They're the equivalent of Tony Blair as Prime Minister or David Beckham as England captain: financially very lucrative but never actually live up to their promise.
But the phrase "old wine in new bottles" seems to sum up the Brosnan films quite well. And with nothing distinctive about their stories, the films became overcome with shoot-'em-up action scenes that just wear on you after repeated views.
I will concede that their stories are not all that distinctive, but does it matter? :v By that I mean, I don't consider the actual plots of the Brosnan films to be all that memorable, but I don't think a great film needs a great plot. DN, for example, doesn't have a particularly memorable plot either. I find the whole 'sabotaging the American space programme' angle to be really confusing, but to me it doesn't make a difference as I find plenty of other things to love in DN. The same thing for the Brosnan films, particuarly GE and TWINE. With GE, I love the performances, the action, the script, the dialogue, the look of the film and that it is incredibly entertaining. I also love similar things with TWINE. As for the action scenes, I like most of them. There are a few in TND (and to a lesser extent in TWINE) that do wear on me, but generally speaking, I think they are fantastic.
BTW, although the plots are not all that distinctive, I think the concepts are. That is, I find GE's concept of Bond being betrayed by his best friend and TWINE's concept of Bond falling in love with a woman who turns out to be the main villain to be very distinctive.
Die Another Day in my view, represents how tired both the series traditional formula, and the overuse of high-tech action scenes to substitute for plot, had become.
DAD, IMO, represents not how tired the traditional formula had become but what can happen when somebody makes a terrible film. You know, I love the reviled formula. However, the formula needs to be backed up by talent in order to work. I don't think it worked in DAD.
Also, regarding action scenes, the action scenes in DAD were unlike anything that had been done before in the history of the Bond films, and I don't mean that in a good way. They were uniquely terrible, and considering that I love the action scenes in GE, TND and TWINE, I don't think that one can tarnish those three films with the horror that is the action scenes in DAD.
They're the equivalent of Tony Blair as Prime Minister or David Beckham as England captain: financially very lucrative but never actually live up to their promise.
I think GE did. ;%
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I will concede that their stories are not all that distinctive, but does it matter? :v By that I mean, I don't consider the actual plots of the Brosnan films to be all that memorable, but I don't think a great film needs a great plot. DN, for example, doesn't have a particularly memorable plot either. I find the whole 'sabotaging the American space programme' angle to be really confusing, but to me it doesn't make a difference as I find plenty of other things to love in DN. The same thing for the Brosnan films, particuarly GE and TWINE. With GE, I love the performances, the action, the script, the dialogue, the look of the film and that it is incredibly entertaining. I also love similar things with TWINE. As for the action scenes, I like most of them. There are a few in TND (and to a lesser extent in TWINE) that do wear on me, but generally speaking, I think they are fantastic.
BTW, although the plots are not all that distinctive, I think the concepts are. That is, I find GE's concept of Bond being betrayed by his best friend and TWINE's concept of Bond falling in love with a woman who turns out to be the main villain to be very distinctive.
I would argue that a script is essential to a movie being worth watching. A story provides a structure, without which all we are watching (in the case of Bond) is a series of action scenes strung together with PG-13 sex scenes. For me, a solid, memorable script not only gives the actors a challenge to prove their worth as actors, it gives purpose to the spectacle of the movie, and demonstrates that the film makers respect my intelligence enough to provide me more than simple “bread and circuses” (or in the 21st century, popcorn and movies). Furthermore, the Bond series is based off of some really engaging, well-written spy novels from a unique period in history. Being indifferent to all of that is just not something I value in a movie.
Dr.No’s plot, while not the strongest, serves a greater purpose than just Dr.No’s attempt to sabotage America’s space program. It introduces SPECTRE and provides a foundation to build an eventual confrontation between Bond and Blofeld, one that sadly, never materializes as it should because of bad scripts such as You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever.
The scripts in the Brosnan films are generally lacking for me. GoldenEye’s relatively speaking is the strongest. But it is not without flaws. Is there a reason why there is a nine year gap between the PTS and the rest of the film? Not one that is explained. Is there a way that Alec survives being shot in the head and convincing unsuspecting Russian guards in the chemical weapons facility why he, a former British Agent, should be allowed to escape while it explodes? Why did Alec pick now to strike with the GoldenEye satellite if it has been around since the Cold War? Who steals the Admirals ID on the Yacht? Who poses as him on the battle ship? The action is good when it actually reflects Bond’s skill rather than machine gun marksmanship that any unskilled mortal could rival, and Brosnan does well with what he is given, but those questions remain for me. Couple that with a mediocre score, and clichéd dialogue, and the movie never really gets a chance to excel.
