Was Pierce Brosnan the victim of Bad Bond movies?

perdogg · April 2011

How can really be a good James Bond in movies such as "Die Another Day" and "Tomorrow never Dies"? He wasn't my favorite Bond, but Sean Connery would have never survive in such movies.

Thunderpussy · April 2011

I think every Bond Actor ( whos has done more than two films ) has had some Movies that could of been better,
Connery had , YOLT and DAF. I enjoy them but Connery looks Bored.
Moore had, TMWTGG, a very poor Bond outing
Brosnan had DAD ( IMHO), The first half I enjoyed the second went down hill fast.

But I do agree Brosnan had some of the weakest scripts and did the Best he could. Even though Movies are a team project, it's the poor old Actor who gets all the flack for the weaker Movies.

mrbain007 · April 2011

I personally enjoyed Pierce's first 3 films and wouldn't describe them as bad. However, with the exception of GE they probably could have been better.

I really don't like the way the poor chap is being hounded by a lot of fans though (*cough* MI6 *cough"). Especially since he was the man who started my love for Bond.

Tracy · April 2011

Brosnan was given poor material to work with after GE; I love the first half of TWINE where he has an interesting story to work with, but once Denise Richards shows up it all goes downhill. There are certain moments that I enjoy in each movie; otherwise, it seems he's kept around to look attractive and toss of more contemporary one liners with anyone who appears on screen. Brosnan had charisma, but there just weren't enough moments to really explore his full range as an actor the way that Dalton had for his films.

broadshoulder · April 2011

The thing is they were written FOR him, except GE which was written for a new Bond/Dalton.

The films were tailored to his Bond - the not so taxing plots, the witty oneliners, the take-not-seriously villains just as Daniels films are tailored to him and Rogs' films were tailored to him.

He wasnt a strong Bond. He was a generic Bond. The only one who didnt bring anything new to the table so his films had to rely on spectacle, bad puns and bangs and flashes.Unfortunately Eon seemd to be sleeping on the job or Purvis and Wade spent too much time down the pub as his films got more and more rubbish. TND was choppy, TWINE was all over the place and DAD - well, the world knows wha tthe problems are there?

I cant help thinking a stronger Bond ala Tim or Sean would have meant we would not have gone down this path. They would have had the cojones to change direction.

So, yes - alot of it was down to the Brosnan character of Bond. Not the victim, but maybe one of the many causes.

Golrush007 · April 2011

I think you make a compelling argument, Broadshoulder.

I have often taken the view that perhaps Pierce was poorly served by his scripts, but there is also the fact that he is a kind of amalgamation of elements of earlier Bond actors - Halfway between Connery and Moore. I think the net result is perhaps a 'less than the sum of its parts' type situation. However, let us not forget that it was a version of Bond which proved a hit with fans, and it is only really since Craig's arrival that people seem to have shifted so dramatically away from Brosnan to the point of almost always putting him down.

His legacy is a series of four entertaining, but uneven films which show an uncertainty on the part of the filmmakers about which direction to take Bond. I think this can perhaps be attributed to the generic persona of Brosnan's Bond.

Le Samourai · April 2011

I tend to be in the same camp as Broadshoulder and Golrush007. While I basically enjoyed PB's first three Bond films, there was always a timidity to his performance. When I first saw GE, I felt that Brosnan came across as playing Bond, not being Bond. I don't think he really settled into the role until TWINE.

My guess is PB wanted to bring something new to the role, but didn't want to risk alienating a segment the movie-going public. He didn't want to be Timothy Dalton. So he played Bond in a middle-of-the-road sort of way which was both inoffensive but also somewhat bland.

Don't think I'm just slamming Brosnan. I can sort of understand where he was coming through. Playing Bond must involve all sorts of pressure. I also do think PB could have done more with the role if he had been both allowed and motivated to do so. I wish his Bond had incorporated some elements of his excellent performance as a KGB agent in "The Fourth Protocol."

Thunderbird 2 · April 2011

I always frown when I see threads asking if a particular Bond actor was naff, or their films are naff. The fact each one did more than one, (Lazenby excepted) is proof that they were popular, and their work continued. Each one is different, but none of them were bad. I have to say TWINE had some excellent emotive scenes for Brosnan, the dynamics between Bond and M in the Underground station facility in DAD were top notch. Stage quality from both of them.

To me, These are the bad Bond movies for each actor: DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD, and QoS. DAD had too much tech and gadgetry, QoS was shot badly and made little sense, the others were generally weak across the board.

mrbain007 · April 2011

I must admit I always get a little upset inside when I see people badmouthing PB. He may be generic, a "greatest hits" Bond or whatever but he's probably influenced my love for the series the most (sorry Sean lol).

In MY mind he had the essentials for Bond:
-the indulgence
-the gentlemanly swagger
-the ruthlessness when the job required it
-the wit/charisma

I BELIEVED he WAS Bond in other words :x

I suppose I can understand why he may be criticised by some, but he was right FOR THE TIME (something we forget nowadays). In 1995 people wanted someone with a panache and cheeky sense of fun, not just a dark moody Bond.

Frankly part of me does miss that.

thesecretagent · April 2011

I thought Brosnan was a good Bond. I liked the first three films, although some parts of TWINE annoy me, but that's not Brosnan's fault. The first half of DAD is enjoyable...

DangerMouse · April 2011

Given the script he wanted, Brosnan could've really, if not more, shone as Bond. Then again, at least he's done three good films to go on.

Andy007 · April 2011

It's fair to say he was victim of 2 bad films - TND and DAD, however like other comments, i'm not sure he brought anything new to the role. He seemed like a blend of Connery & Moore which makes him a good Bond, but not the best. His films & persona on the role does seem generic. But the general public took him very well, his films made huge money & he was great for the franchise.
But personally i'd have been happy to see Dalton do 2 more films. I prefer the tougher Bonds like Dalton, Craig & Connery to Brosnan.

Richard--W · April 2011

Was Pierce Brosnan the victim of Bad Bond movies?

In a word, Yes.

More to the point, the character of James Bond -- the very concept of him and his literary / cinematic world -- is the real victim of Bad and Misguided Bond movies.

Was Pierce Brosnan the victim of Bad Bond movies?

Comments