The Way Brosnan Played Bond

heartbroken_mr_drax

I have to say that Brosnan looks the part and has good characterization, but compared to everyone else (apart from TD) he is quite weak, certainly now compared to DC.

He did suffer from 50% of his movies being the worst in the series and missed continuity with crew (soundtracks, scripts etc) but what do you guys think?

He was amazing in TWINE but he was played as the dumb one, and toyed with by the Villian in which it should be the other way round. Despite TWINE being my 3rd fav.

markdown

i think his is the weakest portrayal of any actor in the series. to give him his due however, he was'nt helped by the fact the films he starred in, were to say the least not among the best ever made. to me he was all image no substance and i just never believed he was bond.

Scribe74

A lot of people consider TWINE to be Brosnan's best outing as Bond . . . when I saw it in the theater -- and later on DVD -- it left me completely unsatisfied. I liked GE and TND. DAD was great in parts, but too over the top in others.

That said, I liked Brosnan but -- like the Roger Moore films -- his adventures as 007 lacked any real emotional depth. Bond didn't seem human . . . he was a super stuntman who ran from one explosion to the next.

I enjoyed Dalton's two movies because they sought to add a layer of complexity to the character. Daniel Craig, in my opinion, is the closest thing to Fleming's literary creation . . . and it's about time!

Brosnan, as many have said, suffered from mediocre scripts and too much fantastical technology. It's a shame, because he would have excelled as a darker, more haunted Bond.

Thomas Crown

I think some of your general conclusions about Brosnan and his films are valid,heartbroken_mr_drax,but I don't know how I feel about your reasoning getting there. Sure, if you think that half of his movies are bad (which is valid), but in saying that you're also implying that half of his movies are good. 50/50 is not strong enough to say his overall era was weak. Further, every Bond actor who stayed for more than two films "missed continuity with crew" (especially in the director department), and even Connery and Moore found their era's having mixed results with quality. Again, I don't see this as a "flaw" unique to Brosnan.

On a more subjective level, I rather liked having Bond being a pawn in Elektra's game. The concept is not entirely unqiue (Bond was a pawn in SPECTRE's game in From Russia With Love) but having it delievered through an emotional context is a treat to watch. It demonstrated one of Bond's qualities found in the novels, falling for women who are like "birds with a wing bent down." What also makes it interesting is we don't know more than Bond, assuming Elektra to be the innocent victim so we can appreciate Bond's falling for her. Personally, I saw it as a real strength, and its only aided by Sophie Marceau and Pierce Brosnan.

Brosnan's era was certainly marked by ups and downs, but like I've said elsewhere, his era was successful in saving the series (which cannot be understated), and popularizing a more Fleming-like conception with Bond that Dalton re-asserted in the series. He did so by intertwining the cinematic identity of 007 with the more literary elements, a combination not since attempted since Sean Connery. Though as you rightly point out, this was not as successful as under Connery due to scripts that (bar GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough) have more interesting parts than an interesting whole. Nevertheless, he is the Bond of note for my generation and I know I'll always have a sentimental appreciation for Brosnan, if nothing else.

jherman

I alway's kinda felt like the role was writen for Connery,and until DAF where very good,YOLT really wasn't that great but was ok.

Bronsan,Moore,Dalton all have there place in Bond history and there movies were all kinda keyed toward there acting.

But Bronsan seemed like last minute throw together movies

Brosnan_fan

As a (ahem ) Brosnan fan, I must come to his defense. The man helped resurrect the Bond franchise from a 6 year drought, his films brought back the fans, and he showed himself to be a worthy choice for Bond.

Brosnan had a nice screen chemistry with Teri Hatcher in TND, and he was in great form in TWINE.

He showed he was capable of having fun with the role, especially in TND: "I've always enjoyed studying a new tongue", "And I always thought watching your TV shows was torture enough", and of course when he drove his car by remote control.

Whatever you might now think of Pierce Brosnan, there's no denying he gave the flagging Bond franchise a much needed lease of life.

Dan Same

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

I have to say that Brosnan looks the part and has good characterization, but compared to everyone else (apart from TD) he is quite weak, certainly now compared to DC.

