Quoting Alex:
Hungary is a noble country steeped with tradition, yet you make it sound like the Gulag is operational and electric power hasn't been invented.
This description would describe a worrying percentage of the whole country. After a few trips to the other side of the border (not far away, just 5-10 kms to collect my stuff without paying extra taxes), the difference is amazing. The truth is probably somewhere between my description and your concept, but don't believe the ads. We are not all gipsy music, bathhouses and folk dance!
Quoting Alex:
I'm pretty positive there are fellow countrymen out there, who (gasp) love old school Bond, and even Pierce Brosnan!
Yes and I know all five of them! And they do like Pierce, but not his movies.
Quoting Alex:
Are you speaking for the entire population when you say "James Bond sucks" I think you're seriously underestimating your own country.
You can never underestimate this. I got used to indifference, but the ammount of it can still surprise me.
Quoting Alex:
Hell man, be proud of it!
Random trivia fact: Hungary has been put on an embargo list by the likes of amazon and e-bay because of the large number of disappearing parcels. Even I use a fake 'company address', because that's the only secure thing to do. Oh, and Hungary is still not listed in PayPal, unlike Poland or the Czech Republic. And this is just my own, selfish problem. I'm not here to talk about the rest of the population, who for instance miss the dams during the floods we have know.
Quoting Alex:
The basis for this series was the foundation that it was built upon. Like...obvious dude! I'm also pretty sure that there are Hungarians who know this, and, who Connery is!
Of course they know who Connery is! He is the bearded fellow from Highlander, The Name of The Rose, Indy 3, The Untouchables, Entrapment, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc. Even I'm surprised that while most people are familiar with the fact that Roger Moore was the previous(!) Bond, there are very few people who would guess Connery was Bond at all. Anyway, one of my goals is to change the situation.
Quoting Willie Garvin:
But exactly what "damage" did Pierce Brosnan do to the role?I'm curious.Because in the end,he was only an actor who did the best he could with what the screenplays said and what the directors told him to do.Each of the 007s is only as good as the material they're given regardless of their respective talents.Yes,Brosnan had some minor input but probably no more than Roger Moore or Timothy Dalton had when they were each 007 and the role was then reshaped to suit their unique personas.And Brosnan probably had a lot less say overall than Sean Connery--who alone among all of the Bonds became an unquestioned international superstar while playing 007, and an actor Eon and United Artists originally considered absolutely irreplacable...
W.G. I agree with your comments above. I wonder if you would care to expand your comments about Sean Connery's input/influence/say regarding all his Eon Bond films.
Connery (with considerable input from Terence Young) created a classic screen James Bond. For many (yourself included) the definitive screen Bond. I have no doubt that in the early films Connery would have had considerable input/influence/say. However, by the time of YOLT, it's clear that Connery was disillusioned about numerous things, uppermost amongst them was the direction that the series was taking. It's seems that he did wan't more input/influence/say. After all, Terence Young supposedly asked Broccoli and Saltzman to take Connery on as a partner.
How much input/influence/say did Sean Connery really have at the end of the day?
Quoting Lady Rose: Quoting Lady Rose:
Oh Cat,you are a spoilsport ... and when you've finished maybe we'll ask MarJil his opinion as well ) ) )
My bet with Eye precludes me from commenting directly about He Who's Name I Shall Not Speak, but I will say two things about this. I found some comments from Moore Not Less and JakeL (along with Cat and yourself, Lady Rose) to be very insightful. And there has only been one truly great James Bond.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I think you guys need to slow down and remember that there are only five Bonds in total, equaling only 20 movies (no, I don;t count Niven or the AMerican guy). While you may not like Pierce the best, his movies are fun to watch, and they are James Bond movies. Since there aren;t unlimited Bond movies, be glad with what you have gotten, whether you absolutely love the actor or not.
I like him. He had the style, charm, and look of Bond. He carried himself well, and he could be at one turn romantic, and the next brutal. Since, he is the Bond of my generation, he has a tie in second place for me.
Quoting The Cat:
You're always welcome to visit Hungary and check upon my words.
Nah, chances are that you'll mention it again another thousand times or so anyway. I'll just get all the information about the country from you, the master.
