TND and i can sometimes enjoy TWINE it's just really DAD that i didn't enjoy.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

With that in mind, I'm somewhat ashamed to say that TND, the biggest culprit of "vanilla Bond," is my favourite Brosnan film. I suppose it could be due to the fact that it's about the only one of the four that doesn't pretend to be anything other than what the Brosnan films are: Action Hero Bond. As a whole, I do feel that the era was a somewhat wasted opportunity; they had a decent Bond in Brosnan, but didn't really know what to do with him.

My sentiments exactly. TND is the "safest", most formulaic of his 4 films but it at least met or exceeded expectations I had as viewer going into it. GE and TWINE weren't as good as I hoped they would be while TND more or less seemed to promise it was YOLT/TSWLM again for the ADHD crowd and it delivered on those promises. Raymond Benson considers it the best of Brosnan's Bond films.

I'm with Harmsway in being unable to rewatch the films. In the beginning was the end: after that brilliant opening setpiece in GE, we have Brozza's Bond in a nutshell, dropping down through the loo ceiling--without a hair out of place--to make a smarmy, ridiculous quip. 'Sorry, I forgot to knock.'

It was a Crying Game let-down, of sorts. I'd got lucky, I thought, with a great, rocking Bond--but instead got a well-tailored dweeb.

Ah, wise words indeed. I must say, I'm disappointed I did not get an invite to a Brosnan bash fest. Still, here I am, fashionably late.
I find GOLDENEYE to be, ahh, garbage. Its too self-aware, too proud of its "I AM A JAMES BOND MOVIE! LOOK AT JAMES BOND DOING ALL THE THINGS JAMES BOND DOES!" posturing. Then you get Brozza struggling with a sliding door, and its all over. I think the man is trying too hard in this film, trying too much to BE James Bond, instead of fitting his personality into the role; he does better in TND, and in my scandalous opinion, DAD, where I think he reached his Connery TB/YOLT "the hell with it" phase and just played along, delivering a lighter, and more fun performance. Perhaps you could say his inner Roger Moore comes out here.

I think his performance in DAD is actually my favorite of his. Some may call it "sleepwalking" but I like how he's at his most confident here, a little older and worldlier, less politically correct and not acting like a soap opera guy touching a crying girls face on a computer.

I've always felt that Pierce Brosnan wasn't really playing James Bond. He was playing a man who was playing James Bond.

I've said Brosnan didn't play James Bond. He played Remington Steele playing Roger Moore playing James Bond.

I will take the Dalton era over the Brosnan era any day.

Y yo tambien. At least his Bond films tried to be somewhat daring and original and were the advance guard for what we got in Casino Royale. I wonder if Craig's remaining films will turn out well or be seen as flops.

[Solex Agitator]

I was not on board for Brosnan as Bond in 1995.

I was, in fact, so jarred by the score for GOLDENEYE that I went back for my 2nd screening the next day specifically to hear and view beyond it.

My introduction to Bond came at the end of the Connery era when my parents took me to see DAF at age 6!

I like to say that I am officially a product of the Moore era, much to my parents chagrin! I love the Moore era like an old and reliably comfortable and warm sweater.

I also embraced the Dalton era with an open heart. TLD is in my top 5. Bond had come down to earth a bit and had become a romantic. Aspring to be Bond was not unrealistic.

With Brosnan I felt that the bean-counters had concocted a cocktail of what Bond needed to be to now survive at the box office. This particularly being the case in light of the six year lapse of production.

Having stated the above, I do think that there is grand entertainment value to be found in GOLDENEYE upon multiple viewings.

And that "multiple viewings" theme is what the Brosnan era boils down to for me.

TND is much better on its 2nd and 3rd screening. This film has fun at heart.

I was lucky enough to see an early BAFTA screening of TWINE. At the time, I thought it to be Brosnan's best turn as 007. Sophie Marceau was lovely and appropriatelty cast. But on multiple viewing inspections, this film is snail paced on many levels and when action does break out it feels that it is paint by numbers.

DAD showed much promise. The oft-mentioned first half is fun and different. The 2nd half is the worst Bond ever. Add to this that the film felt like it was shot on sound stages. And that is a big turn-off for this Bond fan.

The Brosnan era was an era of comfort food for me ultimately. It was there and it was familiar enough and I accepted it. As Erniecureo stated, Brosnan kept the franchise alive. For that I am grateful.

