Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

[Ovation]

I willingly admit that when it comes to Bond, I don't watch with a critical eye--I've enjoyed them all (some more than others, naturally). Bond watching, for me, began as a tradition when I was 8--ABC would show Bond movies on a regular basis on Sunday nights and I would watch them with my dad. No matter how silly or far-fetched they got, they were "Bond". And that was enough. So while I've certainly turned a critical eye over the years on number of things I used to blithely accept, I've chosen to spare Bond movies from that stance. If a truly awful one is ever made, I'll likely ignore it, but even Moonraker and A View to a Kill (the two worst ones in the franchise) have their moments. As for Brosnan, I think he made a fine Bond and, while he'd likely disagree, I think it was good that the Remington Steele contractual nonsense delayed his appearance as Bond--he would not have carried it off as well, IMO.

 

[Samurai8472]

Brikar99 said:
I love "Goldeneye", and I dig "Tomorrow Never Dies" and "The World is Not Enough". "Die Another Day" is a little too silly for my tastes, though when the mood strikes me, I can totally get into it.

Goldeneye- I can watch multiple times

Tommorow never dies- Okay for mindless action

The world is not enough- lights out for me once the pre title sequence is over

Die another day- Watched my dvd once then never watched it again

 

[Captain Craig]

TedShatner10 said:

Was the Brosnan era a successful period of the Bond franchise?

Speaking financially it was very succesful and kickstarted the franchise from the stagnation it was in following the Dalton Bonds and legal issues.

I'd say it was a very mixed bag...

Now your getting into subjective opinion and that is where, as you can see from the posts, ones idea of success differs.


Me, I loved them all and wish Brosnan had gotten at least a 5th film. The Broccoli kids came in and wanted to put their fingerprints on the series so we have what we have. Which isn't bad but Daniel Craig just reeks of the producers trying to emulate Bourne. Plus Craig looks nothing like the cinematic Bond we've come to know nor does it contain the other Bond accoutrements(Q,Moneypenny), again it wants to be Bourne.

I know the now cliche arguments about how this is more closer to the spirit of Flemings early BOND, so, I stil like my tweaked cinematic BOND over Bourne2.0

 

[Samurai8472]

Captain Craig said:

Me, I loved them all and wish Brosnan had gotten at least a 5th film.

I think Casino Royale, with a bit of tweaking could have worked for Brosnan's established bond.

Lechiffre is financing terrorists

Bond goes to investigate

Bond goes to casino

etc etc

 

[Roshi]

Samurai8472 said:

The world is not enough - Watched my dvd once then never watched it again

Die another day - lights out for me once the pre title sequence is over

 

[adv1701]

He's a close second to Sean Connery.His attitude and approach to the character was really faithful.The movies were entertaining and met expectations.

 

[FPAlpha]

Brosnan was the epitome of how i always envisioned Bond to be.. a great looking guy (hetero myself but damn is Brosnan looking fine in a tux), suave, charming yet ruthless when he has to be.

Sadly.. most of the Bond movies were just suckage beyond teh suck.

Now i know that Bond movies aren't exactly Shakespeare or even Oscar material but for the most part they are very entertaining.. the right mix of humor, action, gadgets and gorgeous women.

So i don't expect too much but when i saw Tomorrow never dies at the movies it was the first time i really got angry having spent money on a movie.
Atrocious, recycled plot.. even more atrocious product placements (honestly.. a brand spanking new BMW motorcycle in the middle of some asian slum and the keys are still in it?) and forgetable women/henchmen/main villain.

It was only topped by Die Another Day with the worst Bond song ever (i quite like Madonna but this song was bad beyond redemption), a cloaking car , yet another superweapon etc.
The movie started awesome with Bond fucking up a mission and getting captured. M drops him like she should (hey.. that's the job and Bond knew it), he gets tortured and breaks out only to find that MI6 won't reaccept him.
I thought that would be a cool movie.. Bond on his own. No gadgets, money to throw around. Just him, his natural skills and his target.
20 minutes into the movie it was like a standard Bond movie and i internally quit the franchise.

It is a testament to the entire Bond franchise and the sorry state it was after Brosnan that it took a totally different direction and style to re-energize Bond and they did it very, very well with Craig and Casino Royale (can't wait for his 2nd Bond movie).