In retrospect, I don't think Brosnan will ever be considered THE Bond, just A Bond. Connery still retains the ultimate title. Brosnan's problem was that he was all over the board. He started out cool and predator like, but towards the last two films he became to "warm-fuzzy" with his female interests (and even Q in TWINE for that matter!) To me, Connery always exuded danger that had to be reeled in and controlled while Brosnan was a guy who had to pull out the danger when he needed it. Brosnan's cold, aloof detachment on the Cuban beach was great (and he still got the girl) but later it seemed that scoring the girl seemed more important to him then the mission. It just went all backwards for me...my names Dnob James Dnob
I think that he will be hard act to follow!His movie were not always up to par,But that is because of bad writing and that is not his fault! As bond,He is second only to Sean! He was a good mix of Sean and Roger, the best of both! I mean Sean and Roger have both said that they thought he was a great bond!I think that the one person that will find out how great is the person who follows him!ALOT TO LIVE UP TO AT THE BOX OFFICE! I think Goldeneye was the best bond film since the early Connery classics!
There's no doubt Pierce Brosnan was better than his material, though I fear that Brosnan will be defined by the merits of his films in the eyes of the general public. GoldenEye was (and is) beloved by the general public and the vast majority of Bond fans, and many Bond fans offer a lot of deserved praise for The World Is Not Enough. And while Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day don't garner as much praise from Bond fans, they were well recieved initally, did make alot of money, and did advance Pierce Brosnan's characterization of Bond.
That said, I do think Brosnan's charatcerization of Bond as a hardened, world weary assasin whose life is consumed by MI6 will ultimately get a lot of credit from a growing crowd that appreciates Daniel Craig's 007. It's only natural for the critics to contrast the new 007 with the old, but as time goes on I think Craig's characterization will be seen as a great evolution from the kind of Bond Pierce Brosnan popularized. If this ends up being the case, Pierce Brosnan will not only go down as the Billon Dollar, Series-Saving Bond, but as the one that showed Ian Fleming's 007 can be marketable and developed in the 21st century.
My only problem with Brosnan was that just as I started to like him, he turned around and made me not like him. I'll fully admit I realize this to be the fault of the writers; but Goldeneye was incredible, then Tomorrow Never Dies was a let down, the The World Is Not Enough was amazing, then Die Another Day made me gag - and then Brosnan was done. For me he didn't really have a winning streak such as Connery's DN through YOLT, or Moore's TSPWM through OP - That being said, Brosnan did save the series with GE, but aside from that, I think his only real contribution was TWINE. I hold high hopes that Craig's entire Bond career will be a winning streak - it's definately started strong. . .
Odd... I was thinking about this last night while working....
Brosnan is THIS generation's Bond... just like Moore was when I was a kid. It seemed back then that when Moore left the role, Bond would die or something (well, he seemed to after the 2 Dalton films, which I loved)... Pierce brought the franchise back to life.
In the long run, as was mentioned earlier, he will be considered "a Bond". Moore is considered such.
Brosnan is my least favorite Bond. GE and TWINE are my 2 favorite Brosnobond films, but in all, his Bonds were comic books on the screen.
Comparing him to Craig is like Moore to Connery. Connery would bleed, get messed up and sweat (Craig more so) but when Moore and Brosnan would get into a fight, they would just straighten out their ties afterward. The tank chase in GE was great EXCEPT that Pierce had to straighten his tie. The fight scene in TND (The one in the studio) was emabarassing and over the top... and Dr Kauffman?? UGH!!
Brosnan will be viewed as (in my eyes he already is) an inferior copy of Roger Moore.
Sorry, Brosnan fans... I like Pierce Brosnan and I know he reveres the role of Bond and he really tried... the films he did were weak (not his fault entirely) and shows the series needed a reboot
I think that Brosnan will most certainly go down as a great Bond, if he isn't one already. My definition of a great Bond is one who is able to convincingly execute both suaveness and ruthlessness. (There are other factors that make a great Bond but these are the main ones.) IMO only three Bonds may be classsified as great; Connery, Moore and Brosnan. I consider Brosnan to be the second greatest Bond of all time (behind only Connery) and an ever better Bond than Moore who I thought was absolutely brilliant.