In closing, I will state that I have a distinct feeling that the Brosnan era will be looked back upon as a guilty pleasure and as products of their time. They will be screened for a good light laugh and for sentimental reasons. And that is okay with me. If I am lucky enough to be on this planet in 20 years, I am sure I will enjoy looking back.

Bond films are products of their respective eras and are milestones for each of our lives.

Edited by Solex Agitator, 03 November 2007 - 03:21 AM.

[Colossus]

I think his performance in DAD is actually my favorite of his. Some may call it "sleepwalking" but I like how he's at his most confident here, a little older and worldlier, less politically correct and not acting like a soap opera guy touching a crying girls face on a computer.

Definitely, i liked how he was smoking cigars and drinking like a ssasoned pro.

[Royal Dalton]

Me too. Easily his best performance as Bond, IMO.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I think his performance in DAD is actually my favorite of his. Some may call it "sleepwalking" but I like how he's at his most confident here, a little older and worldlier, less politically correct and not acting like a soap opera guy touching a crying girls face on a computer.

Definitely, i liked how he was smoking cigars and drinking like a ssasoned pro.

I also like how he says to Miranda: "So that's why you pretended not to be interested in me" and "Put you back into it, eh?" It exuded a Connery/Lazenby era confidence and cockiness that had been missing in his earlier portrayals.

Me too. Easily his best performance as Bond, IMO.

Indeed, Royal Dalton.(cool screen name BTW).

[Publius]

Me too. Easily his best performance as Bond, IMO.

I can just see it now... Die Another Day's Pierce Brosnan as James Bond in Goldeneye.

[WC]

The Brosnan era is certainly not my favourite and, in my opinion, seems the most commercıalısed and least classic. However, I wonder if in 20-30 years time, people will look at it differently? By then it will have become very familiar and a mainstay of the Bond universe (despite the fact that he doesn't have any of the actual Fleming novels as movies). People tend to reassess things when they're older or more time has passed, and perhaps they can be more forgiving. Sure, some of the moments in his movies won't get any better and DAD still remains the worst moment in the entire series, but all this fuss about his reaction to being fired will fade into the background.

It's a bit like tennis players - John MacEnroe was hated at the peak of his career by many fans, players or umpires alike. He was ridiculed many times for being a superbrat. But now when people look back on him, they have more respect and he's become a loved figure of the sport, even if just for his place in history (despite his awful acting turn in CSI:NY )

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Brosnan was a very good Bond but the screenwriters didn't gave him a chance to prove himself entirely. GoldenEye was great, the others were fine. But they could have done better with him in the lead.

[LadySylvia]

I don't know if I find Brosnan's era to be the weakest. Look at Lazenby. He only had one Bond movie to his credit, even if it was the superb OHMSS.

And I must admit that I love GOLDENEYE and like THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH very much. Even the first half of DIE ANOTHER DAY is pretty good. Only TOMORROW NEVER DIES doesn't really satisfy me. One of the weaknesses of the Brosnan Era was that the movies - aside from GOLDENEYE - tend to end on a weak note. Even the very good THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

But considering that I only really love two of Connery's films and three of Moore's films, perhaps the Brosnan Era isn't as weak as I had originally thought.

[Simon]

Coming to this thread late so haven't read all that came before me, but;

I think Brosnan's era is the least consistent, but provides the best moments. Unfortunately the moments do not add up to one film.

I think Brosnan had much more potential than was exemplified but was ultimately poorly served by crass scripts, production deadlines and in one case, the worst choice of director for a Bond ever.

I think TND was the most 'classic' (read - Bond formula) of his Bond films. Blond henchman, older main villain, close girl getting the chop. And it was probably not so bad because of it.

I think Time will allow a better reflection of both his movies and his 'lot'.

[LadySylvia]

I think TND was the most 'classic' (read - Bond formula) of his Bond films. Blond henchman, older main villain, close girl getting the chop. And it was probably not so bad because of it.

That is probably the main reason why I dislike TND. It was too conventional a Bond film, and somewhat bland for my tastes. I tend to like those that seem more original.

[Judo chop]

I think Time will allow a better reflection of both his movies and his 'lot'.

There it is. The only true test. My guess though is

[MrDraco]

Their is a certain balance in Brosnan's era they couldn't get right...the emotional, the action and realism....If they had taken his films in the direction of "The Tailor of Panama" with a sprinkle of TND (The shooting and action) they would have went over well...seems to me theirs always to much of one thing in each of his movies that kills the rest of it...

