109 replies to this topic

[Mike00spy]

Watched QoS last night and TND today. Let me say that as I was watching TND, I did get a little wistful for the Brosnan era. Don't get me wrong, its flaws are still there and I do enjoy Craig, but I did enjoy seeing a Bond movie that: had a gunbarrell at the beginning, used the Bond theme, and a Bond that (much like Roger) knew he was going to come out on top.

[Turn]

One of my thoughts on Brosnan has always been since he was viewed by so many as a "perfect" Bond successor, that was part of what could work for and against him. He had the looks and moves. Great for a certain segment of the audience and some fans who have a preconceived notion of what James Bond is to them. Many annointed him the logical Bond successor during the first season of Remington Steele. So there was nothing to really surprise or exceed expectations with, you got what you expected and it was, for the most part, satisfying.

On the other hand, Craig was viewed by so many as the worst possible choice for a new Bond, right down to having fan sites against him before a single frame of film was shot. And he winds up enhancing one of the best films of the series and despite not being tall or have dark hair, is the most convincing Bond as far as action goes of the lot, IMO. I think many people found this much more satisfying since there were expecting the worst. It was something new and fresh for Bond. Brosnan just didn't bring that, he brought pretty much what you expected, not that there's anything wrong with that, but an unexpected pleasure seems to make more of an impression than a familiar one.

Brosanan always seems to be the poster boy for poor treatment, but consider others who have had their share of tough times. A number of us who lived through the Moore era can recall how he was always being slagged for basically not being Connery. But he kept the series going and was very, very successful. How could it have felt having Cubby Broccoli test other actors when it was still Moore's role around the time of OP? And during the Battle of the Bonds in '83, all the anticipation was with NSNA, but OP was the big winner at the box office and garnered mostly positive reviews. Not to mention high-profile critic Gene Siskel unabashedly applauded Connery on a special Bond segment of At the Movies, basically dismissing Moore and calling Lazenby the answer to a trivia question.

And how about Dalton and Lazenby, the whipping boys who always seem to get left off of or pushed to the side in some books and retrospectives, well out of range of their peers. They have come a long way in fan circles and among some of the general audience in recent years. Lazenby is starting to earn some respect now that people are seeing OHMSS for the underrated classic it is. And Craig's portrayal has led some to reevaluate what Dalton attempted to do in the late '80s. Even here on CBn 10 years ago he was seen as a joke by some posters.

Bros went out in a sort of bad way, but he had it good during his tenure, he's still pretty well thought of and has been very successful in his post-Bond career. That all should be worth something.

[Binyamin]

It's important to remember that Brosnan had an ENTIRE ERA. Dalton can't say that. Lazenby can't say that. Four films and nearly a decade in the tuxedo is a good run. Pierce Brosnan WAS Bond for nine years.

He may in fact have been "BOND" to the most number of people in history, at the time -- With the video games and the films of his era, many people grew up with the notion that Pierce = 007. People grew up with him. Teenage boys came-to-age playing Brosnan in GoldenEye64. He was an ICON. My generation wanted to be suave and sophisticated like Brosnan, and who is this old Sean fellow?

Honestly, I think Pierce should be more grateful for the international fame this brought him, and less critical about the situation. Bond took him from a B-level TV actor to one of the world's most recognizable leading men.

Was he let go abruptly? Maybe -- but it was a JOB. He worked for the producers, not the other way around. And, after a decade in the saddle, he must have known his tenure was limited. It would be refreshing if he followed Roger Moore's lead on the attitude, and viewed the entire thing as a positive career-making experience.

[Hockey Mask]

Brosnan was let down. GE and TWINE were descent Bond movies. TND and DAD were really poor.

That said, I don't think Brosnan was ushered out too early. Sure he could have put together a couple more movies but aging Bonds can be painful to watch...DAF/NSNA and AVTAK anyone?

The only way Brosnan let us down was by not standing up and saying I'm noy making this crappy movie adter reading the DAD script.

