39 replies to this topic

[JimmyBond]

Not quite a review, not quite a retrospective, just me rambling on about Pierce Brosnan:

With everyone celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Bond, it’s worth pointing out that this month marks another kind of anniversary: the tenth anniversary of Pierce Brosnan’s last Bond film. It’s weird in a way, to even fathom that it’s been ten years since Die Another Day was released into cinemas. I can still remember seeing it in theaters, the reactions I had to it, the reactions audience members had. I can remember dragging my dad along to my third viewing, that look he gave me during the now infamous iceberg sequence. No doubt far removed from the Bond films he grew up with.

When I first realized Die Another Day was going to be ten years old, I started planning on how to honor that film. But then I got to thinking. In the wake of Craig’s darker, grittier Bond, opinion has changed, that’s not to say people hate Brosnan now, but I think he’s not given enough credit anymore. So think of this as something of a retrospective of his era, from my perspective, and of course, my opinion of him and his films (spoiler alert, it’s a positive one)

Read the rest of the article here.

Edited by JimmyBond, 17 November 2012 - 06:56 AM.

[S K Y F A L L]

Sometimes I think people forget that its hard to compare Bond actors to one another because each one has the advantage of learning from the previous one and it does feel like Brosnan's Bond is completely overshadowed by Craig's success.
Bond and Trevelyan's fight scene is intense and one of his best and I didn`t know Gotz Otto`s character `was suppose to not feel pain, it seems they saved that for Renard in TWINE. It`s to bad we`ll never see that extended cut of TWINE either.
While DAD was more fantasy then reality, had they given Brosnan a fifth film like Moore's FYEO to end off on, people wouldn`t be so fast to shot down his Bond compared to Craig`s more grounded and real one. Its just a shame that Brosnan seems to take a lot of the rap for DAD although he didn't write the script.

[JimmyBond]

I watched Die Another Day again last. I still stand by my initial feelings about it, it's a really fun (and silly) Bond film. Brosnan's performance does go a long way in anchoring the two halves of the film. Anyways, gotta be careful not to repeat what I said in the article But if I had any complaints about the film, it would be Halle Berry, she does the exact opposite of what Brosnan does. If Brosnan is playing it as if the film is deadly serious, then Halle Berry is playing it as if she knows she's in a silly film. What's most frustrating about that, is I know Halle Berry is a great actress (she's stupendous in The Cloud Atlas), it's really disappointing watching her play it this way.

[00 Brosnan]

Very well written piece JimmyBond.

I do feel as if Brosnan is unfairly dumped on by certain Bond die-hards. The big issue as I see it is that Daniel Craig has re-invented Bond like no other previous actor has and like with anything in that sort of situation, it's easiest to compare the new breed (Craig) of success with the most recent form of "traditional (Brosnan)." When Dalton took over for Moore, yeah the tone of the films changed slightly, but it was essentially the same formula, it wasn't a drastic change of direction so people were mainly only comparing actor to actor at the time. Brosnan has to contend with not only the actor, but the completely different tone, style of Craig's films.

Brosnan probably would have benefited as well from his own "FYEO" after DAD. People knock him for his action-heavy films and structured approach, but none of that was anything new and it fit right in with 1990s.

[R. Dittmar]

I do feel as if Brosnan is unfairly dumped on by certain Bond die-hards. The big issue as I see it is that Daniel Craig has re-invented Bond like no other previous actor has and like with anything in that sort of situation, it's easiest to compare the new breed (Craig) of success with the most recent form of "traditional (Brosnan)." When Dalton took over for Moore, yeah the tone of the films changed slightly, but it was essentially the same formula, it wasn't a drastic change of direction so people were mainly only comparing actor to actor at the time. Brosnan has to contend with not only the actor, but the completely different tone, style of Craig's films.

