Brosnan's bond films
Nicko1234
Posts: 74MI6 Agent
I wondered what the general attitude is towards Brosnan's Bond films now. I think they all, with the possible exception of DAD, got very good press reviews when they were released but how have they stood up?
I will be perfectly honest and say that I never liked any of them.
That's not to say that Goldeneye was a bad film because it was probably very good. It just wasn't for me.
TND was less impressive though and both of the Carvers were poor.
When I went to the cinema to see TWINE I wasn't impressed either. Many things such as the Christmas joke, the joke about Goldie's Teeth etc. seemed crowbarred in and the idea of the x-ray specs was really infantile. Denise Richards' character, although beautiful, was also poor.
DAD I never managed to watch all of the way through.
I'm sure that most people (possibly everybody) will have higher opinions of the films than me but have they declined a little in terms of public opinion since their release?
I will be perfectly honest and say that I never liked any of them.
That's not to say that Goldeneye was a bad film because it was probably very good. It just wasn't for me.
TND was less impressive though and both of the Carvers were poor.
When I went to the cinema to see TWINE I wasn't impressed either. Many things such as the Christmas joke, the joke about Goldie's Teeth etc. seemed crowbarred in and the idea of the x-ray specs was really infantile. Denise Richards' character, although beautiful, was also poor.
DAD I never managed to watch all of the way through.
I'm sure that most people (possibly everybody) will have higher opinions of the films than me but have they declined a little in terms of public opinion since their release?
Comments
Brosnan's my favorite Bond, and he did a fine job acting in all of his movies, especially GE, but the movie qualities on the whole, save GE, weren't the best.
Tomorrow Never Dies - Below-average Bond film. Not bad by all means, but nothing special either. Dragged on in places. Story somewhat stupid, I wasn't buying Carver's media nonesense. Didn't like Wai Lin at all. Stamper was a cheap Red Grant clone. Dr Kaufman was great, but only in it for a short while. One of my least favourite Bond films, but not bad by all means.
The World Is Not Enough - Same as TND, below-average Bond film. However, the PTS was brilliant, and one of the best. Unfortunately, the film went downhill from there. Just found it quite boring. I'm not keen on Renard, but really like Elektra King. I liked how M had a larger than average role. Enjoyed her part in the story. Possibly better than TND, but only a tiny, tiny bit. Nothing special really. But watchable.
Die Another Day - Definitely the worst Brosnan film, and one of the worst of the lot. CGI, Jinx, Invisible Car, Slow-Motion scenes are just a few things that completely ruin the film.
Overall ranking...
1 GE
2 TWINE
3 TND
4 DAD
Overall, Brosnan era was probably my least favourite. With the exception of GE of course.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Goldeneye- a terrific first film for Brosnan and a great comeback after a 5 year absence. The score grates on me and the character of Boris is not to my taste, but other than that, I have no grumbles. This has the best action of the Brosnan films, imho- subsequent films had bigger setpieces but they certainly weren't better, imho. Love the tank chase and the fight between Bond and Trevelyan towards the end, and I have to say, the characters of Alec Trevelyan and Xenia Onatopp are two of the best villains of the series for me. Robbie Coltrane's performance as gangster Zukovsky is wonderfully larger than life and hugely entertaining, as well. None of Brosnan's others come close as a whole, imho. 4.5/5 (my grumbles are minor, though)
The World Is Not Enough- the best of the rest, but still flawed. The opening pre-titles scene is excellent, Elektra is one of the most intriguing female characters there has ever been and Brosnan is great throughout, imho. Very pleased to see Robbie Coltrane back but also quite sad to see him go too. BUT, I feel Renard's ruthlessness was not fully exploited, the character of Christmas Jones is a poor role (imho) and the opening pre-titles scene aside, I find all the action to be big, brash but uninteresting.
