13 replies to this topic

[ChickenStu]

I've touched on this subject before but I think it's interesting enough to warrant a thread of its own. When you look at the four movies Brosnan made I think one can see a marked difference in his performance in the latter three. 

In Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day Brosnan's performances are quite humorous and I find him in someways to be a dialled down version of Moore. The stories to the movies really have some daft elements too.

However I think Goldeneye is very different. It seems to have a much more serious tone - and Brosnan plays the role is a more serious fashion. I've often thought because it was written largely with Timothy Dalton in mind. 

I get a vibe of barely contained anger from Brosnan in Goldeneye with many of the lines delivered through gritted teeth. 

 

Anyone agree or disagree with my observations? 

[Yellow Pinky]

I wholeheartedly agree with you.  That's the primary reason that GE is my favorite Brosnan film.  Of course the sure hand of Martin Campbell helped as well, but Brosnan had a handle on the character of Bond far better in that one than any of his next three.  In fact, while I'm not a very big fan of his interpretation of Bond, it is those last three that so thoroughly taint my opinion.  If he had retained more of the Dalton-like demeanor in the other films I know I personally would like his performance better. 

 

That said, the films were not written for that kind of performance as that Moore-like quality you speak about prevails in those screenplays as well.

[ChickenStu]

I wholeheartedly agree with you.  That's the primary reason that GE is my favorite Brosnan film.  Of course the sure hand of Martin Campbell helped as well, but Brosnan had a handle on the character of Bond far better in that one than any of his next three.  In fact, while I'm not a very big fan of his interpretation of Bond, it is those last three that so thoroughly taint my opinion.  If he had retained more of the Dalton-like demeanor in the other films I know I personally would like his performance better. 

 

That said, the films were not written for that kind of performance as that Moore-like quality you speak about prevails in those screenplays as well.

 

Yes, totally agree with that last part. It is obvious that Goldeneye was written for Dalton's strengths as an actor. The scene with him and M in the office is the dead giveaway for that. That is precisely the kind of dialogue that an actor like Dalton loves to chew on. Brosnan however I feel absolutely excelled. Any sort of of traditional one liner I think was sort of thrown in at the last minute or maybe even ad libbed on set. 

 

However, from Tomorrow Never Dies onward I get the feeling they looked toward the likes of Remington Steele in order to write to Brosnan's "strengths" so to speak - when really it would have been better to continue what they'd accidentally stumbled upon in Goldeneye. 

 

In Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day it's almost as if he's playing a different guy to who he played in Goldeneye. 

[Janus Assassin]

I look at his performance in GoldenEye and the scene where he meets Jinx in Cuba for the first time. It looks like two completely different people. I can make the comparison in regards to Moore. The scene where his is interrogating Andrea in the hotel in TMWTGG is completely different than lets say the pheasant shooting scene from Moonraker.

[plankattack]

GE's script is the best of them by a mile. Bruce Fierstein said that when he polished the script he would hear SC's voice, and I don't think it's a coincidence that the one-liners and humour arrive far more organically then in the later films, where you can see the punchline coming from a mile away.

 

I think this helps Brozza - the "I've had a lovely evening" scene with Onatopp is a great example. He's witty, smooth, but tough, all at the same time. Contrast that with, as Janus pointed out, meeting Jinx in DAD and there's no comparison. Mouthfuls and feasting? Even Sir Rog would gag (no pun intended) on the complete lack of subtlety. 

[ChickenStu]

 I can make the comparison in regards to Moore. The scene where his is interrogating Andrea in the hotel in TMWTGG is completely different than lets say the pheasant shooting scene from Moonraker.

 

Yes indeed. I think with Live And Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun they were still being written with Connery in mind. 

[Mr_Wint]

Brosnan is a little bit insecure and somewhat odd in GE.

I feel that he gave his best performance as Bond in TND. More confident, smoother, better hair.

[Guy Haines]

I think he did well in all four.  In GE he did play it serious at times - don't forget the storyline has him handling the betrayal by a former colleague. TND was a little lighter, but not so much that he was sending up the role at all. in TWINE, I felt at times he'd reverted back to the Bond of GE, especially in his dealings with the villains. DAD - well it was something of an extravaganza, but he didn't seem overwhelmed by it all.