I have to disagree with you a bit here. I'm one of those prone to dump on the guy and my opinion of him was formed entirely from comparing him to previous actors. I'm old enough to be of the Moore generation (TSWLM was the first I saw in a theater), so I remember when Dalton took over in the role. I think you're right that it's easy to overstate how much the tone of the films changed from Moore to Dalton, but nevertheless Dalton's portrayal and the movies he was in were of quite a different style from Moore's. Dalton really did bring something new and interesting to the role and the more down-to-earth nature of the plots was very refreshing after some of the rampant silliness of the Moore era.

I liked Dalton a lot so I was definitely disappointed when he was replaced. I thought GE was OK, but it was also kind of a let down for me. It was clear from that film that EON was discarding the more serious take that they'd tried with Dalton and going back to formula. Even before DAD I was convinced that Brosnan was going to see the franchise burn out because you can only remake the same movie over and over again so often before people realize you've got nothing new to say and then turn to something new. (After DAD I prayed that the franchise would burn out, but I was already starting to become indifferent about seeing a new Bond movie before that well-known travesty was inflicted upon us.)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the fact that Brosnan gets dumped on doesn't necessarily have much to do with Craig. I was actively dumping on the guy 10 years ago when I had never even heard of Daniel Craig. In fact it's probably easy to make too much of how the tone's changed. It was really impossible for them to have kept turning out the same old stuff movie after movie like they did with Brosnan and still have people remain interested in watching. They had to try something new, so the movies would have had to change quite a bit no matter who took over from Brosnan.

[starschwar]

Tomorrow Never Dies was my first Bond movie, and Brosnan became the standard I'd hold all his predecessors and successors to.
I think that while Brosnan wasn't the best Bond, he embodied all the best aspects of the character. He had elements of Moore's comedic delivery, Dalton's intensity, Craig's physicality, and Connery's sheer cool and charisma. Even though the quality of his movies (and especially the pun filled scripts) may have declined with each installment, his performances were always solid. He never had a personal moment of decline analogous to "bored Connery" or "tired Moore". He was never the worst aspect of any of his movies. And more often than not, I'd say he was the best. If prompted to close my eyes and think of James Bond, he's usually the first one to pop up.

[00 Brosnan]

I have to disagree with you a bit here. I'm one of those prone to dump on the guy and my opinion of him was formed entirely from comparing him to previous actors. I'm old enough to be of the Moore generation (TSWLM was the first I saw in a theater), so I remember when Dalton took over in the role. I think you're right that it's easy to overstate how much the tone of the films changed from Moore to Dalton, but nevertheless Dalton's portrayal and the movies he was in were of quite a different style from Moore's. Dalton really did bring something new and interesting to the role and the more down-to-earth nature of the plots was very refreshing after some of the rampant silliness of the Moore era.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Brosnan criticism went up a notch after Casino Royale.

Edited by 00 Brosnan, 18 November 2012 - 06:15 AM.

[zencat]

NIce article, JimmyBond.

[Safari Suit]

Yeah, very nice. But I want to know more about what your dad said about DAD!

[Turn]

While DAD was more fantasy then reality, had they given Brosnan a fifth film like Moore's FYEO to end off on, people wouldn`t be so fast to shot down his Bond compared to Craig`s more grounded and real one. Its just a shame that Brosnan seems to take a lot of the rap for DAD although he didn't write the script.

Not picking on you in particular, but this has to be one of the most overused "what if" scenarios on CBn, along with those who automatically think if Lazenby had done DAF they would have gotten a "proper" revenge film. If I had a nickle for every time....

Sorry, but there's just no evidence there to support this would have worked. Besides, I always thought TWINE was supposed to be that type of film.

[Turn]

I do feel as if Brosnan is unfairly dumped on by certain Bond die-hards. The big issue as I see it is that Daniel Craig has re-invented Bond like no other previous actor has and like with anything in that sort of situation, it's easiest to compare the new breed (Craig) of success with the most recent form of "traditional (Brosnan)." When Dalton took over for Moore, yeah the tone of the films changed slightly, but it was essentially the same formula, it wasn't a drastic change of direction so people were mainly only comparing actor to actor at the time. Brosnan has to contend with not only the actor, but the completely different tone, style of Craig's films.

