52 replies to this topic

[Bond Maniac]

I guess this is what you get from a disgruntled person. He is spiting on the plate he ate and i find it very boring and stupid of him to do so. As said many times here before, James Bond saved his career. He should be more thankful and acknowledge that.
This is why mane people hate his stint as James Bond.

[plankattack]

I guess this is what you get from a disgruntled person. He is spiting on the plate he ate and i find it very boring and stupid of him to do so. As said many times here before, James Bond saved his career. He should be more thankful and acknowledge that.
This is why mane people hate his stint as James Bond.

Bond Maniac speaks the truth! Much has been written and yelled on these forums when it comes to putting the Brozza-era into perspective. I know that many feel that much of the criticsim that's thrown about is just the way that we fans treat the previous guy when the new guy shows up (the King is dead! etc). There is a school of thought that feel Brozza got nothing but a raw deal ("Why couldn't he have had a send-off movie"etc).

While I find it hard to argue with fellow poster quantumofsolace's description of Brozza ("Preening . Metrosexual. Bizzare accent. Massive ego. And of most importance, he is not a very good actor") - all things when laid out like that I don't disagree with - I've always tried to give Brozza the benefit of the doubt. But then Brozza goes and runs his yap (and he does seem to take every opportunity possible to talk about it) and I find myself not wanting to be so charitable. Both Sir Rog and TD, and even Laz, have always come across in a way that I think fans want. Brozza, who if you cast your minds back twenty years, wanted to be Bond more than anything else, perhaps because he knew that was the career-making role for him, seems to be only lukewarm, if not negative, about actually getting the golden goose.

It's always been hard to seperate the men from the movies, so in discussing the Brozza-era, the actor himself make near-impossible to be fair.

Because of his bizarre accent perhaps?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Both Sir Rog and TD, and even Laz, have always come across in a way that I think fans want. Brozza, who if you cast your minds back twenty years, wanted to be Bond more than anything else, perhaps because he knew that was the career-making role for him, seems to be only lukewarm, if not negative, about actually getting the golden goose.

Yes, agreed (although I wouldn't say Brosnan was negative about getting the Bond role). Even Connery is never slow to praise the artistic merits of the Bond films and their contribution to cinema. That's why I think it's going to be interesting to see how Brosnan conducts himself during the 50th anniversary celebrations. Will we have a return to him honouring the series and his own contributions like he did when he was playing Bond, or will he perhaps stay out the limelight. Time will tell.

[Single-O-Seven]

Both Sir Rog and TD, and even Laz, have always come across in a way that I think fans want. Brozza, who if you cast your minds back twenty years, wanted to be Bond more than anything else, perhaps because he knew that was the career-making role for him, seems to be only lukewarm, if not negative, about actually getting the golden goose.

Yes, agreed (although I wouldn't say Brosnan was negative about getting the Bond role). Even Connery is never slow to praise the artistic merits of the Bond films and their contribution to cinema. That's why I think it's going to be interesting to see how Brosnan conducts himself during the 50th anniversary celebrations. Will we have a return to him honouring the series and his own contributions like he did when he was playing Bond, or will he perhaps stay out the limelight. Time will tell.

I'm particularly fond of Lazenby's way of handling things. He admits many of the problems were his fault and that he made a mistake leaving the role, all while still stating his love for the series and his appreciation for OHMSS especially. He seems to realise he had a special moment in Bond history and embraces it, despite much of the negative "stuff" that has hung over his head since 1969.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I agree and think the same about Dalton. Although we can all argue the extent of Daltons popularity with audiences at the time he played Bond, he was blamed incorrectly by the UK media during the mid nineties as causing the six year hiatus of the series. Not an easy burden to bear I would imagine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't ever remember any footage/interviews with Dalton where he anything less than positive about his time as Bond.

[Turn]

The whole Brosnan era and perspective is interesting when you look at it full circle. Especially since I've seen it from the beginning.

I saw his rise from unknown Irish actor into a star in Remington Steele, saw the polls annointing him the next Bond (although I didn't personally agree), saw him almost get the role and lose it. Saw him struggle in the late '80s and early '90s and then get the Bond role.