[Simon]

Yup, too much 'box-ticking' for 'well known Bond elements' that have to be in every film, but usually to the films' overall detriment.

[Carolinabond007]

In terms of box office the Brosnan era will be looked upon favorably, but in terms of comparing it with Connery and Moore for instance, not so much. I think Brosnan will be known as the "Popcorn Movie" or "Hollywood" Bond....more for the general audience than for Bond fans....though nothing wrong with that because his movies saved the franchise. I am grateful to Pierce for that reason alone.

I think years down the line the Brosnan era will be more appreciated as time passes. I remember people ripping the Roger Moore era after AVTAK. Time heals all wounds. There are some good things about the Brosnan era, namely GE and TWINE in my opinion. I do think TND is the worst 007 film. DAD had certain elements to praise but as a whole did not live up to expectations in my view.

I do think Craig will dimish Brosnan's contributions a bit, especially if he ends up doing more 007 films than Pierce. But simply put, the success of the Brosnan era allowed Casino Royale and Craig's future movies to happen. Brosnan's Bond helped bring back the general movie audience to Bond after years of declining interest and quality in the 1980s. Many people also thought Brosnan would be the last 007.

But Pierce's era will be known as the Bond who brought 007 back to being a box office giant and brought James Bond into the 21st century.

Remember also that DAF and AVTAK, considered two of the worst 007 films, were the last films of Connery and Moore. They knew they were leaving the roles. Brosnan didn't know DAD would be his last (he was wanting to do another). Brosnan didn't really get a fair sendoff to his credit. I think a lot of the critcism of DAD is for that very reason. But one can't argue with getting Daniel Craig.....definitely an improvement.

Edited by Carolinabond007, 16 November 2007 - 02:58 PM.

[Bond James Bond 007]

The Brosnan era is by far one of the best why?.....because before brosnan we had dalton who nearly killed the James Bond movie franchise.....so the worst era's would be the Lazenby era and the Dalton era.

The Lazenby era one of the worst????????? OHMSS is up with FRWL as one of the BEST Bond movies.

There was also an era called the Connery era - you may not be familiar with it, but it is definetly better than the Brosnan era(especially the first 4 films). There was also a Moore era that had its highs and its lows, buts its highs were certiainly better than Brosnans.

The only reason that the Dalton movies did not do well is because the Bond movies were dragging in popularitity prior to Dalton taking the mantle.

Did I stutter? OHMSS is good BUT Thunderball is way better. Lazenby,who has no charm or sophistication sucks at playing James Bond!
Are you blind and cannot see that I know there was a Connery era,Connery is my Bond image on these forums,idiot talking down to me who do you think you are?The Moore era except for two or three movies, is pathetic and most are considered the weakest Bond movies with exception of The Spy who Loved me and for your eyes only, moore plays Bond like an old grandfather.Then Dalton, I still to this day cannot watch a Dalton bond movie all the way through, I fall asleep in the middle of both the living daylights and license to kill. Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

[Royal Dalton]

It's always nice to see people making new friends...

[Double-0-Seven]

Looking back, I'm not as fond of Brosnan's films as I once was.

GoldenEye was the first Bond film I ever saw. I absolutely loved it when I first saw it and it remained my favorite for a long time. Now when I watch it, I don't enjoy it as much. I find the middle of the film really slow moving, almost to the point where its boring.

Tomorrow Never Dies I still like a lot. Not one of the better Bond films, but it has a good pace and is very enjoyable. Probably one of the most "fun" Bond films to watch.

The World Is Not Enough is my favorite Brosnan film, but doesn't rank as high on my overall list as it once did. Denise Richards should not have been in the film, and there should have been more character development. This could have been one of the best Bond films of all time had it been executed properly.

Die Another Day is another one I loved when I first saw it. It was the second Bond film I ever saw at the theatre and I thought it was the best one when I first saw it. Now I'd say it's about the same level as Tomorrow Never Dies, a fun film but not really a strong film. I'm not going to bother listing the films flaws as I think we all know the big ones.

Since I grew up with the Brosnan era, I think that might be why I loved it so much. Now as I've gotten older, I realize that the films aren't as good as I thought they were. However, Pierce was a good Bond, and the films are still entertaining to watch.

[JimmyBond]

Did I mention that there was no bond movie for five years after license to kill,you think they did that because license to kill was a good movie? NO,because it's crap!

It was six years. Genius.