I have to disagree with you a bit here. I'm one of those prone to dump on the guy and my opinion of him was formed entirely from comparing him to previous actors. I'm old enough to be of the Moore generation (TSWLM was the first I saw in a theater), so I remember when Dalton took over in the role. I think you're right that it's easy to overstate how much the tone of the films changed from Moore to Dalton, but nevertheless Dalton's portrayal and the movies he was in were of quite a different style from Moore's. Dalton really did bring something new and interesting to the role and the more down-to-earth nature of the plots was very refreshing after some of the rampant silliness of the Moore era.

I liked Dalton a lot so I was definitely disappointed when he was replaced. I thought GE was OK, but it was also kind of a let down for me. It was clear from that film that EON was discarding the more serious take that they'd tried with Dalton and going back to formula. Even before DAD I was convinced that Brosnan was going to see the franchise burn out because you can only remake the same movie over and over again so often before people realize you've got nothing new to say and then turn to something new. (After DAD I prayed that the franchise would burn out, but I was already starting to become indifferent about seeing a new Bond movie before that well-known travesty was inflicted upon us.)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the fact that Brosnan gets dumped on doesn't necessarily have much to do with Craig. I was actively dumping on the guy 10 years ago when I had never even heard of Daniel Craig. In fact it's probably easy to make too much of how the tone's changed. It was really impossible for them to have kept turning out the same old stuff movie after movie like they did with Brosnan and still have people remain interested in watching. They had to try something new, so the movies would have had to change quite a bit no matter who took over from Brosnan.

We have similar thoughts here. I was very disappointed when Dalton was replaced for what appeared to be a more audience-friendly choice. It is a business, after all. I've said for a while now the whole hybrid Bond thing didn't add anything when you consider what the others brought to the table in terms of bringing their own interpretations. When you get what you expect, is there anything else left, really, especially when you consider what Craig has done with the role?

I watched DAD again recently and enjoyed it for the most part. Brosnan fit it well. He was the Bond for his time, just as his predecessors were. The big difference is I now watch a Bond film and have a better time watching the actor rather than what's necessarily going on around him, which says a lot for Craig.

[B5Erik]

I'm a big fan of Pierce Brosnan. His take on Bond was excellent (with the exception of Goldeneye, where his performance occasionally seemed a bit tentative and the movie cried out for Timothy Dalton at those times - especially the beach scene).

From Tomorrow Never Dies forward Brosnan WAS Bond. Much moreso than Craig has been. Craig's Bond doesn't seem to be sure if he's Bond or Bourne or some new character. He's great, but he isn't yet screaming out, "I'm motherbleeping JAMES BOND!"

Brosnan got screwed by EON. They stuck him with an overblown dud in Die Another Day and then ushered him out the door when he still had one great Bond performance left in him. It would have been nice to have one more down to earth-ish Brosnan Bond movie before Casino Royale, but that didn't happen, unfortunately.

Brosnan is my third favorite Bond behind Dalton and Connery, and at least he got to do two great Bond movies and one very good one.

[SecretAgentFan]

Craig's Bond doesn't seem to be sure if he's Bond or Bourne or some new character.

Brosnan got screwed by EON.

Um, the 00´s called - they want their clichés back.

[marktmurphy]

Brosnan probably would have benefited as well from his own "FYEO" after DAD. People knock him for his action-heavy films and structured approach, but none of that was anything new and it fit right in with 1990s.

Nah- the attempts at grit never worked for him. He was far better at being, frankly, Roger Moore. Stuff like the hotel lobby scene in DAD- that was him at his best. Playing it cool and suave and being funny: he was great at that.

[JimmyBond]

Yeah, very nice. But I want to know more about what your dad said about DAD!

I wondered if someone was going to notice I skimped on that part. I may go back and extend it a bit to include more bits on DAD.

[R. Dittmar]

While DAD was more fantasy then reality, had they given Brosnan a fifth film like Moore's FYEO to end off on, people wouldn`t be so fast to shot down his Bond compared to Craig`s more grounded and real one. Its just a shame that Brosnan seems to take a lot of the rap for DAD although he didn't write the script.