Saw a lot of praise heaped his way before GE even came out and tons of accolades. Saw four films that were of varying quality, saw his contract expire and then not renewed.

Personally, I liked Remington Steele, but never championed Brosnan for Bond. At the time, he seemed to close to Moore. I thought somebody closer to Dalton was needed and was relieved at the time Brosnan wasn't able to stay in the role.

I was saddened when Dalton resigned/was pushed and was fine with Brosnan taking the role, but the overhype with the "Best Bond since Connery" talk was unwarrented. Now when people realize in retrospect maybe the guy wasn't on that level, it's like deja vu all over again for me. The best description has been stated here many times: he was the best actor for the role at the time.

Nothing against him at all. I follow his career as I do all the Bond actors and want to see him succeed just as I do the others. It's nice to see him star in one of the biggest hits of recent years and to work with both big-name directors and hot actors.

But when it comes to the James Bond series I just don't find Pierce Brosnan's take on the character or the movies he starred in to stir much interest personally.

[NorthoftheThames]

After reading this quote from Pierce Brosnan, I went back to my copy of "For Your Eyes Only: Behind the Scenes of the James Bond Films" by David Giammarco and reread his extensive interviews with Brosnan during the making of "Goldeneye", "Tomorrow Never Dies", "The World is Not Enough" and "Die Another Day". If you follow the progression of Pierce Brosnan as both an actor, and as James Bond, during these four films, you realize how completely he embraced the role and felt compelled to raise the bar on the character. But as hard as he tried, it seemed the scripts and the plots kept getting in the way.

I think when you read Brosnan's candid and in-depth discussions during the making of all his Bond films , you get the sense that he was always pushing for far quieter, deeper character shadings and more intelligent plots. At times, he was frustrated but kept his game face, always hoping "the next one" would get it right. But alas, having resuscitated the series after "License to Kill", the studio just didn't want to take a chance on messing up the fantasy formula. In the book, Brosnan is quite honest in his plans for shaking up the character, but those ambitions always seemed to be swallowed up by the over-ambitious plots. In a sense, he was expected to be a combination of Roger Moore and Sean Connery (with perhaps more emphasis on Moore) and steer clear of Timothy Dalton.

As much as I love Daniel Craig, I think if Brosnan had been given a chance to prove his acting chops via the "Casino Royale" script, his critics would've been blown away. Brosnan's Bond ideas detailed in David Giammarco's book certainly make for interesting reading and offer a "what if" had he been allowed to explore new territory within the Bond universe. I think much credit is due to Brosnan for keeping the series alive and thriving during his tenure. He gave the fans what was expected of the "movie" version of James Bond. The box office figures certainly don't lie.

Does anyone know how to contact David Giammarco? It would be interesting to hear his thoughts here since he spent so much time on set of the Bond films. I think Brosnan is getting unfairly judged.

[jaguar007]

As much as I love Daniel Craig, I think if Brosnan had been given a chance to prove his acting chops via the "Casino Royale" script, his critics would've been blown away.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Brosnan really had to acting chops to pull off what Craig did in Casino Royale and I'm not sure EON did either. I think of Brosnan more as a personality than a great actor. The heavier dramatic and emotional scenes he did do in the Bond films fell flat while he shined in the lighter moments.

[Colossus]

I think Brosnan would have made a greater more older agent which would fit CR's storyline of one last mission type of thing, of course they'd have to scale back things like the Sonic the Hedgehog opening though...

[quantumofsolace]

I think Brosnan would have made a greater more older agent which would fit CR's storyline of one last mission type of thing, of course they'd have to scale back things like the Sonic the Hedgehog opening though...

CR is Bonds first mission after being given his 00 status.

[Turn]

As much as I love Daniel Craig, I think if Brosnan had been given a chance to prove his acting chops via the "Casino Royale" script, his critics would've been blown away.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Brosnan really had to acting chops to pull off what Craig did in Casino Royale and I'm not sure EON did either. I think of Brosnan more as a personality than a great actor. The heavier dramatic and emotional scenes he did do in the Bond films fell flat while he shined in the lighter moments.

I agree. It seems so many Brosnan defenders are quick to point to flawed scripts and what they think he could've done with CR. Whereas Craig was initially painted by many of them to be a blond dwarf. At least Brosnan had his chances to show what he could do, Craig never had that in the beginning.