In terms of Brosnan's films, I agree that he wasn't provided with the best material. Although I love GE and TWINE, I don't think that either are absolute masterpieces in the way that FRWL/GF/TB and TSWLM were. I also think that TND was a bit of a letdown while DAD IMO was the third worst Bond film of all time. I have to say though that my problems with Brosnan's films have nothing to do with him. I consider his performances in GE and TWINE to be among the ten greatest Bond performances of all time. I also think his performances in TND and DAD were terrific. (His performance in DAD is the thing that I like best about the film.) My problems with his films goes down to the scripts. In fact I think it is a sign of just how good Brosnan was that he was able to take ridiculous scenes (the beach scene in GE for example) and still manage to act extremely well. As I said at the beginning, I have no doubt that Brosnan will most certainly go down as a truly great Bond. :007)
The fight scene in TND (The one in the studio) was emabarassing and over the top... and Dr Kauffman?? UGH!!
How was the fight scene in TND emabarassing and over the top? And what was so bad about Dr Kauffman?
"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 grew up with Brosnan as Bond, the first movie I ever saw in the theater was Tomorrow Never Dies (though at home I saw GE and AVTAK). However, Brosnan just LOOKS like Bond to me, none of them look as natural in a tuxedo as this man does. Not only is he charming but he's incredibly ruthless, as witnessed by his fight scenes in GoldenEye. (Since Alec was his best friend, they got in a pretty heavy fight and when Alec says "For England, James?" and he says "No, for me!") Positively chilling delivery and then he just dumps him off the cradle. As Moore and Brosnan were the first Bond's I was exposed too, I've always held a fondness for them both. I love Connery too, but sometimes he comes off a bit wrong to me.
To me, Brosnan IS Bond and that's probably how I'll always see him, as Goldeneye 007 introduced me to the movies, which were currently starring him. Hopefully Craig will do well, but for me, Brosnan will be a tough act to follow.
Pierce Brosnan is often regarded as the good all rounder. This is seen by some fans as a real strength, the way he combined the best elements from previous Bond's like Sean Connery and Roger Moore.
Others see this as a real weakness. He wasn't as tough as Connery, he did not have the charm or wit of Moore. And he didn't put his own stamp on the role.
I see him as the good all rounder who had all of Bond's attributes. He wasn't as tough as Connery and didn't have the charm or wit of Moore. But that's not real weakness because he was convincingly tough, charming and witty. And even though perhaps he didn't put his own stamp on the role in the same way as the others I and many others will still fondly remember his contribution to the series.
For myself he won't. Connery will always be the greatest bond for me, and I think that is unlikely to ever change. But never say never . Brosnan has now been demoted to 4th though.
im glad to be part of the "brosnan generation" and have no problem calling him my fav Bond, hes the one who most appeals to me, and thats my own opinion, i loved all his films, though not DAD so much......
All this talk of Connery has always left me cold.I dont believe he was the best Bond.I thought Brosnan far better and Craig better still.I mean for Gods sake "Never Say Never Again" I wish he had it was dire...
The fight scene in TND (The one in the studio) was emabarassing and over the top... and Dr Kauffman?? UGH!!
How was the fight scene in TND emabarassing and over the top? And what was so bad about Dr Kauffman?
The fight looked so fake.. it wasn't believeable in the least and looked really comic to me.
Dr Kauffman was also very comic... both looking and acting (of course the late Vincent S was a comedic looking person and a great character actor, and that's what kind of added the tone for me). He's telling Bond all about how he can kill someone and make it look like a suicide, take a phone call (Didn't he say something like "Don't bother me while I am working! Yah, yah, okay."?)... I sank in my seat during all this and for some reason thought of Sheriff J W Pepper...
As for Pierce, I dunno, I really like his acting, I loved him in Remington Steele lo those many years ago, but when he tries to look digusted or tough, he looks uncomfortable and constipated... I mean he is one great looking guy and like Connery is aging gracefully, but looking tough isn't natural for him. He looks fatherly and easy going.
He has style and charisma, for sure.. he looks GREAT in a tuxedo (like Moore) and has presence. I loved the scene in TND where he in his room doing shots of vodka (THAT'S BOND!)... I give him credit for helping make the Bond films major events, like they used to be... but in the long run, he'll be just another guy who was James Bond, just like Moore, Lazenby and Dalton and probably Craig when he quits.
Like I said in my previous post, Moore was Bond when I was growing up. To my generation, he was IT.. no one could EVER replace him... he was so good that he threatened to quit on FYEO, but he did that movie... same with OP and AVTAK, but Cubby coaxed him back everytime. He was James Bond! But today, he's just a guy who played James Bond. Brosnan more so.