[SecretAgentFan]

Yawn...

[glidrose]

Pierce Brosnan WAS Bond for nine years.

Seven? 1995-2002. Otherwise Dalton was Bond for eight years.

[Emma]

I'm not going to jump on the Brosnan bashing bandwaggon. To this day I still consider him to be my favourite Bond. I loved Casino Royale. But frankly they could have cast Craig as Tom Brown agent 004 and I would still have loved it. I thought that Brosnan's Bond films were for the most part okay. I only really liked two of them. But I did like his portrayal.

I think the producers just wanted to go in a new direction and felt that a new Bond would achieve this best. Ruthless to some degree, but having paid Brozza millions over the years and made him a bona fide moive star, I can't say they let him down (other than by giving him some very poor material to work with).

Well yes that and the fact that Barbara Broccoli and Brosnan didn't get along. I'm sure she was looking for the first opportunity to turf him. And after Batman Begins there was no way on God's green earth that they could have continued as is. Critics would have been howling that Nolan's Bruce Wayne is closer to the old Bond than Pierce Brosnan in DAD. They had to shift gears. Brosnan could not have played the Bond in Casino Royale. Never mind the problem of his age. He would just not have come across as likeable. In fact there are very few actors I can think of if they had carried on the way that Daniel Craig did in CR who would not have made me want to get up and leave the theatre.

[DamnCoffee]

Well yes that and the fact that Barbara Broccoli and Brosnan didn't get along. I'm sure she was looking for the first opportunity to turf him.

Interesting. Never heard this before, care to expand?

[Binyamin]

HE was let go by the cross dressing Director Lee Tamahori...Sick bastard.

What? Negative.

Pierce Brosnan WAS Bond for nine years.

Seven? 1995-2002. Otherwise Dalton was Bond for eight years.

Brosnan was announced as Bond in 1994. He was not released until 2004. So, actually, he was the official Bond actor for ten full years.


EDIT: This is a very interesting article on the final Brosnan chapter:
http://www.universal...cebrosnan.shtml

(I'm allowed to link to them, right?)

[Trevelyan 006]

Definitely a miscarriage of justice in the case of both parties. It was the nineties after all!

Brosnan did what he could with the hand that he was dealt. As far as a blame goes, I'm not sure if it can be rightfully placed on either party.

You see, I've always believed that Bond films are very much the products of their own respective environments and time periods. During Brosnan's tenure as Bond, action movie plots generally adopted the "over-the-top" and no holding back attitude and why should Bond (at the time, having to revive the series in a sense) be any different. Simply put, they used a formula that was (at the time) working. You can't fault them for that.

However, do I think they maintained that attitude a bit too long? Yes. They went to that same well one too many times and ended up with Die Another Day...
Brosnan's departure in '02 was inevitable and quite a necessary step. The series had returned, had been taken to it's limits and after Borsnan, it was time for a real change in direction because, the viewing audience as a whole had changed (in taste and intelligence). Enter Daniel Craig and the rest is history...

I Can't blame Brosnan.
I Can't blame the producers.

[BluffersBond]

Well you know Brosnan was first offered the role of Bond when Roger Moore retired. Only he had to turn down the role because he was already committed to a TV series called Remington Steele. Remember that one? No, we don't either.

It's a bit like turning down a Rolls-Royce because you'd paid the deposit on a Skoda...(the credit for that joke has to go to the author of our newly republished Bluffer'd Guide to Bond - Mark Mason)

Have a read of the guide now at: http://bit.ly/RW8h58

[Peckinpah1976]

The Brosnan movies for me are like 1990's CD compliations of a much loved 60's Pop act where remixing and remastering has given a glossy, warm finish at the expense of character and detail and the sequencing only reflects obvious chart hits rather than the defining album tracks that made them great in the first place. Brosnan's smooth and superficial Bond was entirely suited to this approach and this is why they were so succesful at the time and why they dated so quickly.