Not picking on you in particular, but this has to be one of the most overused "what if" scenarios on CBn, along with those who automatically think if Lazenby had done DAF they would have gotten a "proper" revenge film. If I had a nickle for every time....

Sorry, but there's just no evidence there to support this would have worked. Besides, I always thought TWINE was supposed to be that type of film.

I'd even set aside the argument about whether or not something like this would work with Brosnan. It seems to me that they never would have even tried to give Brosnan his FYEO. All of his movies were shamelessly formulaic and yet they all made about the same amount of money. Is there any reason to believe that they wanted to shake things up after DAD? I think it likely that rather than Brosnan's FYEO, his fifth film would have been DAD part II.

[JimmyBond]

As much as we try to imagine that (DAD part II) and say "Oh hell no!" I think back then, the majority of us (not all of us, mind you) would have been extremely receptive to that idea as well.

Die another Day may not have aged well for some, but at the time of it's release it was pretty popular around here. Yes, it was pretty divisive as well, but not as bad as Quantum of Solace six years later. I think it's only in the later years that people have started to turn their backs on it, especially since it's so easy to down the film: "Invisible cars omg!!!!!!!111"

I've heard it said around here that Brosnan's films will never become classics like the Connery and Moore films are. Maybe that's true, but I'd wager in another ten years even the most ardent Brosnan critic will be looking back fondly on them.

[marktmurphy]

While DAD was more fantasy then reality, had they given Brosnan a fifth film like Moore's FYEO to end off on, people wouldn`t be so fast to shot down his Bond compared to Craig`s more grounded and real one. Its just a shame that Brosnan seems to take a lot of the rap for DAD although he didn't write the script.

Not picking on you in particular, but this has to be one of the most overused "what if" scenarios on CBn, along with those who automatically think if Lazenby had done DAF they would have gotten a "proper" revenge film. If I had a nickle for every time....

Sorry, but there's just no evidence there to support this would have worked. Besides, I always thought TWINE was supposed to be that type of film.

I'd even set aside the argument about whether or not something like this would work with Brosnan. It seems to me that they never would have even tried to give Brosnan his FYEO. All of his movies were shamelessly formulaic and yet they all made about the same amount of money. Is there any reason to believe that they wanted to shake things up after DAD? I think it likely that rather than Brosnan's FYEO, his fifth film would have been DAD part II.

Why would they have had any plans beyond the current Bond film? There was a vague intention to keep Brosnan on, and to make a Jinx spinoff; but they'd have hardly decided what sort of movie Brosnan's fifth would be before they'd released DAD.
DAD was extremely successful: they didn't need to shake up the series (unless you buy the stuff about 9/11 meaning they had to change their ways- I don't quite get that) but they wanted to. So they did.

They were always trying to add an edge to his movies: he meets an old flame who got too close; he gets injured and falls in love with the baddie; he gets captured and held for 18 months etc. but these never quite got beyond surface additions- or at least it certainly looks that way in the post-CR world. At the time they felt quite different and new for Bond.

[JimmyBond]

There's an article that I could never find again. But I do recall that when it was clear DAD was quite successful, MGM came out with a statement saying they were extremely pleased and wanted the next film to be more of the same (obviously I'm paraphrasing here). Now that says nothing to what EON wanted, but at least someone out there was looking to get another Bond film like DAD off the ground with Brosnan.

[00 Brosnan]

As much as we try to imagine that (DAD part II) and say "Oh hell no!" I think back then, the majority of us (not all of us, mind you) would have been extremely receptive to that idea as well.

Die another Day may not have aged well for some, but at the time of it's release it was pretty popular around here. Yes, it was pretty divisive as well, but not as bad as Quantum of Solace six years later. I think it's only in the later years that people have started to turn their backs on it, especially since it's so easy to down the film: "Invisible cars omg!!!!!!!111"

I've heard it said around here that Brosnan's films will never become classics like the Connery and Moore films are. Maybe that's true, but I'd wager in another ten years even the most ardent Brosnan critic will be looking back fondly on them.