Interesting. I don't agree with you about either the fight or Dr Kauffman (both of which I loved) and I also don't agree that looking tough isn't natural for Brosnan, however I do want to make one comment:
but in the long run, he'll be just another guy who was James Bond, just like Moore, Lazenby and Dalton and probably Craig when he quits.
You know, I feel theat way about all of the Bonds except for Connery. To me he was Bond. Everybody else were simply wannabes. (Although to be fair, I do love Moore and Brosnan; I just don't think either were as good as Connery was.)
"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
Interesting. I don't agree with you about either the fight or Dr Kauffman (both of which I loved) and I also don't agree that looking tough isn't natural for Brosnan, however I do want to make one comment:
but in the long run, he'll be just another guy who was James Bond, just like Moore, Lazenby and Dalton and probably Craig when he quits.
You know, I feel theat way about all of the Bonds except for Connery. To me he was Bond. Everybody else were simply wannabes. (Although to be fair, I do love Moore and Brosnan; I just don't think either were as good as Connery was.)
Agreed totally. But I would love to be able to go back and see somebody else in the role first. (Although then again saying that Moore was the first bond i saw). Thats why I think a lot of younger people who have started of by watching Brosnans films, then later on watch the preceeding films. Like Brosnan more, if not because he was the first actor they saw, but for the appeal of more modern films on the youth of today. There so fickle.
If all the Brosnan films were as good as Goldeneye, (script plus beautiful girls and scenery plus top villains) then he would absolutely have been on the'great Bond list.' In GE he brings a fresh energy; while Connery was the Man, I don't think he could have done the pre-credits better. The one negative is the score.
So I would still put PB on the great list; the blame is mostly on the material offered to him. Brosnan was also a Bond fan, and it shows. Although he also seemed to be losing his fire.
______________________
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
Agreed- it's the writing at fault, not the actor. He has that 'Roger Moore syndrome', yet I think while Moore managed 4 very good to excellent (imo) films, Brosnan only managed one true classic. I rate Brosnan higher than Dalton as I do think Brosnan is very comfortable in the role.
Was watching Goldeneye yesterday and it's easy to see why that's such a revered film. It works better than the Dalton films because it has a traditional feel, plus some of the action is amongst the best seen in the series- the punch up between Bond and Trevelyan is just fantastic, in fact that whole sub-plot about him betraying Bond and in a way, vice versa (the whole '3 minutes' thing...), is one of the best written of the whole series as we have a sort of Jekkyl and Hyde axis between them. The Bond girls are memorable and well played, which isn't something I could necessarily say about the rest of Brosnan's films. And he definitely has a hard edged side- the bit with him holding the villains at gunpoint on a train is superb.
But, TND is a disappointment in comparison. I think the first half was excellent, with a lot of good dialogue and again, showing his human side with the relationship with Paris Carver. After that, out the door it goes- it's like there was a change in director half way through the film as all the great dialogue is gone and it's just action scene after action scene, which gets very tedious.
I'm going to watch TWINE in a bit to see if I have re-evaluated it, but it's the only Bond film which I cannot remember anything about which isn't a good thing...And DAD deserved the flak for being an overtly flashy film with no real heart aside from the excellent pre-titles scene.
I believe in the future Brosnan will be remembered as the Bond that saved the franchise. Everything hinged on GE. If it weren't a good Bond film, the series, (while it may not have died right away) it definately would have died down to a dwindling flame. But straight from the first scene Brosnan (a) made the role his own while capturing the spirits of his predecesors, (b) plunged the audience back into the world of excitement and intrigue and (c) proved to all that Bond was here to stay.
So after GE he had a couple Bond films that could have been stronger, that suffered from poor writing,(TND & DAD) and he had one (TWINE) that some (myself included) view to be a classy superb film and others no different than TND and DAD. But none of that matters, because Brosnan saved Bond with GE, and despite how the other films may have lacked in certain areas, Brosnan still maintained Bond through the '90s, delivering him in the hands of the new millenium.
Comments
This description would describe a worrying percentage of the whole country.
Yes and I know all five of them!
You can never underestimate this. I got used to indifference, but the ammount of it can still surprise me.