I completely disagree. I think Brosnan remains the second greatest Bond of all time, behind only Connery. He exuded a combination of ruthlessness and suaveness that I feel only him and Connery (as well as Moore) ever attained.

His films weren't perfect (unlike Connery and Moore, Brosnan IMO never produced an absolute masterpiece) but I loved GE and TWINE, enjoyed (but was disappointed with) TND and thought Brosnan was fantastic in DAD. So, no, I don't think Brosnan was weak at all. I think he was a legend.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

He did suffer from 50% of his movies being the worst in the series and missed continuity with crew (soundtracks, scripts etc) but what do you guys think?

As I noted above, I don't think his films were perfect. The major reason is that the scripts weren't exactly ideal. As for two (or in my case one) of his films being the worst in the series, he did make four films. I don't think that any of the Bonds who made multiple films produced masterpieces everytime. (This includes Connery, for whom NSNA was IMO the fourth worst Bond film of all time.)

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

He was amazing in TWINE but he was played as the dumb one, and toyed with by the Villian in which it should be the other way round. Despite TWINE being my 3rd fav.

I agree that he was great in TWINE. I also liked the plot of TWINE. Although I don't usually like Bond being taken for a fool, the fact that it was by a woman and that it was Tracey part 2 (Bond falls for a beautiful woman only to 'lose' her) makes it an exception in my case. I don't think that TWINE was developed well enough but nonetheless Bond's falling for Electra and then killing her was IMO absolutely fantastic and constitued a sweet (if slightly under-developed) follow-up to OHMSS.

RogueAgent

Brosnan suffered from Purvis & Wade Syndrome. He wasn't weak at all and in my eyes, one of the better 007s in the series.
Those scripts were overy-compensated with mind-numbing action to cover their ineptitude as writers IMO. If I'm not mistaken, didn't Brozzy complain alot about some of the lines he was given to say?

His films would start out promising, drawing you into the fray only to end up O.D.'ing on BOOM, BANG & POW... 8-)

Why do you think that they had Haggis clean up the script for CR?

SeanConnery007

Pierce Brosnan had the charm, sophistication the ruthless edge and the touch of wit of Fleming’s Bond. He looked the part and had the ability and potential to pull off a generous adaptation of Fleming's character.
Unfortunately, there were flaws.
In my opinion he will be remembered as the ‘American’ Bond. His films were products of American audience targeting and his films were flat action films, TND being the pinnacle of everything I dislike about Brosnan's Bond career.
GE, fresh and reformed Bond, had British charm, a hark back to traditional Bond and some good acting by Brosnan.
TND felt cold, devoid of any character development and catered for the newly re-emerging American audience. Too much action, bad screenplay and 'knock-together' production flawed Brosnan's performance.
TWINE, and Brosnan is given some scope to develop his Bond, a decent narrative with some good characterisation, though still great emphasis on packing in the stunts. Unfortunately Brosnan had become a little complacent with the role and had that awful smugness and bigheaded attitude that inhibited his development of his Bond. That and his American-slanted accent that film-by-film had become more evident.
DAD was the pinnacle film that destroyed Brosnan as Bond IMO. A screenplay so tarnished with parody-style tack and no attempt at any characterisation. A bigheaded Brosnan pulling out all the stops to seem smug and obnoxious and his American-slanted accent has me cringing through-out.
Pierce Brosnan certainly had the potential to portray an excellent literary Bond, its just unfortunate that bad screenplay’s, American tailoring and that Brosnan became complacent and smug, (and his American-slanted accent that has ruined my enjoyment of his films).
His Bond is certainly not one of my favourites, but he's by no means a 'terrible' Bond. Brosnan's films, like each other actors, are a little section cataloguing a Bond time frame in the series history with highs, lows. Its unique standpoint in Bond history, along with the others, means it'll be loved, like the rest, simply for that.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Great post ^^

Just to clarify, I do like PB as James Bond. I think that he had alot to do with making TWINE my 3rd fav.

But his scenes dont make me remember much about his acting in relation to the Villian, one of the most important parts. He never pulled off anything that tripped up the villian he whined to the villian. Unlike "Such good sport", "Your gonna die.....scratch balls thing", "Should have brought lillys" etc. We hear things like, well I dont know because he doesnt have ever really have a showdown of words with a villian.