3.5/5 (some excellent ideas but falls short of the mark, imho)
Tomorrow Never Dies- this is a film that simply does not work as a whole, imho. The first half is intriguing- I liked the relationship between Bond and Paris Carver, and the scene where Bond turns the tables on Dr Kaufman is one of my favourites- but it loses the plot completely in the second half to the point it seems like another director has taken over. The emphasis on character and plot is gazumped by one overblown action scene after another and the balance is poor- I get bored by this relentless action. Jonathan Pryce goes way over the top at times as Elliot Carver, as well, going into the brattish, hammy mode that I don't like in Bond villains (and will unfortunately reach a nadir in DAD).
2.5/5 (seeing as I don't like the 2nd half much at all, but the first half is intriguing)
Die Another Day- well, this is perhaps the most criticised film on the whole site and I cannot disagree, sadly. I liked the scene at the start where Bond is captured and the way he is disowned by the secret service...but then, nothing. Not one of the action scenes does anything for me, the dialogue is woeful, Brosnan goes through the motions a bit (imho), but his is the best performance compared to everyone else- imho, Gustav Graves was THE poorest villain of the series; sulky, petulant and brattish without a shred of dignity, and the Bond girls were poorly written characters. It's all bombast, and little heart, imho.
2/5 (and I think I'm being generous)
So overall, I don't think this was a golden era for the Bond franchise. Too much emphasis on pyrotechnics, which pleased many reviewers at the time but it fails to do it for me. For the record, I find Brosnan to be an excellent Bond- it's just a shame that none of his films were (imho) save 'Goldeneye'. Overall, this is maybe my least favourite era of the series as well as a whole- the maligned Moore era had much, much more to praise it, imho of course.
I much prefer the older films, most prominently the 60's. They seem more original.
DAD was utter b*lls, just totally unrealistic.
-{
2 - TWINE
3 - THD
4 - DAD
Obviously you've never viewed American news programs.
With the success of Daniel Craig and Casino Royale there is a backlash on Pierce Brosnan and his films - quite frankly, rightly so...
I know it was a major undertaking to keep the franchise going after Cubby left. He left big shoes to fill and had the magic touch. But the crop of four films between Licence to Kill and Casino Royale were very poor. I would say only the first half of TND actually felt like a Bond film of the old school. And there were so many bad casting, directing, script decisions that this era really does deserve to be reappraised honestly. It doesnt even get a thumbs up technically as the cgi of DAD stank the place up to high heaven.
And what about the lead?
There is no doubt he was successful. After the "perceived" failure of our Tim amongst the media he brought in the punters. If you stuck his face and Halle Berrys together on a magazine you got people through the turnstyles. From a fans perspective I found him terribly bland and rather a limited actor. There wasnt the elegant growl of Connery, the humour of Moore or the dash of Dalton, or the struggling thug stuffed into a dinner jacket that is our man Craig. Just what was the Brozza Bond?
Goldeneye - well, most people love it. I thought it was OK at the time and only saw it once - which is never a good sign for me. The problem for me is Sean Bean, I mean - its Sean Bean. Its not Alec Trevelyan - its Sean Bean. I couldnt get past this despite Bruce Feinsteins sharp dialogue. Other then that Bond by numbers with a memorable vamp and an unmemorable plot. No rewatch value.
TND - I rather like the bit in Germany. The confrontation with Dr Kaufman and Vincent Schiavellis performance is one of the highlights of the Brosnan era. But the Carvers are awful. You have to believe the menace of the villain for him to be a memorable threat. I got the impression Jonathan Pryce wasnt taken it seriously. And Wai Lin? Yawn we've seen it all before..
TWINE - starts well with a fun chase along the Thames and goes tits up about when Christmas Jones appears. I can cope with a playgirl centrefold nuclear physicist its the sheer lack of narrative I cant cope with. Why does Bull plant that bomb in the Istanbul safe house? Why does M go running off to Kazakstan or wherever? Its a muddle messy film with utterly uninterestig villains. A dud.
DAD - I have calmly laid out why I think it is dreck on other threads and I will only say about the worse Bond film in the franchise is that it is about as useful as a one legged man in an arsekicking contest. Woeful.
He reached his peak too soon and the scripts, acting and effects coudlnt cut the mustard
lets hope the same will not happen to Daniel Craig. im sure it wont he seems alot more focused and determined than Brosnan as well as being a more accomplished actor.
Brosnan was ok for me as a lil lad in ireland entering my teens. now that im exiting them, i can see why people thought he was sleazy, cheesy and ran like a wet mop.
still love the guy though (contradiction i know but eh.) hes the Bond i grew up with and will always have a soft spot for the films even though my head is telling me to turn em off
He went steeply down hill with TND, I like a lot of things in TND but the really poor villains especially Stamper and Dr Kauffman and the knock off plot bring it down a great deal.
TWINE is a step up from TND IMO, it's great fun to watch and I like the villains and the return of Zukovsky but there is something missing from it that I can't put my finger on. Maybe that there is nothing trully memorable about it.
DAD, mmm, what can be said about this hash of a Bond film. I love the PTS and the majority of the first 3rd of the film but the finale and lead up are laughable at best. I enjoyed it at the cinema but struggle to watch it all the way through now, it loses me when Bond leaves Cuba.
I think Brosan could have been the Best Bond since Connery, but he's let down by poor films.
1)GE: a brilliant Bond film, and the best since TSWLM. The only things that ruin it are the constant psychoanalyzing and M's 'misogynistic dinosaur' speech. Other than that, I think it is an extremely fresh, highly exciting, brilliantly acted, superbly written (more or less) and simply a brilliant Bond film. I don't think it's an absolute masterpiece (like the first four films, OHMSS and TSWLM) but that's solely due to the repetitive psychoanalyzing. (It seems that Campbell loves psychoanalyzing; CR featured more than its fair share.
2)TWINE-I've talked about this more times than any other Brosnan film (apart from DAD
3)TND-Average. It does have some great elements (the fight scene at the party, the car chase and the scene with Dr Kaufman) but it just feels so derivitive. This is very much Bond by numbers and is made worse by it having one of the all-time worst villains as well as the dreadful Wai Lin; the first Bond girl with that horrible 'I'm the female Bond' attitude which Jinx would perfect.
4)DAD-A horror. IMO the third worst Bond film of all time (only AVTAK and TLD are worst.) How bad is DAD? DAD is a film that is so terrible that it makes TND look like a masterpiece. 8-)
I think that Brosnan was a magnificent Bond, and one who produced superb performance in all his films, however he was let down by his material. Putting aside TND and DAD, TWINE, whilst very good, was simply not great; while even GE was not an absolute masterpiece that Brosnan deserved. I do think that he had some great (and at times magnificent) material, but at the end of the day, I ask myself the following question: For the best film from each actor, can I detect any noticable flaws? For Connery and Moore, the answer (at least for me) is no, however, for Brosnan, the answer is yes.
I agree though that there was an awful veneer of political correctness in deliberately having a 'female Bond' counterpart with both Wai Lin and Jinx. Both characters (Linx especially) are not fan favourites because they try too hard. The press/publicity spoke of previous Bond girls as if they were ALL bimbos compared to Wai Lin and Jinx- which is certainly not true of Pussy Galore, Tracy Di Vincenzo, Melina Havelock or 'Agent Triple X' to name a mere handful. All are far more satisfying characters than the contrived ones of Linx and Wai Lin, imho.
That's a bit unfair though. I mean, yes, DAD was technically terrible but, if you exclude it, I think that the Brosnan era was great on a technical level. (Particularly in GE and TND.)
He was a brilliant all-rounder; that is, a Sobers-type Bond as opposed to a specialist like perhaps Connery or Moore. I also think he added a bit of a new-age sensibility of his own and was IMO the second best Bond of all time (after Connery) and only the third truly great Bond (after Connery and Moore.) (From an acting perspective, while I don't consider him to have been the best actor to play Bond, with that honour going to Connery, I do think he is a really good as well as an extremely underrated actor.)
Some of us did. A law of extrememly diminishing returns. And due to Casino Royales success the Brosnan era does seem to be reappraised. There seems to be thread after thread on Commanderbond.net and MI6. Even the title of this thread suggests reappraisal.
The problem is the effects were so bad that it cancels out the good work they did on the other movies. I never thought the Bonds would have been bashed over production design.It would never have happened under John Stears or Derek "I can build a miniature for that" Meddings
Thats the problem. He's a "greatest hits" package with no identity of his own. The David Tennant of the 007 canon.
Very interesting that on the Commander Bond forum there's a discussion that covers exactly the same topic we are discussing here.
Dalton got more than his share of good reviews. Timeout described him as a 'Buchanite romantic hero' after TLD. The Observer's Philip French admired his 'saturninity,' and in his recent review of CR still rated him higher than Daniel Craig. I don't remember too many complaints about Dalton at the time. It was only when the distance between LTK and the next Bond film kept widening that Dalton began to get it. Brosnan got ecstatic reviews for GE. And now that he has been replaced he too is yesterday's hero. I suspect the same thing will happen when Craig's stint is over.
Why shouldnt action Steve be allowed to reappraise the Brosnan era? Opinions dont need to be static, and it was 12 years ago that people first judge GoldenEye.
As for Brosnan, he was the type of Bond who reminded me of a cartoon version of 007. He had the charm, the looks and the one liners. But it reminded me almost of a greatest hits - as if someone had taken everything that had been done before except refilmed it as if it were in the 90's. Brosnan also didnt offer the role anything new - he had Connery's charm, Moore's comedy and Dalton's darker edge. But he didnt have anything that he did better than everyone else.
The other thing that got me with Brosnan (and maybe Craig, we'll need to see) was that the producers relied too much on the Bond formula. They always went something like - cue Girl number 1, Cue the car, Cue M making a comment about how women play a larger role nowadays, or how the world has changed. Cue Girl number 2 - who is significantly more self assured than the girls that have gone before.
As a result, look at who you get as henchmen! Mr Stamper, Zao and Renard. Out of four movies, only one had a good main henchman (Xenia.)
Of the main villians, was any of them as threatening as Goldfinger, Sanchez or Blofeld. Graves and Carver certainly werent. Elektra - perhaps. Trevelyan, maybe - if hed actually had screen time.
The girls; Wai Lin, Jinx, Christmas! Wow, never had i so wanted to ignore such beutiful girls. Like henchmen, only one good girl of the four movies.
And why in GE and TND (also TWINE if you know where to loom) was Bond driving the DB5? I can understand that its a nice car and all, but it just felt like the producers were making another attempt to remind us that its a James Bond movie. But then again, thats all the Pierce Brosnan movies did.
I think he had an identity of his own. He took what made Bond so great IMO and perfected it, as well as adding a new-age sensibility. I think he was perfect for the end of the 20th century/beginning of the 21st century.
But its not just me. I cited Commanderbond.net and MI6 as starting threads on the same topic. Alot of people kept quiet about their disatisfaction about the Brosnan era. The James Bond British fan club recently run an article on how it didnt quite work (absolving Brosnan from blame naturally). Its defenders are those who grew up with the era and it is there introduction to Bond. Fair enough, I find myself defending Diamonds and Golden Gun the same way.
Oh, and its actonsteve - not actionsteve. I'm not that sad....
Not quite true. My introduction to Bond was Connery and Moore, yet I think that Brosnan was a brilliant Bond.
My apologies.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
1 goldeneye I think one of the best of the series.
2 twine I liked the film even though it certaintly did have its problems.
3 tnd I have alit of problems with this film, starting with the villian mr. Carver,
4 dad absolutley the worst of the brosnam era, way to far over the top.