Random trivia fact: Hungary has been put on an embargo list by the likes of amazon and e-bay because of the large number of disappearing parcels. Even I use a fake 'company address', because that's the only secure thing to do. Oh, and Hungary is still not listed in PayPal, unlike Poland or the Czech Republic.
Of course they know who Connery is! He is the bearded fellow from Highlander, The Name of The Rose, Indy 3, The Untouchables, Entrapment, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, etc. Even I'm surprised that while most people are familiar with the fact that Roger Moore was the previous(!) Bond, there are very few people who would guess Connery was Bond at all. Anyway, one of my goals is to change the situation.
W.G. I agree with your comments above. I wonder if you would care to expand your comments about Sean Connery's input/influence/say regarding all his Eon Bond films.
Connery (with considerable input from Terence Young) created a classic screen James Bond. For many (yourself included) the definitive screen Bond. I have no doubt that in the early films Connery would have had considerable input/influence/say. However, by the time of YOLT, it's clear that Connery was disillusioned about numerous things, uppermost amongst them was the direction that the series was taking. It's seems that he did wan't more input/influence/say. After all, Terence Young supposedly asked Broccoli and Saltzman to take Connery on as a partner.
How much input/influence/say did Sean Connery really have at the end of the day?
My bet with Eye precludes me from commenting directly about He Who's Name I Shall Not Speak, but I will say two things about this. I found some comments from Moore Not Less and JakeL (along with Cat and yourself, Lady Rose) to be very insightful. And there has only been one truly great James Bond.
Uhm... In my case, the correct term would be 'painful', but it's all a matter of personal taste.
You're always welcome to visit Hungary and check upon my words.
'I mean what I say, and I do what I claim.'
Pushing through a lecture on James Bond in the university is not an easy or very rewarding job, so thanks for the good wishes.
That said, I do think Brosnan's charatcerization of Bond as a hardened, world weary assasin whose life is consumed by MI6 will ultimately get a lot of credit from a growing crowd that appreciates Daniel Craig's 007. It's only natural for the critics to contrast the new 007 with the old, but as time goes on I think Craig's characterization will be seen as a great evolution from the kind of Bond Pierce Brosnan popularized. If this ends up being the case, Pierce Brosnan will not only go down as the Billon Dollar, Series-Saving Bond, but as the one that showed Ian Fleming's 007 can be marketable and developed in the 21st century.
Brosnan is THIS generation's Bond... just like Moore was when I was a kid. It seemed back then that when Moore left the role, Bond would die or something (well, he seemed to after the 2 Dalton films, which I loved)... Pierce brought the franchise back to life.
In the long run, as was mentioned earlier, he will be considered "a Bond". Moore is considered such.
Brosnan is my least favorite Bond. GE and TWINE are my 2 favorite Brosnobond films, but in all, his Bonds were comic books on the screen.
Comparing him to Craig is like Moore to Connery. Connery would bleed, get messed up and sweat (Craig more so) but when Moore and Brosnan would get into a fight, they would just straighten out their ties afterward. The tank chase in GE was great EXCEPT that Pierce had to straighten his tie. The fight scene in TND (The one in the studio) was emabarassing and over the top... and Dr Kauffman?? UGH!!
Brosnan will be viewed as (in my eyes he already is) an inferior copy of Roger Moore.
Sorry, Brosnan fans... I like Pierce Brosnan and I know he reveres the role of Bond and he really tried... the films he did were weak (not his fault entirely) and shows the series needed a reboot
In terms of Brosnan's films, I agree that he wasn't provided with the best material. Although I love GE and TWINE, I don't think that either are absolute masterpieces in the way that FRWL/GF/TB and TSWLM were. I also think that TND was a bit of a letdown while DAD IMO was the third worst Bond film of all time. I have to say though that my problems with Brosnan's films have nothing to do with him. I consider his performances in GE and TWINE to be among the ten greatest Bond performances of all time. I also think his performances in TND and DAD were terrific. (His performance in DAD is the thing that I like best about the film.) My problems with his films goes down to the scripts. In fact I think it is a sign of just how good Brosnan was that he was able to take ridiculous scenes (the beach scene in GE for example) and still manage to act extremely well. As I said at the beginning, I have no doubt that Brosnan will most certainly go down as a truly great Bond. :007)
How was the fight scene in TND emabarassing and over the top? And what was so bad about Dr Kauffman?