I would argue similar things could be said about the remaining Brosnan films on the whole. Good, but not great. Entertaining, but not distinctive. And for me, concepts are only as good as how they are delivered. This is not gym class, I do not give a lot of “A’s for effort.” When you have unlimited financial resources and great source material to make a movie, one should be getting credit on delivering those concepts, not just having them.
I would argue that a script is essential to a movie being worth watching. A story provides a structure, without which all we are watching (in the case of Bond) is a series of action scenes strung together with PG-13 sex scenes. For me, a solid, memorable script not only gives the actors a challenge to prove their worth as actors, it gives purpose to the spectacle of the movie, and demonstrates that the film makers respect my intelligence enough to provide me more than simple “bread and circuses” (or in the 21st century, popcorn and movies). Furthermore, the Bond series is based off of some really engaging, well-written spy novels from a unique period in history. Being indifferent to all of that is just not something I value in a movie.
Absolutely. However, I would draw a distinction between a plot and a script. A film can have a great plot, but a terrible script or screenplay, and vice-verca. I think that GE and (to a lesser extent) TWINE do have very good screenplays, however I don't think their plots are all that exceptional. A non-Bondian example; I think that Forrest Gump has a fine plot, however I think it has a terrible screenplay.
Dr.No’s plot, while not the strongest, serves a greater purpose than just Dr.No’s attempt to sabotage America’s space program. It introduces SPECTRE and provides a foundation to build an eventual confrontation between Bond and Blofeld, one that sadly, never materializes as it should because of bad scripts such as You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever.
I think the plot is related only to Dr. No. The screenplay may serve other functions, but the plot as it was, was only really about Bond's confrontation with Dr. No, and I don't think it was a particuarly memorable plot. A magnificent film though.
The scripts in the Brosnan films are generally lacking for me. GoldenEye’s relatively speaking is the strongest. But it is not without flaws. Is there a reason why there is a nine year gap between the PTS and the rest of the film? Not one that is explained? Why did Alec pick now to strike with the GoldenEye satellite if it has been around since the Cold War? Who steals the Admirals ID on the Yacht? Who poses as him on the battle ship? The action is good when it actually reflects Bond’s skill rather than machine gun marksmanship that any unskilled mortal could rival, and Brosnan does well with what he is given, but those questions remain for me. Couple that with a mediocre score, and clichéd dialogue, and the movie never really gets a chance to excel.
I don't think that GE's script is Oscar-worthy (some of the dialogue does annoy me such as the 'mysoginystic 'misogynystic dinosaur' scene), but generally speaking, I think it was a fantastic screenplay. The way it introduced and brought together the different characters, established the threat, led up to it and wrapped everything up was IMO superb.
And for me, concepts are only as good as how they are delivered. This is not gym class, I do not give a lot of “A’s for effort.” When you have unlimited financial resources and great source material to make a movie, one should be getting credit on delivering those concepts, not just having them.
) True. However, if a film does have a good concept, such as LTK, even if the execution is disappointing, I do like to acknowledge it.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
There were other problems than just script writing.
James Bond is supposed to be dangerous, a cold hearted killer. I never got enough of that from Brosnan. Suave, yes. Sophisticated, yes. Tough? Not compared to Connery, Craig or even Dalton(although much more so than Moore). Brosnan had some moments, but not enough for my tastes. He was not helped by producers who loved to have him do things like fix his tie after a fight or action scene 8-). It became almost self-mocking. Can you imagine Craig doing that?
For that matter I think they made him into somewhat of a dandy with his wardrobe. That is discussed in some detail in other areas of the forum, but by DAD we are supposed to believe that Bond has a tailor in every major city . Again, more self parody and very un-Fleming.
This was also the era of Bond the super hero. Jumping off cliffs into crashing planes, driving/operating russian tanks by himself (standard MI6 training?), out flying MIG fighter pilots....in a MIG fighter :v,surfing tidal waves, driving hovercrafts etc. Was there anything he couldn't do better than anyone else? To me Bond became more of a comic book character during the course of Brosnans era.
All that being said, I still enjoyed the movies,especially GE, and Brosnan can and should be given credit for helping to bring the series back over a break that was too long. He was a good Bond, that had a few shortcomings made worse by some bad writing and production decisions. Of course, that could be said about most of the others too at certain points.