[NorthoftheThames]

As much as I love Daniel Craig, I think if Brosnan had been given a chance to prove his acting chops via the "Casino Royale" script, his critics would've been blown away.

Honestly, I'm not sure if Brosnan really had to acting chops to pull off what Craig did in Casino Royale and I'm not sure EON did either. I think of Brosnan more as a personality than a great actor. The heavier dramatic and emotional scenes he did do in the Bond films fell flat while he shined in the lighter moments.

I agree. It seems so many Brosnan defenders are quick to point to flawed scripts and what they think he could've done with CR. Whereas Craig was initially painted by many of them to be a blond dwarf. At least Brosnan had his chances to show what he could do, Craig never had that in the beginning.

I agree Daniel Craig came into Casino Royale with the odds stacked against him. And he indeed did flourish. But that was also facilitated by reconstructing the Bond universe (the look, the style, the scripts, etc. ) for a 'fresh take' on the character. Watching some of Pierce Brosnan's other work, you realize he really does have those deep, dark, menacing acting tones - but no one wanted to see that side of Bond (at least not yet). PB definitely wanted to take it in that direction. But alas, PB's good looks, charisma and suaveness became the priority for James Bond from 1995 to 2002. Still hoping they bring back that charisma and lighter moments of humor and levity for the next Bond - it's an important ingredient that's definitely needed.

After all, Jason Bourne can also punch, shoot, and kill, but no film character can toss off a quip quite like James Bond in a tuxedo. (ie. Moore, Connery and Brosnan. )

[plankattack]

I agree that Brozza wanted to explore the character of Bond and move the series in a direction that it has only of late looked to go in.

But I don't think he's a good enough actor to have pulled it off. I cite the rest of his career, where the reality is he's been most convincing in various versions of his Bond intepretation, namely Tailor of Panana and The Matador. Remington Steele is best known as TV lite-Bond. There's nothing else in his resume that convinces me that he has much range.

But even leaving that aside, in each of Brozza's four shots at Bond there was an effort to "peel back the layers," and IMHO there the least convincing parts of each film. The GE "on the beach" scene exists to give Brozza a chance to show who his Bond is, but all it does is delay the big finish. I've never rated Hatcher as a thespian, and the whole Paris sub-plot is again an excuse to allow Brozza to strut his emotional stuff. In my mind, all it does is highlight the fact that they could have used a conventional, no background, sacrificial lamb to the same effect. Neither actor sold me on a sense of history between them, other than that's what the script said.

I've always liked TWINE and defended it on these pages, but the list is long of members that cringe at the Bond-Electra sub-plot and Brozza's inability to really humanize it (Sophie Marceau should take her blame too). The criticism is often that he comes across as a tad foolish, and to an extent, a bit of a plonker! Brozza is good in DAD, pulling off his revenge, outsider Bond to great effect. Ironically enough, DC's revenge, outsider Bond seemed to upset so many two films later in QoS.........

I just feel it's wishful thinking that Brozza would have knocked the CR script out of the park. Sure there was some dodgy scriptwork during his tenure, (but the scripts were tailored to meet his desire to explore the character), but the rest of his professional resume doesn't convince that he was ever up to the task as actor. I just don't believe "range" is one of Brozza's assets. He doesn't agree of course, which is why he's giving interviews about losing his way. What way would that be?

Edited by plankattack, 15 August 2010 - 11:05 PM.

[NorthoftheThames]

I agree - Brosnan was quite compelling in the first half of "Die Another Day". Then everything went South for the second half....as per usual!

[David_M]

I agree it's unlikely Brosnan could have pulled off something like CR, but in retrospect it would've been nice to see them try it (in 1995, mind you, not 2006).

I'm no fan of the "peeling back the layers" BS, but I might have gone for it *if* they'd had the guts to go all the way with it. Instead the Brosnan-era films are an awkward mix of wannabe-pathos on the one hand and cartoonish action on the other, and ultimately collapse on both levels. If they'd gone whole-hog with the over-the-top stuff I know he could've pulled it off (as he's more Roger than Sean, whether he wants to admit it or not) and if they'd gone totally in the opposite direction, with gritty realism and an accent on characterization...well, maybe he could've done it and maybe not, but whether rousing success or spectacular failure, it sure would have been interesting to watch.