To sum it up.. Brosnan as Bond=teh awesome.. his movies=teh suck.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

Captain Craig said:
Daniel Craig just reeks of the producers trying to emulate Bourne.

I didn't think Casino Royale, which had long dramatic stretches like the card game, some of the train scenes, etc., was anything like the hyper-kinetic, shakycam, nonstop action Bourne movies. The only similarity between the two was the overall serious tone, IMO.

Plus Craig looks nothing like the cinematic Bond we've come to know

All of the previous Bond actors looked completely different. There wasn't a single "cinematic Bond" look.

nor does it contain the other Bond accoutrements(Q,Moneypenny)

Neither did the Fleming novel that the movie was based on. It was simply being true to the original source material.

I know the now cliche arguments about how this is more closer to the spirit of Flemings early BOND

It may be a cliché, but its only repeated often because it's true. The producers deliberately attempted to craft a film that captured the spirit of Fleming's 007 and get away, somewhat, from the cartoonish Bond we saw in movies like Die Another Day, Moonraker, etc.

so, I stil like my tweaked cinematic BOND over Bourne2.0

No one said you couldn't. Plenty of folks prefer other Bond movies and don't like Casino Royale, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mooch]

Kegek said:As uneven as the films were, Pierce Brosnan exuded a likeable charisma and genuine charm that in my eye made him the best Bond since Connery. But the films were, sadly even at best not outstanding.

That would be my opinion as well. Great Bond, mostly bad movies. I liked GoldenEye the best.

 

[Captain Craig]

CaptJimboJones said:

Captain Craig said:
Daniel Craig just reeks of the producers trying to emulate Bourne.

I didn't think Casino Royale, which had long dramatic stretches like the card game, some of the train scenes, etc., was anything like the hyper-kinetic, shakycam, nonstop action Bourne movies. The only similarity between the two was the overall serious tone, IMO.

Plus Craig looks nothing like the cinematic Bond we've come to know

All of the previous Bond actors looked completely different. There wasn't a single "cinematic Bond" look.

nor does it contain the other Bond accoutrements(Q,Moneypenny)

Neither did the Fleming novel that the movie was based on. It was simply being true to the original source material.

I know the now cliche arguments about how this is more closer to the spirit of Flemings early BOND

It may be a cliché, but its only repeated often because it's true. The producers deliberately attempted to craft a film that captured the spirit of Fleming's 007 and get away, somewhat, from the cartoonish Bond we saw in movies like Die Another Day, Moonraker, etc.

so, I stil like my tweaked cinematic BOND over Bourne2.0

No one said you couldn't. Plenty of folks prefer other Bond movies and don't like Casino Royale, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I knew someone would do this, the "dissect respond".
I gave my opinion I stand by it, not trying to change anyone elses.
I'll see Quantum of Solace but its a spy movie to me not so much Bond really.

 

[Barbados Slim]

davejames said:
Overrated or not, the only one I really liked was Goldeneye.

The others suffered from weak villains and increasingly silly and over the top action sequences. Which is a shame, because Pierce Brosnan deserved SO much better. He was a badass James Bond.

This is how I feel. I'd add that the other three also had weak Bond girls. Izabella Scurpco and Femke Jannsen were the best Brosnan girls.

Brosnan was just Bond at a time when the franchise had a creative slump.

 

[MyCylon]

Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

I always think that it's a shame what they did with the Brosnan Bond. I think Brosnan was a terrific fit for the part (he might actually be my favorite Bond actor) but for the most part they supplied him with sub-par movies IMHO:

- Goldeneye: Ok-ish but not what I'd have hoped for, really.
- Tomorrow never dies: This is the one Brosnan Bond I think is REALLY good. It's up there with the best in the franchise, I think, because it's terrific fun and, probably more importantly, because (as Kegek pointed out) Yeoh plays a fantastic Bond girl who's actually cool and interesting (unlike what would follow in the next two movies...).
- The World is not enough: Yawn. I remember watching this and just being bored to tears. The one very vivid memory I have (besides the awful Christmas joke) is the fact that they seemed bent on blowing everything up that looked like it might explode if you attached a bomb to it. