I liked Bronsan's films. They were loud, splashy, silly, and, most importantly, fun. They knew exactly what they were doing and were having a blast doing it.
Which is all very well if thats what you like. But they (and other films in the franchise) were totally divorced from the original source materiel. And if one cares about that then those films didn't work.
But they're an adaptation
of the character from the books, not a slavish copy. And apart from anything else, Brosnan's movies weren't based on any of the Fleming books, so why shouldn't they differ from the source material?
Fleming was a racist snob so I have no difficulty with the movies not adopting his viewpoint. Though to be fair, while he originally opposed the casting of Connery as Bond, he later said that if he had the chance to re-write them, he'd make Bond more like Connery. His books were full of name-dropping and product placement, so the charge that Brosnan's movies consisted of too much product placement is also a little ill-founded, IMHO.
The 007 most like that of the books was arguably Dalton and while I like his performances, his tenure didn't set the world on fire.