He played the 'smooth but arrogant' James Bond, a commercial James Bond that mainly appealed to ladies, I have to say that I didnt find him a Bond i wanted to be unlike RM, DC and SC.

Sure he played JB to the best of his ability, and to the best ability of two of the most rubbish screenplays TND and DAD. But really came alive in TWINE, but TWINE is different in the fact that JB is one step behind the audience.

I thought he was great in scenes with the girls namely Elektra, Natalya and Xmas, they always made me happy but otherwise the rest of the scenes he portrayed lacked a punch that other Bonds had, over villains especially.

I do enjoy his movies, and I am not saying I cannot stand him, but his flaws are right there.

Dan Same

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

I do enjoy his movies, and I am not saying I cannot stand him, but his flaws are right there.

But why are they his flaws? You mentioned that he never uttered some of the great lines when facing villains. Isn't that the fault of the writers rather than Brosnan himself?

arthur pringle

Since Craig took over there seems to be a trendy strain of opinion (used ad nauseum in other places) that more or less says that Pierce Brosnan was absolutely crap and minced around in his films making a fool of himself as he ran like a girl and gleefully dispensed double-entrendres in an American accent with a tinge of 'Oirish'. All cobblers in my opinion. The films made in the Brosnan era were not my favourites, I prefer the Dalton films personally, but it isn't Brosnan's fault that he didn't get a good script or the directors he wanted. Now that we have a new Bond there are plenty of things about the old one I miss. Brosnan's ability to make me laugh (Example: the incredulous look he gives Michelle Yeoh as she scales the wall of the newspaper HQ in Tomorrow Never Dies) and a bit of old-fashioned panache for instance. As has been pointed out many times before, the last 007 always seems to get a kicking when a new one takes over. I think Brosnan did all that was asked of him and was a fine guardian of the role for several years. He inherited a franchise on life-support and handed it over in excellent health.

heartbroken_mr_drax

arthur pringle wrote:

Since Craig took over there seems to be a trendy strain of opinion (used ad nauseum in other places) that more or less says that Pierce Brosnan was absolutely crap and minced around in his films making a fool of himself as he ran like a girl and gleefully dispensed double-entrendres in an American accent with a tinge of 'Oirish'. All cobblers in my opinion. The films made in the Brosnan era were not my favourites, I prefer the Dalton films personally, but it isn't Brosnan's fault that he didn't get a good script or the directors he wanted. Now that we have a new Bond there are plenty of things about the old one I miss. Brosnan's ability to make me laugh (Example: the incredulous look he gives Michelle Yeoh as she scales the wall of the newspaper HQ in Tomorrow Never Dies) and a bit of old-fashioned panache for instance. As has been pointed out many times before, the last 007 always seems to get a kicking when a new one takes over. I think Brosnan did all that was asked of him and was a fine guardian of the role for several years. He inherited a franchise on life-support and handed it over in excellent health.

Ok you have changed my opinion,

Sorry guys ;%

Sir Hillary Bray

arthur pringle wrote:

Since Craig took over there seems to be a trendy strain of opinion (used ad nauseum in other places) that more or less says that Pierce Brosnan was absolutely crap and minced around in his films making a fool of himself as he ran like a girl and gleefully dispensed double-entrendres in an American accent with a tinge of 'Oirish'. All cobblers in my opinion. The films made in the Brosnan era were not my favourites, I prefer the Dalton films personally, but it isn't Brosnan's fault that he didn't get a good script or the directors he wanted. Now that we have a new Bond there are plenty of things about the old one I miss. Brosnan's ability to make me laugh (Example: the incredulous look he gives Michelle Yeoh as she scales the wall of the newspaper HQ in Tomorrow Never Dies) and a bit of old-fashioned panache for instance. As has been pointed out many times before, the last 007 always seems to get a kicking when a new one takes over. I think Brosnan did all that was asked of him and was a fine guardian of the role for several years. He inherited a franchise on life-support and handed it over in excellent health.

Very well said. We're definitely in an annoying period of bashing Pierce (and Rog) for supposed wimpiness and campiness, simply because Craig is fresh in everyone's mind.

