
did anybody watch thomas crown last night?
#1
Posted 12 April 2003 - 08:31 PM
#2
Posted 13 April 2003 - 06:06 AM
#3
Posted 14 April 2003 - 01:46 AM
But a word of warning...even "Tommy" gets emotional here and there in that movie...are we sure we want Bond doing that? ;-)
(Yes, the above is sarcasm)
-- Xenobia
#4
Posted 14 April 2003 - 05:51 AM
#5
Posted 14 April 2003 - 12:09 PM
Originally posted by BONDFINESSE 007
but do you think he was better at the TCA then a james bond film, cause i had not seen that movie in like four years, but to me he seemed to just have that something that he lacks in his bond outings. i just cant put my finger on it
I am in agreement with you Bondfinesse, I think PB's best Bond movie is "The Thomas Crown Affair", I absolutely love that movie and watch the DVD quite regularly. I'm not saying it's Pierce's best performance (those kudos go to his role in "The Nephew") but he does a nice job.
I'm going to leave Xen's comment alone

#6
Posted 14 April 2003 - 06:10 PM
I think TCA was a great role for him, but for those of you who could see it (and thank MGM if you couldn't), was his role in Evelyn.
-- Xenobia
PS: If you want a role where he comes the closest to being Bond without playing Bond, forget TCA, it is Andy Osnard in "Tailor of Panama."
#7
Posted 14 April 2003 - 06:13 PM
Then we are back to a "From Russia With Love" style James Bond Film. I doubt Purvis and Wade could handle such a assignment . Unless they commune with the ghost of Richard Maibaum !Originally posted by Xenobia
If they (Eon and MGM) had the guts to a cloak and dagger Bond film -- few stunts / no super gadgets -- I think he would play Bond that way.
-- Xenobia
#8
Posted 14 April 2003 - 09:48 PM
Originally posted by kevrichardson
Then we are back to a "From Russia With Love" style James Bond Film. I doubt Purvis and Wade could handle such a assignment.
Then we find writers who can...we are not locked into having P&W write 007 films from now on.
-- Xenobia
#9
Posted 15 April 2003 - 04:44 AM
(Although I had to chuckle at the first post. For the next Bond, movie, they should just tell him "This is The Tailor of Panama II").

#10
Posted 15 April 2003 - 02:17 PM
Xenobia i am on your side regarding the issue of Purvis and Wade . I was finished with then after their interview on www.hmss.com . In which they claimed that Casino Royale would work for today audiences .Originally posted by Xenobia
Then we find writers who can...we are not locked into having P&W write 007 films from now on.
-- Xenobia
#11
Posted 15 April 2003 - 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Contessa
I think it helped that in TCA Brosnan was working with a talented director with whom he had an strong, previously established working relationship.
(Although I had to chuckle at the first post. For the next Bond, movie, they should just tell him "This is The Tailor of Panama II").![]()
Yes, but I wasn't that impressed with their first effort together "Nomads".
McTiernan, one should remember, has also had his fair share of turkeys -- shudders at the memory of "The 13th Warrior".
Do you think the popcorn brigade would accept a Bond movie like "The Tailor of Panama"? The conventional wisdom on why the movie was a disaster at the box office was that audiences thought they were going to see Brosnan play a Bond-like spy and gave it bad notices when they realized he was not.
#12
Posted 15 April 2003 - 08:07 PM
-- Xenobia
#13
Posted 15 April 2003 - 09:02 PM
But I agree it wasn't a popcorn flick. It was dark R-rated black comedy/psuedo thriller and some mainstream audiences that wandered in thnking they were getting PG-13 heroic action Bond were appalled or bored. Osnard is Bond without any moral compass but it's not the same character. It's also a new character so an actor has a lot more leeway with it than they do with Bond, ditto with Thomas Crown.
And as much as loved his performance in ToP I thought he was just as good in DAD as Bond (and I agree with Xen, each of hs Bond performances is better than the last, and IMO they've all been good) he just had alot less dialogue to work with. But it was masterful commanding deft performance as Bond, and even most of the reviews that didn't like DAD pointed to it as the best thing about the film.
#14
Posted 15 April 2003 - 09:17 PM
The theater employees didn't get the fact that my girlfriend and I were there for a different movie than the Brendan Frasier/Rachel Weisz production and as the showtime was approaching I went up to the ticket taker controlling the flow into the theater area and before I said a word they said:
"It doesn't start for another 35 minutes!"
I in turn said "The Tailor of Panama starts in 3 minutes!"
The ticket taker looked like I had slapped them on the face before waving my girlfriend and I through.
There was a total of four people in the theater and I loved the movie. I even picked up the DVD the day it was released.
#15
Posted 15 April 2003 - 09:34 PM
#16
Posted 16 April 2003 - 10:41 PM
You couldn't have dragged me into the Mummy sequel. I despised the first one (probably because I love the B&W original so much).
On the topic of McTiernan, "Nomads" is an interesting, albeit flawed, 1st effort. I'll admit I've never seen "13th Warrior". From interviews I've read, I do think that Brosnan has a good working relationship with McTiernan, and I personally think the guy has a better eye and a more artistic style than most of the big-budget helmers (stuff from the Michael Bays out there makes me want to run out of the theater holding my head and groaning).
As far as performances go, I thought Brosnan was better in TOP than in DAD and TND and many of his other movies. It's one of his best performances. Mainstream audiences may not get dark comedies, but I keep waiting for Brosnan to show the sort of relaxed energy and wit that he showed in TOP in a Bond movie. (That's a large reason why I was disappointed with DAD).
#17
Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:06 AM
On a side note, part of that movie (the gliding scene) was filmed in my hometown (Elmira, NY - "The Soaring Capital of the World")