Comments
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I will concede that their stories are not all that distinctive, but does it matter? :v By that I mean, I don't consider the actual plots of the Brosnan films to be all that memorable, but I don't think a great film needs a great plot. DN, for example, doesn't have a particularly memorable plot either. I find the whole 'sabotaging the American space programme' angle to be really confusing, but to me it doesn't make a difference as I find plenty of other things to love in DN. The same thing for the Brosnan films, particuarly GE and TWINE. With GE, I love the performances, the action, the script, the dialogue, the look of the film and that it is incredibly entertaining. I also love similar things with TWINE. As for the action scenes, I like most of them. There are a few in TND (and to a lesser extent in TWINE) that do wear on me, but generally speaking, I think they are fantastic.
BTW, although the plots are not all that distinctive, I think the concepts are. That is, I find GE's concept of Bond being betrayed by his best friend and TWINE's concept of Bond falling in love with a woman who turns out to be the main villain to be very distinctive.
DAD, IMO, represents not how tired the traditional formula had become but what can happen when somebody makes a terrible film.
Also, regarding action scenes, the action scenes in DAD were unlike anything that had been done before in the history of the Bond films, and I don't mean that in a good way.
I think GE did. ;%
I would argue that a script is essential to a movie being worth watching. A story provides a structure, without which all we are watching (in the case of Bond) is a series of action scenes strung together with PG-13 sex scenes. For me, a solid, memorable script not only gives the actors a challenge to prove their worth as actors, it gives purpose to the spectacle of the movie, and demonstrates that the film makers respect my intelligence enough to provide me more than simple “bread and circuses” (or in the 21st century, popcorn and movies). Furthermore, the Bond series is based off of some really engaging, well-written spy novels from a unique period in history. Being indifferent to all of that is just not something I value in a movie.
Dr.No’s plot, while not the strongest, serves a greater purpose than just Dr.No’s attempt to sabotage America’s space program. It introduces SPECTRE and provides a foundation to build an eventual confrontation between Bond and Blofeld, one that sadly, never materializes as it should because of bad scripts such as You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever.
The scripts in the Brosnan films are generally lacking for me. GoldenEye’s relatively speaking is the strongest. But it is not without flaws. Is there a reason why there is a nine year gap between the PTS and the rest of the film? Not one that is explained. Is there a way that Alec survives being shot in the head and convincing unsuspecting Russian guards in the chemical weapons facility why he, a former British Agent, should be allowed to escape while it explodes? Why did Alec pick now to strike with the GoldenEye satellite if it has been around since the Cold War? Who steals the Admirals ID on the Yacht? Who poses as him on the battle ship? The action is good when it actually reflects Bond’s skill rather than machine gun marksmanship that any unskilled mortal could rival, and Brosnan does well with what he is given, but those questions remain for me. Couple that with a mediocre score, and clichéd dialogue, and the movie never really gets a chance to excel.
I would argue similar things could be said about the remaining Brosnan films on the whole. Good, but not great. Entertaining, but not distinctive. And for me, concepts are only as good as how they are delivered. This is not gym class, I do not give a lot of “A’s for effort.” When you have unlimited financial resources and great source material to make a movie, one should be getting credit on delivering those concepts, not just having them.
I think the plot is related only to Dr. No. The screenplay may serve other functions, but the plot as it was, was only really about Bond's confrontation with Dr. No, and I don't think it was a particuarly memorable plot. A magnificent film though.
I don't think that GE's script is Oscar-worthy (some of the dialogue does annoy me such as the 'mysoginystic 'misogynystic dinosaur' scene), but generally speaking, I think it was a fantastic screenplay. The way it introduced and brought together the different characters, established the threat, led up to it and wrapped everything up was IMO superb.
James Bond is supposed to be dangerous, a cold hearted killer. I never got enough of that from Brosnan. Suave, yes. Sophisticated, yes. Tough? Not compared to Connery, Craig or even Dalton(although much more so than Moore). Brosnan had some moments, but not enough for my tastes. He was not helped by producers who loved to have him do things like fix his tie after a fight or action scene 8-). It became almost self-mocking. Can you imagine Craig doing that?
For that matter I think they made him into somewhat of a dandy with his wardrobe. That is discussed in some detail in other areas of the forum, but by DAD we are supposed to believe that Bond has a tailor in every major city
This was also the era of Bond the super hero. Jumping off cliffs into crashing planes, driving/operating russian tanks by himself (standard MI6 training?), out flying MIG fighter pilots....in a MIG fighter :v,surfing tidal waves, driving hovercrafts etc. Was there anything he couldn't do better than anyone else? To me Bond became more of a comic book character during the course of Brosnans era.
All that being said, I still enjoyed the movies,especially GE, and Brosnan can and should be given credit for helping to bring the series back over a break that was too long. He was a good Bond, that had a few shortcomings made worse by some bad writing and production decisions. Of course, that could be said about most of the others too at certain points.