With the exception of TWINE, Brosnan's films rank far down on my list, with DAD in dead last. But that's not because of Brosnan, it's because of bad writing and lame directing. Brosnan looks the part of Bond, displays a good combination of suaveness and ruthlessness, and is credible in action sequences. I'm not a big fan of his "slit eyes" angry look, but then again, Connery perfected the glare in DN, so everyone was gunning for second place after that anyway.

I would have loved to see Brosnan with some good Maibaum scripts -- we wouldn't even be having this conversation had that happened.

Steed

Indeed, nothing wrong with the portrayal, but an actor is only as good as the material he is given. Sadly, bar Goldeneye and the first half of TND, that material was very weak indeed, imho. I don't think any actor so far has given a bad portrayal of Bond, actually, and I don't think it's fair to put Brosnan through the wringer. Indeed, prior to Daniel Craig he was considered to be the best Bond since Connery, as far as I was aware.

heartbroken_mr_drax

yea that is true, he was considered that. I thoght the best display of Brosnan was in TWINE, again because of screeplay. But thats only 1 out of 4 to be happy about.

GE is a great movie but we see little of pierce.

Pierce Brosnan335

What the heck are you guys talking about. Brosnan was great in TWINE. Also all his films are the best in my opinion.

heartbroken_mr_drax

In the post above yours it says i do....

jherman

PB was just the actor they came up with to keep making Bond films,they are watchable,but not real rememeberable.

Lucky PB had done good movie's before JB.because IMO,they didn't do his acting any favors.

Klaus Hergescheimer

Pierce was, by all means, an excellent Bond. Just excellent. He's #4 on my list, but that is by no means a slight to him. GoldenEye is one of my very favorite Bond films, and he was top notch in all of them.

I will always be proud that Pierce was a part of the franchise.

TheCaptain

Scribe74 wrote:

A lot of people consider TWINE to be Brosnan's best outing as Bond . . . when I saw it in the theater -- and later on DVD -- it left me completely unsatisfied. I liked GE and TND. DAD was great in parts, but too over the top in others.

That said, I liked Brosnan but -- like the Roger Moore films -- his adventures as 007 lacked any real emotional depth. Bond didn't seem human . . . he was a super stuntman who ran from one explosion to the next.

I enjoyed Dalton's two movies because they sought to add a layer of complexity to the character. Daniel Craig, in my opinion, is the closest thing to Fleming's literary creation . . . and it's about time!

Brosnan, as many have said, suffered from mediocre scripts and too much fantastical technology. It's a shame, because he would have excelled as a darker, more haunted Bond.

This echoes my own sentiments so much, I don't think there's anything more I can add other than a 'dang straight!' to scribe74

Capt

TheCaptain

Thomas Crown wrote:

Brosnan's era was certainly marked by ups and downs, but like I've said elsewhere, his era was successful in saving the series (which cannot be understated), and popularizing a more Fleming-like conception with Bond that Dalton re-asserted in the series. He did so by intertwining the cinematic identity of 007 with the more literary elements, a combination not since attempted since Sean Connery. Though as you rightly point out, this was not as successful as under Connery due to scripts that (bar GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough) have more interesting parts than an interesting whole. Nevertheless, he is the Bond of note for my generation and I know I'll always have a sentimental appreciation for Brosnan, if nothing else.

This is probably the way I too would view the Pierce Brosnan era of James Bond... though he is not one of the standout 007 actors - to me, it will aways be SC, with DC coming in second as the new, more 'real' incantation - he has injected more life and vibe into the movie franchise, and kept the movies relevant, popular and iconic for the new ipod, internet, mobile phone generation - of which I am a part

Capt

blueman

I always liked the "idea" of Brosnan as Bond (he nailed that Russian assassin character in THE 4TH PROTOCOL), it's the reality that bummed me out. Yeah he had sucky scripts but his facile approach to the character was all him: as he's said in many an interview, he was playing a superhero...sorry, but that's not what I look for in my Bond. He had some nice moments spread throughout his four films, but overall his Bond is the easiest to forget, IMO. Odd that his films made so much money, but then again I never fully "got" Moore's Bond either...oh well. Luckily there's a Bond for all seasons, plus 2! If Brosnan waters your roses, power to ya. I prefer a heavy downpour of Connery and a splash of Lazenby, and now with an added sprinkle of Craig (okay okay, and a few drops of Moore... ;% ).

actonsteve

OK, I am going to throw a spanner in the works and say I agree with the poster. Pierce Brosnans James Bond looked like he was designed by a committee - good looks, can do one liners, wears a tux well, attractive to women, emotes abit.