The Craig films on the other hand are 180g Vinyl reissues of the original albums.

Well you know Brosnan was first offered the role of Bond when Roger Moore retired. Only he had to turn down the role because he was already committed to a TV series called Remington Steele. Remember that one? No, we don't either.

It's a bit like turning down a Rolls-Royce because you'd paid the deposit on a Skoda...(the credit for that joke has to go to the author of our newly republished Bluffer'd Guide to Bond - Mark Mason)

Yes I do remember Remington Steele, thanks and no that it isn't what happened. Brosnan got the shaft from the producers of said show when they invoked a clause in his contract in order to cash in on the free publicity they were getting from Bond, meaning he had no choice but to continue with the TV series. To make matters worse it then got cancelled for a second time a short while later.

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 23 October 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[J.B.]

Okay. Good topic. I have read some of the opines here and they all bring up good points. Here's my recollection and opinion.

Brosnan saved the franchise. He SAVED it. Moore was a member of the AARP in his last film (AVTAK). The age contrast btw him with Tanya Roberts was stark (to put it politely). Dalton wasn't popular, period. The box office receipts tell that story. Too bad for him because although I wasn't a fan of him as Bond, I have grown to like him as I have watched TLD and LTK through the years. Brosnan comes in and with bad scripts, revives the whole franchise. Even DAD was a box office HIT back then. It was tops in $$$ for Bond. Brosnan was hugely successful with the average Bond movie fan, NOT with the Bond 'junkies' that are the diehard to the core fans (me included here). When they threatened to change out Brosnan, there was a huge public outcry against it. AND, Brosnan loved the role. He LOVED it. I don't think there is an actor who's portrayed Bond, including Connery, that really got into the roles like Brosnan did. The scripts were terrible, terrible. But, to Brosnan's credit, he elevated them to be the box office hits they were for the franchise. He was by no means perfect. I mean, he ran like a panzie. (a little humor there). But, the man idolized the role and he would've loved the typecasting (which happened anyway) if he had done up to 7 films and then retired, much like Moore did. That explains the bitterness felt by him when they cut him out and went in a new direction. He felt cheated out of a chance to really do better things with the character. For a diehard fan like myself, I loved the fact that he would get so 'into' the role. People thought he looked the part, played the part to the hilt, and genuinely embraced the role. He wasn't the best actor and the bad scripts would bring this out too. But, it was more than a role for him. Which explains how hard it was for him to leave the role.

Here is the crux of the issue for Brosnan. I think that Brosnan was really Albert's pick, not EON's. Barb/Wilson went along with it and rode the tide but, Brosnan wasn't their pick. Albert passed away with TND and Brosnan still had 2 more contracted films. The fact is EON (Wilson in particular was more vocal about this) have always wanted to develop their own thing from scratch beginning with the actor portraying Bond. They weren't getting any younger and saw this as their opportunity to do it, period. THAT'S why it happened. The way EON changed the formula is what disturbed me. With the spy films at the time being so Bourne driven, the past three films have felt like Bourne films and not Bond films. All the way down to DC as Bond, who looks like a Bourne not a Bond. Great actor, but I say still wrong for Bond. It could've been updated completely and still remained strong and successful w/o copying the Bourne formula. A decade from now, just like everyone's doing with Brosnan's era, the Craig era will be known for the Bourne influenced era. The 50 year formula is what distinguished Bond films from the others. And, as we will see with SF, they are going to go more to that fail safe formula that was and should always have been a Bond film. (At least I hope they do). This will enforce the Craig era being the period when they deviated from the formula and make his tenure the Bourne era of Bond films. All of this said, I'm looking forward to seeing SF. Hope it is awesome as the trailers seem to forecast. After all, it is a Bond film!