To me, Brosnan IS Bond and that's probably how I'll always see him, as Goldeneye 007 introduced me to the movies, which were currently starring him. Hopefully Craig will do well, but for me, Brosnan will be a tough act to follow.
Others see this as a real weakness. He wasn't as tough as Connery, he did not have the charm or wit of Moore. And he didn't put his own stamp on the role.
I see him as the good all rounder who had all of Bond's attributes. He wasn't as tough as Connery and didn't have the charm or wit of Moore. But that's not real weakness because he was convincingly tough, charming and witty. And even though perhaps he didn't put his own stamp on the role in the same way as the others I and many others will still fondly remember his contribution to the series.
The fight looked so fake.. it wasn't believeable in the least and looked really comic to me.
Dr Kauffman was also very comic... both looking and acting (of course the late Vincent S was a comedic looking person and a great character actor, and that's what kind of added the tone for me). He's telling Bond all about how he can kill someone and make it look like a suicide, take a phone call (Didn't he say something like "Don't bother me while I am working! Yah, yah, okay."?)... I sank in my seat during all this and for some reason thought of Sheriff J W Pepper...
As for Pierce, I dunno, I really like his acting, I loved him in Remington Steele lo those many years ago, but when he tries to look digusted or tough, he looks uncomfortable and constipated... I mean he is one great looking guy and like Connery is aging gracefully, but looking tough isn't natural for him. He looks fatherly and easy going.
He has style and charisma, for sure.. he looks GREAT in a tuxedo (like Moore) and has presence. I loved the scene in TND where he in his room doing shots of vodka (THAT'S BOND!)... I give him credit for helping make the Bond films major events, like they used to be... but in the long run, he'll be just another guy who was James Bond, just like Moore, Lazenby and Dalton and probably Craig when he quits.
Like I said in my previous post, Moore was Bond when I was growing up. To my generation, he was IT.. no one could EVER replace him... he was so good that he threatened to quit on FYEO, but he did that movie... same with OP and AVTAK, but Cubby coaxed him back everytime. He was James Bond! But today, he's just a guy who played James Bond. Brosnan more so.
You know, I feel theat way about all of the Bonds except for Connery. To me he was Bond. Everybody else were simply wannabes.
Agreed totally. But I would love to be able to go back and see somebody else in the role first. (Although then again saying that Moore was the first bond i saw). Thats why I think a lot of younger people who have started of by watching Brosnans films, then later on watch the preceeding films. Like Brosnan more, if not because he was the first actor they saw, but for the appeal of more modern films on the youth of today. There so fickle.
So I would still put PB on the great list; the blame is mostly on the material offered to him. Brosnan was also a Bond fan, and it shows. Although he also seemed to be losing his fire.
______________________
"Surely, you're joking!!?"
"Don't call me Shirley."
Was watching Goldeneye yesterday and it's easy to see why that's such a revered film. It works better than the Dalton films because it has a traditional feel, plus some of the action is amongst the best seen in the series- the punch up between Bond and Trevelyan is just fantastic, in fact that whole sub-plot about him betraying Bond and in a way, vice versa (the whole '3 minutes' thing...), is one of the best written of the whole series as we have a sort of Jekkyl and Hyde axis between them. The Bond girls are memorable and well played, which isn't something I could necessarily say about the rest of Brosnan's films. And he definitely has a hard edged side- the bit with him holding the villains at gunpoint on a train is superb.
But, TND is a disappointment in comparison. I think the first half was excellent, with a lot of good dialogue and again, showing his human side with the relationship with Paris Carver. After that, out the door it goes- it's like there was a change in director half way through the film as all the great dialogue is gone and it's just action scene after action scene, which gets very tedious.
I'm going to watch TWINE in a bit to see if I have re-evaluated it, but it's the only Bond film which I cannot remember anything about which isn't a good thing...And DAD deserved the flak for being an overtly flashy film with no real heart aside from the excellent pre-titles scene.
So after GE he had a couple Bond films that could have been stronger, that suffered from poor writing,(TND & DAD) and he had one (TWINE) that some (myself included) view to be a classy superb film and others no different than TND and DAD. But none of that matters, because Brosnan saved Bond with GE, and despite how the other films may have lacked in certain areas, Brosnan still maintained Bond through the '90s, delivering him in the hands of the new millenium.