But what WAS his Bond really about?

You've had the growling elegance of Connery, the cheesy bon viveur of Moore, the dashing killer of Dalton and now Flemings Bond in Daniel Craig. What about Pierce? I still cant pigeonhole him..

I cant but think he is abit of a bland "greatest hits" package...

Steed

Well, I would say Brosnan would probably be last on my list of Bond actors in terms of ranking. Even though I do genuinely prefer his portrayal to Dalton's (I find Dalton terribly stilted in The Living Daylights), Dalton's films are on the whole stronger than Brosnan's even though he only did 2. I couldn't bare TWINE the last time I watched in, and despite the excellent pre credits scene, the rest of DAD is very weak, imho. And as soon as Kaufman is killed in TND and we get all that shootout/motorcycle chase stuff, I lost interest.

Smoke_13

I just watched TWINE. I enjoyed it quite a bit. It's not my favorite Bond film but I did like it.

Yes, Pierce had a couple dumb forced puns in the film. "He was buried in his work." 8-) Yes, he did run like a girl. But somehow, Pierce seemed like he fit as the Bond for that era.

Now we have a new Bond in Craig. Craig makes us see the cinema Bond with different eyes. There is no way Pierce could have played the Casino Royale styled Bond and pulled it off naturally. I think perhaps only a young Connery could have done that. My point is Craig's Bond is so dominant that it makes Brosnan's look that much worse.

Yes, Pierce's last movie wasnt great but let's not hang the guy's whole Bond career for a bad movie. Connery's last Bond wasnt great. Roger Moore had some real stinkers near the end of his run. Don't get me started on Dalton -lol. Who knows, maybe 8 years from now we will sit here and complain about how bad Craig's last Bond film was.

blueman

I sincerely hope we don't have that discussion, and that Craig pulls a first in the series: does exactly the right numbers of films that he should, no more (when it becomes obvious he's no longer age-appropriate) and no less (leaves or gets the axe early, but that doesn't look to be in the cards at this point...). I guess we'll see.

Dan Same

Fish1941 wrote:

Although I didn't care for Brosnan's interpretation of Bond that much . . . too generic for my tastes, the man was a damn fine runner. At least I think so.

Agreed. Not about him being generic, but about him being a great runner. I don't understand what people have against his running. It's not as if any of the other Bonds were Jesse Owens.

Klaus Hergescheimer

Dan Same wrote:

Fish1941 wrote:

Although I didn't care for Brosnan's interpretation of Bond that much . . . too generic for my tastes, the man was a damn fine runner. At least I think so.

Agreed. Not about him being generic, but about him being a great runner. I don't understand what people have against his running. It's not as if any of the other Bonds were Jesse Owens.

Oh come on, Dan, you don't think he didn't look the least bit akward as a runner? He looked like the kinds of guys we used to laugh at in gymn class.

As far as no Bond being Jesse Owens... Craig did a pretty darn good job keeping up with Foucan during the free-running scene. And he's really the only Bond who I see as being a convincing runner.

Dan Same

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Oh come on, Dan, you don't think he didn't look the least bit akward as a runner? He looked like the kinds of guys we used to laugh at in gymn class.

I'm no expert on running, but no, I don't think that Brosnan looked too bad. But then again, that could be because he is genuinely a really good runner or because he looks a lot better than me. (Which unfortunately isn't saying all that much. )

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

As far as no Bond being Jesse Owens... Craig did a pretty darn good job keeping up with Foucan during the free-running scene. And he's really the only Bond who I see as being a convincing runner.

Craig indeed did a great job. That is one of the best things IMO about his portrayal; his physicality.

Hank

Brosnan was a great bond. He had the looks and the chops. Think back to the final fight with trevelyan in Goldeneye. That was pretty hardcore shtuff with some good emotion.

I thought CR was a really good movie, but Daniel Craig is two steps from being a lump on a log.