 

Pierce Brosnan, to me at least, did a good job bringing together some of the virtues of his predecessors, especially Moore and Dalton, whilst avoiding some of the vices, and still putting his own stamp on the role.

[FlemingBond]

I think part of it was script, and part of it was him being new to the role. The movie in some ways was a bit stiffer. They had MoneyPenny accusing him of harassment. There was a new Female M. Those two things led to less joking than usual.

[DavidJones]

What GE had which the others didn't was an almost meta-texuality. Every character in the thing has a go at him. Jack Wade, Alec, Moneypenny, M, Zuchovsky, Q. Of course, they're realy saying echoeing what the critics were saying before it came back, asking whether this guy was still relevant. The scene everyone brings up is the beach scene: "Why are you so cold?"/ "It's what keeps me alive." It's easy for that sort of thing to come across as clunky, but perhaps it works, perhaps it doesn't. I think he should have told Natayla about his friendship with Alec instead. We would have got an idea why he was being grouchy in that scene then.

[Turn]

Maybe it's me but Brosnan's GE performance was kind of a standard first-film Bond. He was feeling his way and the film meant to introduce the series to a new generation and the film, while establishing the modern era in which it was made, still checked off a number of the expected ingredients:

 

-Thrilling opening with big stunt

-Villain with disfigurement

-Outrageous henchwoman

-Threat from outer space

-Gadget car

-Convenient gadgets

-Huge action sequence involving  a vehicle causing destruction

-Villain's elaborate headquarters

 

I understand that was important in reestablishing the series, but just don't see it as exciting and lasting as others seem to. I prefer TND and DAD (blasphemy, I'm sure) which seem to show more assured Brosnan performances playing more to his strengths.

[Janus Assassin]

The films themselves didn't help either. With the exception of GoldenEye, the rest have great first halves the films and mediocre to terrible second halves. TND falls apart after the parking garage, TWINE when we first meet Christmas Jones and DAD when we reach Iceland.  

[glidrose]

I think it's DamnCoffee who said the same thing I've always said: Brosnan was great in his first two films, and poor in his final two.

 

PB's at his best in GE which I still maintain is his worst Bond film. Don't understand the film's popularity. Overwritten, unexciting, underwhelming drivel. But PB gives an iconic performance in this film, exactly what Bond is all about.

 

He's almost as good in TND in which his performance is a wee bit mannered but otherwise fantastic. Watching Brosnan in this film it's easy to forget what a joy he can be to watch onscreen. This is Bond. And he looks great in the navy uniform. Love the film until that awful-beyond-words stealth boat finale.

 

Then he loses his way in TWINE. A "weak and watery" performance in such an ugly, bloated film.

 

Then he hams it up in DAD. I like the film's first half very much, less so the over the top 2nd half.

 

As much as I loved Brosnan's first two performances, by the time of DAD I was secretly hoping he wouldn't get a fifth if this was the direction his performances were going.

 

I wonder what made Brosnan's performances go off the rails in those two final films. Gotta note that P&W wrote the two final films, where BF and others did the first two. And rumors persist that PB and EON were not on the best of terms after TND's troubled production...

 

Anybody else feel the same way that Brosnan was great in the first two and not so good in the final two?

[David_M]

I never quite bought Brosnan n GE. He tries hard to look tough and severe (grumpy?) in a lot of scenes, but he's still pretty enough at this point - and the plot superficial enough -- that he comes off more like one of those "pouty" runway models. There's a "look at me, I'm serious...and tough!" Act there that never works for me, and makes him seem stiff and insecure, like he's trying to prove he's up to the job he's already won.

I did think he did great in a console of non-verbal scenes, though -- first in the car chase with Xenia, where he's obviously relishing the adrenaline rush from this reckless exercise (very Fleming, that) and then when he kills his assailant on the boat using nothing but a hand towel..then wiping his brow with it! Toes were fun scenes.

It wasn't until TND that I relaxed and said, "Okay, now he seems like Bond." Possibly at some point during his infiltration of Carver's satellite room and safe. Anyway it was a fleeting sensation, which is why it sticks out in my memory. Soon enough he was saying stupid things like, "I never grew up," and after that I'm not sure they ever got me back.
A "console" of scenes? "Toes" were fun? Why is it so hard to use an iPad with these boards and where is the "edit" button?