A lot of it is time. Moore's films have certainly benefited from the years gone by. I was only just born in 1987, but I can't imagine many people were out there praising the second half of the Moore era once the harder-edged The Living Daylights (one of my absolute favorites in the series) was released.

Also, I recall there being plenty of support for a fifth Brosnan film. (Brosnan was actually rumored to be replacing himself at one point, haha).

[SecretAgentFan]

True. In fact, I remember people not praising Moore nor Dalton during the late 80´s. People just loved calling Bond an "old hat", something that had run its course.

Only during the Brosnan era, people (and critics, of course) rediscovered Dalton and found Moore´s era much more enticing.

During the Moore era, however, critics hated him and loved Connery. But audiences just went crazy for Moore. Myself included.

[Safari Suit]

They were always trying to add an edge to his movies: he meets an old flame who got too close; he gets injured and falls in love with the baddie; he gets captured and held for 18 months etc. but these never quite got beyond surface additions- or at least it certainly looks that way in the post-CR world. At the time they felt quite different and new for Bond.

It's interesting to consider if Brosnan had kept at it for a few more films, or perhaps more so if he had been replaced by another actor carrying on in a similar vein, DAD might be praised by a certain contingent for its ventures into relatively uncharted territory, rather than being chastised for not going far enough, similar to how LTK was something of a "cult" Bond film in the pre-Craig era.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

DAD premiered in the UK 10 years ago. Of course, it's not a very good film, but I can remember all the excitement I had as a 12 year old boy, with all the TV Spots, posters, trailers... recording them on my old VHS tapes from TV. The film premiered in Argentina on January 16th, 2003 so, the waiting was heavy!

[Thevan7F]

Well I never liked Pierce Brosnan anyway but he a good actor. I only as the Remington Steele type. I only saw 2 of Bond films Tomorrow never dies & The World is not enough. That all I can say.

[Dekard77]

DAD was meant to serve the excess of the nineties, techno thriller. It did stretch itself too far at times and the ending was rushed but the film is a typical Bond movie. The villains were excellent. The best of Brosnan era, TWINE was a mess as it couldn't decide between serious and fantasy and Elektra is laughable whenever she goes on and on . Skyfall is like a greatest hits of the all the Bonds but done right with an appropriate running time to keep you guessing.

It was Bourne Identity and Batman Begins that changed the game. If it was not for these two movies Eon would have maybe done another DAD type movie.

[TheREAL008]

I never cared for Bronsan in the role in the first place. He's made two good films and two bad films. He shines outside of James Bond, but to say that he was destined for the role is unrealistic. I don't miss him in the role but yet I am grateful that he stepped up and did his best with what he could, but he's certainly not the 'be all and end all' of the franchise.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Well I never liked Pierce Brosnan anyway but he a good actor. I only as the Remington Steele type. I only saw 2 of Bond films Tomorrow never dies & The World is not enough. That all I can say.

 

Big mistake. You haven't seen the GREATEST:

 

GOLDENEYE

[Trevelyan 006]

 

Well I never liked Pierce Brosnan anyway but he a good actor. I only as the Remington Steele type. I only saw 2 of Bond films Tomorrow never dies & The World is not enough. That all I can say.

 

Big mistake. You haven't seen the GREATEST:

 

GOLDENEYE

 

 

^

[JimmyBond]

 He shines outside of James Bond, but to say that he was destined for the role is unrealistic. 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Back in the 80s when he was chosen for Bond, he was a very popular choice. Many people were upset when he lost the role due to NBC. Then when he was in the running for Bond again in the 90s, many people again wanted him, now more so because of what happened in the 80s as well. So in that case, you could say he was destined for the role.

[Walecs]

 

Well I never liked Pierce Brosnan anyway but he a good actor. I only as the Remington Steele type. I only saw 2 of Bond films Tomorrow never dies & The World is not enough. That all I can say.

 

Big mistake. You haven't seen the GREATEST:

 

GOLDENEYE

 

 

True.