[Hockey Mask]

I enjoyed your thoughts. I wouldn't say they have deviated away from the Bond formula to Bourne though. Bond has a history of mirroring the movies of its time (LALD, MR...). That isn't really a knock on Bond as much as a reality. Sometimes Bond leads the way, sometimes it follows. Bourne and Bond became this incestuous entity during that time period. The good thing is 'James Bond Will Return...'.

[J.B.]

I enjoyed your thoughts. I wouldn't say they have deviated away from the Bond formula to Bourne though. Bond has a history of mirroring the movies of its time (LALD, MR...). That isn't really a knock on Bond as much as a reality. Sometimes Bond leads the way, sometimes it follows. Bourne and Bond became this incestuous entity during that time period. The good thing is 'James Bond Will Return...'.

You have a good point. I definitely agree they became incestuous, especially when Bourne became such a hit. I enjoyed Bourne when it came out bc it wasn't Bond and was different. So, I sort of overreacted back then when I saw so many elements in this big Bond make over with Craig. So for me, it was hard to see the changes as the same as you describe although they probably were the same kind. As a result, I've always had to filter my thoughts to some extent on it all. That said, Bond is definitely returning and in particular, I can't wait to see how Q turns out. That character update was way overdue. Can't wait til the US premiere of SF! My wife's been put on notice of where we will be opening night.

[Peckinpah1976]

I disagree; to me Bourne showed the Bond producers what they'd been denying for years; that there was a market for action movies that took their characters and scenarios seriously and could therefore do Bond properly and as originally intended - The Bourne Identity isn't different to Bond it's one of the best Bond movies never made IMO.

The Brosnan films are a product of their time, are mediocre and backward-looking and are not and will never be classics in the way that the Sixties films are but personally I think (rights issues aside) Eon should have had the balls to make Casino Royale back in 1995 and would therefore have been setting trends again and not simply following them.

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 23 October 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[J.B.]

I disagree; to me Bourne showed the Bond producers what they'd been denying for years; that there was a market for action movies that took their characters and scenarios seriously and could therefore do Bond properly and as originally intended - The Bourne Identity isn't different to Bond it's one of the best Bond movies never made IMO.

The Brosnan films are a product of their time, are mediocre and backward-looking and are not and will never be classics in the way that the Sixties films are but personally I think (rights issues aside) Eon should have had the balls to make Casino Royale back in 1995 and would therefore have been setting trends again and not simply following them.

You can't put the rights issue aside and claim they didn't have the guts to make CR because had Albert Broccoli been able to do CR, he would've done it. He couldn't do it at the time and if I remember correctly, EON had to do some negotiating to get the right to do CR when they rebooted the franchise. I agree that Bourne woke up EON and that it needed to happen. I also agree that by following Bourne they were following trends instead of setting them. Again, a product of Barb/Wilson and not Albert. When Albert was in his prime, the franchise set the standards, others followed. My point was (and more to the thread topic), at the time of all this, the producers let Brosnan AND the public down when they made the changes. Riding off the high of DAD's success at the time, they could have had it all, different direction w/Brosnan, the fan base of Brosnan, and STILL continued with a new Bond and direction at a later point. Everyone would have been winners. Instead, EON changed direction bc of their desire to do it all in their own direction. This whole topic thread would be a moot point if they had done it that way. Instead, of talking about who let who down, we'd be talking about how the scripts got better, how Brosnan really showed how he could play the part, and now the new Bond (maybe DC) is just as good in his own way. The way it turned out, we discuss whether it was Brosnan's fault or the producers for the Brosnan years.

I think a case can easily be made that if it weren't for Brosnan, the franchise may have died after Dalton. If they had picked someone else for instance, and it not work, Bond just might have died.

[Turn]

I disagree; to me Bourne showed the Bond producers what they'd been denying for years; that there was a market for action movies that took their characters and scenarios seriously and could therefore do Bond properly and as originally intended - The Bourne Identity isn't different to Bond it's one of the best Bond movies never made IMO.

