Pierce Brosnan is the best bond
Pierce Brosnan335
Posts: 46MI6 Agent
His movies were the greatset all the other bonds can't hold a candle to him except maybe sean connery but Pierce is better then him
Comments
I saw his movies, i like them, but i really want to know why do you say that about him, i mean, which are the things that make Brosnan to make the character stronger?
I don't try to make a fight, is jut i'm asking that same questing and can't get a proper answer.
Edit: just put my signature
Seriously, I think Brosnan was terrific. He was suave, ruthless, humanised without going OTT, dangerous, humerous and simply a great actor. His films weren't perfect (although GE and TWINE were fantastic IMO) but I blame the problems on the scripts rather than Brosnan himself. I consider Brosnan to be the second best Bond of all time, and the best since Moore. Long may he reign! :007)
Because thats a given
As some have already pointed out, he didn't always have the best of screen plays, but he always advocated (and in many cases achieved) a stronger sense of what made Bond tick, and making it a centerpiece of the story. There is a great character evolution in the Brosnan films because of this:
In GoldenEye we get the first "self-aware" Bond performance. For the first time, Bond is confronted with his outdated beliefs and practices, and must prove thier relevance while defeating a friend turned enemy. Tomorrow Never Dies re-introduces the brooding character of 007, sitting alone in a hotel room drinking himself to sleep. And The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day build on these foundations and make Bond's character/relationships with others a key factor in the plot.
As I said, the plot's weren't perfect, and in many instances, the stronger character Brosnan was developing was put on hold in the name of machine gun action sequences and cliched quips. This is particuarly noticeable in Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day. GoldenEye and The World Is Not Enough, however, have the right mix of everything to be up there with the best of Bond films, and they show off Brosnan at his best. It was these films and his portrayal that led to the Bond character embraced in Casino Royale. For that, we all owe Brosnan a tip of the hat as one of the Best and most influential 007's.
Don't forget that your defining moment was also a moment of great scepticism for those who grew up with Connery, Lazenby, Moore or Dalton.
For instance my defining moment of Bond was actually Rick Sylvester as 007 ...
All I can say for sure is that Brosnan was the best Bond of the 90s. His acting defined the super smooth 007 of this time. He could do action and he could do the witticisms, but I'm with Dan Same on the more personal aspects. I like the beach scene, but not for the acting/script which I thought quite laboured.
Of the four Bond performances with Brosnan in the lead, I thought TND to be his strongest. The hotel scenes are his best IMO. I was never convinced with his acting alongside Sophie Marceau I must admit and the less said about DAD the better - this was not a film that anyone involved should be proud of.
Because of this I simply cannot think of him as the best Bond. Very good, but ultimately flawed thanks to poor scripts and direction.
I would bet lots of money than he was the only one.
Yeah, he did a terrific job in GE, along with the new crew of Bond (my hat off tor Daniel Kleinman) but... is my opinion, i prefer Dalton, and wanted to see him in GE.
And TND scene with Paris dead and the post killing Elektra in TWINE is seems to me like he was having the same reaction (the same: some sort of kiss and go kill everyone else.)
But i never felt a relation with a Bond lady (Wai Ling and Jinx were pure sex and guns) Chrismas was just sex. with Natalya probably had the best relation, but was also kinda superficial.
And for me -again- i didn't feel that transition of the character by Brosnan rather by the script
Maybe he'll get his NEVER SAY NEVER type film - only better.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I demand to know why nobody's started a "Woody Allen is the best Bond" thread. I find it appalling that he is never mentioned in the same breath as those other six pretenders.
Seriously though, every one of the big six has brought something to the table. I find comparing them and saying one is better than another to be somewhat pointless since their interpretations and their respective movies are so different. We all have our favorite (for the record, mine is Connery; Brosnan is a respectable second) but I for one can enjoy every one of their performances; even Craig's now that I've seen CR.
Tony,
quit being so reasonable, you old coo!
Well done, TC.
The only problem I have with Brosnan is the physical side of things. In the 1950s/1960s/1970s, this wouldn't have been a big problem because doing 007's job didn't require someone to be in tremendously good condition. Sure, you had to be able to move or to handle yourself when you needed to get out of a jam, but in this time, Brosnan's physicality would have been fine. In the late-1980s to today, in an era in which being a secret agent requires much more mobility and technical mastery, I imagine the secret agents of this time needing to be much more athletic and to look it. Brosnan was able to pull off scenes like the bungy-jump and was able to slide through Arkangel fine, but when came to being able to handle himself against physically superior opponents, I don't think he was believable. He also looked really weak when he ran, which to me was kind of distracting.
I know that Fleming didn't specifically write that Bond was a hulking menace, but he did at least write that he was strong and athletically very capable; the workout regiment detailed in FRWL certainly is nothing for the light-hearted. And since Fleming's description of Bond and his world is based somewhat on his own experience in the intelligence community, I would imagine that if Fleming was alive today and writing about Bond from experience in the intelligence community, he would be writing about someone with the physique moreso like Craig's than Brosnan's.
And I must say, all his performances were magnificent, despite the movie - DAD for example was half great, and TND was mildly good - But Brosnan delivered in each one of them. Thats good, I think.
Too bad he never had a CR treatment, which he craved for... He would've toped Connery, then.
I don't agree. I think he was able to handle himself physically just fine. Disabling the guy in the boat in GE, going one on one with Alec in GE and the fight at the party in TND shows IMO that Brosnan was extremely physically believable.
Anyway back to Brosnan. Pierce Brosnan was quite brilliant at Bond. I'll never see him as my favourite, namely due to Sean and Roger the Coger. But Brosnan made the role his own and won over a lot of fans.
Best Bond - Not for me. But a great Bond none-the-less!
DAD is really a film that improves with each viewing. Of course, the invisible car and the CGI stuff in the movie, really are out of place. But we did see Bond space, so thats no biggie, me thinks...
I guess im basing that on how I see it around my neighborhood. Most of my friends are bond fans and many loved pierce in Goldeneye but by the time die another day was made my friends had all dumped Pierce. Thats just how i saw it so thats my opinion. Im sure in a wider sence pierce diddnt lose to many fans but thats how I saw it.
A good actor is not judged by the movies he plays, but by how WELL he plays them. I know that even though GE was a hit with the critics, TND or DAD were (obviously) not as fortunate. If Pierce had a better movies, I think he would be (hailed) a much better actor. It is tough going out with something like Die Another Day.
It is not the script that makes the actor, it is the actor that makes the actor.
- PB (me, not Pierce Brosnan!)