The bottom line is it's pretty hard to do Hamlet between scenes of CGI tidal waves and open-top jetboats that work underwater.

[Aris007]

As much as I love Daniel Craig, I think if Brosnan had been given a chance to prove his acting chops via the "Casino Royale" script, his critics would've been blown away.

If Brosnan had filmed CR, he'd have looked exactly the same as Moore in AVTAK. End of story.

[Bond Maniac]

No, sorry. Brosnan could never pull something like Craig did. The thing is, Brosnan is a very mediocre actor. All his movie he has the same performance. Thomas Crow Affair looks like a Bond movie, without Bond.
I will give you that the scripts themselves were weak and that the whole remodeling that went on CR helped Craig but i still believe that part of the lackluster movies from the Brosnan era comes from his performance. A good actor can do wonders with little material and that is why i can´t agree with the comment that Brosnan wanted to delve deeper in the character and was not allowed.

I agree - Brosnan was quite compelling in the first half of "Die Another Day". Then everything went South for the second half....as per usual!

The first half is nice, not good, until Jinx appears. Her character was a kick in my "you know what". And for me is an insult to compare her appearance from the water to the infinitely better Ursula Andrews as i read on some reviews.

[jaguar007]

I agree - Brosnan was quite compelling in the first half of "Die Another Day". Then everything went South for the second half....as per usual!

Actually I think the first half of DAD contains some of his worst work as Bond. His delivery of some of his lines are atrocious such as when he sees Zao during the tradeoff and his conversation when he was in the Hong Kong "hospital" with M.

[Bond Maniac]

I agree - Brosnan was quite compelling in the first half of "Die Another Day". Then everything went South for the second half....as per usual!

Actually I think the first half of DAD contains some of his worst work as Bond. His delivery of some of his lines are atrocious such as when he sees Zao during the tradeoff and his conversation when he was in the Hong Kong "hospital" with M.

Agreed. But on the whole, way better than the second half. Just thinking of this movie makes my head hurt. I never walked (at the time since Indiana Jones 4 was worst) so frustrated from a movie.

[JimmyBond]

I agree - Brosnan was quite compelling in the first half of "Die Another Day". Then everything went South for the second half....as per usual!

Actually I think the first half of DAD contains some of his worst work as Bond. His delivery of some of his lines are atrocious such as when he sees Zao during the tradeoff and his conversation when he was in the Hong Kong "hospital" with M.

The line (and horrible delivery of) "Jinx you say?" Has haunted many a dream of mine.

[The Shark]

I agree - Brosnan was quite compelling in the first half of "Die Another Day". Then everything went South for the second half....as per usual!

Actually I think the first half of DAD contains some of his worst work as Bond. His delivery of some of his lines are atrocious such as when he sees Zao during the tradeoff and his conversation when he was in the Hong Kong "hospital" with M.

I can't agree. He's at his best and most Fleming-esque (or as close as possible for Brozza) in that first half. He exudes a malevolent, brooding, world-weary cynicism, and finally smokes tobacco again after a misguided 13 absence.

Easily a huge step from his life lifetime channel-standard performance in TWINE.

[jaguar007]

I can't agree. He's at his best and most Fleming-esque (or as close as possible for Brozza) in that first half. He exudes a malevolent, brooding, world-weary cynicism, and finally smokes tobacco again after a misguided 13 absence.

Easily a huge step from his life lifetime channel-standard performance in TWINE.

The first half of the movie itself is better than the second half, and overall I like DAD better than TWINE, but some of his dialogue was poorly delivered (see the aforementioned scenes).

[A Kristatos]

Fair comments, although I guess what he is basically saying is how liberated he felt when free of playing Bond - which is understandable. Still I think being 007 did wonders for Brosnan as a movie actor and he was able to play a variety of diverse roles between his Bond films in movies like Evelyn, Thomas Crown, Grey Owl and Mars Attacks.

I wouldn't consider Mars Attacks a movie I'd be proud of participating in! Brosnan literally "lost his head" in that one.

You have to see that movie to know what I mean.