The Brosnan films are a product of their time, are mediocre and backward-looking and are not and will never be classics in the way that the Sixties films are but personally I think (rights issues aside) Eon should have had the balls to make Casino Royale back in 1995 and would therefore have been setting trends again and not simply following them.

You can't put the rights issue aside and claim they didn't have the guts to make CR because had Albert Broccoli been able to do CR, he would've done it. He couldn't do it at the time and if I remember correctly, EON had to do some negotiating to get the right to do CR when they rebooted the franchise. I agree that Bourne woke up EON and that it needed to happen. I also agree that by following Bourne they were following trends instead of setting them. Again, a product of Barb/Wilson and not Albert. When Albert was in his prime, the franchise set the standards, others followed. My point was (and more to the thread topic), at the time of all this, the producers let Brosnan AND the public down when they made the changes. Riding off the high of DAD's success at the time, they could have had it all, different direction w/Brosnan, the fan base of Brosnan, and STILL continued with a new Bond and direction at a later point. Everyone would have been winners. Instead, EON changed direction bc of their desire to do it all in their own direction. This whole topic thread would be a moot point if they had done it that way. Instead, of talking about who let who down, we'd be talking about how the scripts got better, how Brosnan really showed how he could play the part, and now the new Bond (maybe DC) is just as good in his own way. The way it turned out, we discuss whether it was Brosnan's fault or the producers for the Brosnan years.

I think a case can easily be made that if it weren't for Brosnan, the franchise may have died after Dalton. If they had picked someone else for instance, and it not work, Bond just might have died.

You seem to be giving Brosnan way too much credit. Sure his presence helped revive the series, but how many people wanted to see GE as they were James Bond fans who were eager for a new film after a long 6-year wait? It's why I went.

Add to that, the younger generation of Bond fans I've talked to and read posts from said they were drawn to the series from the GE videogame, not necessarily the actor. Also where's your proof another actor wouldn't have succeeded just as well in GE? Mel Gibson was considered a hot favorite for a while, and I'd daresay his fan base was much wider than that of an actor who was doing a lot of straight-to-cable films at the time of his hiring.

Also, when it comes to following trends, the Bourne allegations are hardly the first time EON was infuenced by other projects. True Lies was considered one of the prime action pictures before GE, which I recall many critics and fans saying it tried to emulate.

Bros had his successes and we now have a new era of success. What's so wrong with that?

[FOX MULDER]

Good Bond. Bad films.

To be fair to Brosnan, some of the casting choices for his co-stars were absolutely abysmal.

[plankattack]

Bond and Bourne, Bourne and Bond. Ahhh, that old dilemma.......

I see where J.B. is coming from - Babs and Mike definitely "inherited" Brozza from Cubby - but I do feel that continuing in the DAD vein would have done the series damage that only an enforced lay-off of a decade and/or change of leadership could have cured.

I'm know I'm being naive but I've never confused the new Bonds with Bourne. I know I'm the only one on the planet who says that with a straight face, but it's true. But hear me out. What characterizes a Bourne film? Realistic action, a plot adorned with the trappings of old school espionage (take out all the physicality and you're left with a Le Carre-like collection of intercine conflict), and films that are ultimately about their lead actor. Now take those things and ask yourself, are they the property of Bourne? No, spy-films (and I use that term loosely) had hashed over that territory for forty years before (back to The Ipcress File and even The Spy Who Came in From the Cold).

So here's my point. Bond didn't copy Bourne, Bond just went back to it's Fleming roots, roots that the series itself had turned its back on from '69 onwards.

CR wasn't any more derivative of Bourne than it was, if derivative is the word, of itself. CR is at it's core, an old-fashioned spy thriller (the novel was at the cusp, written back in '53 - Le Carre, Deighton, Ludlum whoever, all ripped off Fleming, no?). CR has more in common with OHMSS circa 1969, than The Bourne Identity, circa 2002. Is the action more "realistic"? Sure, but that's what was thrilling audiences at the turn of the millennium - that the Bourne films got there first doesn't necessarily mean that Bond is a Bourne rip-off; instead the series was doing what it's always done which is follow the trend - a trend it could be argued, that its source material started.

What I'm glad the series did learn, is that from Bourne to Batman, audiences want films that are about their hero, not just starring their hero. EON had never really ever made a film about their hero (OHMSS excepted) - instead they'd always used their most valuable resource - Bond - as a mannequin to hang their films around. Finally with CR they figured out that making the story about their lead, rather than just using him to propel the story, was far more interesting to audiences that were demanding more than they were in say, the mid-70s.

I give Brozza credit - he, like Dalton before him - desperately wanted to explore the lead character, his motivations, who he was. I give the producers credit, for not trusting Brozza with that task. Longtime members know how much I love TWINE, but I also know how so many here hate Brozza's "soap-opera" portrayal (others' words, not mine) - if given the chance to do CR, how many can honestly say that Brozza would have been up to it? Who is to say we wouldn't have end up with with TWINE plus poker?

Brozza deserves great praise and thanks for his part in resuscitating the series. And the producers deserve credit for moving on when the time was right. I know that too many say, superficially IMHO, that Bond ripped off Bourne (who the last time I checked isn't the font of hero-centric story-telling or realistic action). I never heard anyone say that they wanted another film like DAD.

[Turn]

I'm know I'm being naive but I've never confused the new Bonds with Bourne. I know I'm the only one on the planet who says that with a straight face, but it's true.

That makes two of us on the planet. It's always easy to make a comparison and that seems to happen more often than it should. I liked the Bournes, but don't think enough of them to own them and to want to watch them over and over again. They did help set the new standard of action, but there were just as many eyebrow rasing moments in those as there were in Bond movies as far as unbelievable things go. I just find this character rooted in Fleming a lot more interesting than the Bourne character.

Good summary overall.

[Judo chop]

I'm on the fence about this one. I think it's a mixture of both; I feel that the producers should have pushed harder to come up with better scripts for Brosnan. Sure they were doing pastiches, but even then they could have striven for higher quality. And on the other hand, Brosnan could have tried harder with what he was given. I'm not saying he didn't put in good performances, but there are times (in all his films) where he's really struggling with certain puns. Puns that I feel Moore would have made worked.

The Brosnan era feels like a team keeping just enough talent on the floor to make the playoffs, to keep fan interest alive, to keep the bucks rolling in, while all along in the upper offices management is working on a plan to rebuild according to an entirely new philosophy. They’re keeping one semi-concerned eye on the product on the floor, but their passion is a focus on future dreams.

I think EON definitely threw Brosnan a (un)fair proportion of scraps to work with. The evidence is all on screen. But those scraps translated into millions upon millions in paychecks for the lead actor, and it is absurd for Piersteel Remingstan to be anything but completely appreciative of what Bond did for him, his family and his career.

As for what good Brosnan made of his scraps – if anything, his problem was that he tried TOO hard. He’s an enigma to me, really. I like, even love, him in just about everything I’ve seen him do outside of Bond. He’s not without talent, not by a stretch. But as Bond, it seemed he was aimlessly feeling his way through his whole tenure, trying a little bit of this and a little bit of that, never sure of a vision. “Born to be Bond!”, the world said. It seems to me Brosnan bought into it, but never truly believed it.

[George Kaplan]

Terri Hatcher was just well... baggage. The motorcycle/helicopter sequence just pi$$ed me off.

And, as far as villain's go, Jonathan Pryce was just plain NUTS!!! I loved that guy.

I was never sold on Terri Hatcher either, I think they could have done much better. I do like the motorcycle/helicopter chase, it's just mindless fun. Jonathan Pryce is definitely underrated in terms of Bond villains in my opinion.

Yeah I don't mind the motorcycle/helicopter chase either, even if it throws plausibility out of the window. Even some of the more implausible stuff in DAD didn't faze me because...well I can accept the implausible in a Bond film.*

Having watched the film recently Terri Hatcher's character seemed to serve no purpose at all, really. I mean I liked the assassin-Doctor scene with bond (RIP Vincent Schiavelli), but frankly I think the movie would have been better if they'd found a different way for Bond to find out about Carver's super-lab and left out Carver's wife.

Which I think kind of sums up the main problem I have with the Brosnan era so far in rewatching the movies - that they don't really break much from the formula even when it would make sense to do so. So we get characters who serve no real purpose in the final film but are there because there needs to be a secondary female lead.

It makes to stick to the forumla, I suppose; they'd had very mixed to negative results changing the formula around.

*I haven't rewatched DAD - only saw it once in the theaters. Planning to watch it Friday so we'll see if my opinion changes.

Edited by George Kaplan, 08 November 2012 - 07:24 PM.

[B5Erik]

Watched QoS last night and TND today. Let me say that as I was watching TND, I did get a little wistful for the Brosnan era. Don't get me wrong, its flaws are still there and I do enjoy Craig, but I did enjoy seeing a Bond movie that: had a gunbarrell at the beginning, used the Bond theme, and a Bond that (much like Roger) knew he was going to come out on top.

For my money TND is one of the most enjoyable Bond films of them all. it's fun, it's entertaining, and in the end that's what a Bond movie is supposed to be first and foremost. Add to that the fact that TND has the most Bond-like performance by Brosnan and you've got a real winner. Brosnan is clearly more comfortable in the role than he was in Goldeneye, and he would carry that comfort leve over to TWINE.

I don't have a problem with any of the Brosnan Bond movies with the exception of DAD, which collapses under it's own weight in the final third of the movie. Brosnan was a great Bond, falling behind only Dalton and Connery in my book. Craig could surpass him if he ever gets to play a Bond that really feels like Bond thoughout the movie rather than just in occasional scenes here and there (which I do expect the next time out the way they ended Skyfall). Brosnan embodied what Bond is known for more than Craig has thus far.

I don't know why anyone would blame Brosnan for anything. He wasn't a producer or director or writer. He had no control over those areas. As an actor he did a great job being Bond on screen.

[Hockey Mask]

I thought TND was a paint by numbers souless Bond. I was sooo disappointed leaving the theater. Not DAD disappointed but definately disappointed.

[B5Erik]

I thought TND was a paint by numbers souless Bond. I was sooo disappointed leaving the theater. Not DAD disappointed but definately disappointed.

To each his or her own. I thought (then) and still think (now) that TND is one of the most purely entertaining Bond movies of them all. It's fun, and Bond is Bond at his coolest. I thought Brosnan did a great job on TND - his most Bond like performance in the role. And I absolutely LOVE Michelle Yeoh.

I could watch TND every month for the rest of my life and not get tired of it...

Edited by B5Erik, 25 November 2012 - 07:53 PM.

[billy007]

PB as 007 waiting in his hotel room,still in dress shirt,wearing shoulder holster, adjusting silencer on Walther PPK drinking vodka PURE JAMES BOND!

[DavidJones]

I agree about TND. It was great popcorn fodder - and I mean that in a positive way. A very entertaining movie.Teri Hatcher was the sacrifical lamb - much like the Countess in FYEO - and Brosnan said at the time that he liked that her character was an old flame of Bond's.

 

Goldeneye is my all-time favourite Bond movie, and TND is somewhere in the top five. TWINE is a bit silly with Renard unable to feel pain and there's not much room to fight in a submarine. DAD, obviously, was a mistake. I think if he made one more film it would have been nice, but he was getting on a bit by that point.

[DavidJones]

Didn't Pierce have a habit of dissing the last Bond film whenever he was promoting the next one? I think I got that feeling in interviews.

[SecretAgentFan]

Somehow I remember that, too. Whenever someone complained about the one-liners he chose the easy way out and blamed the script.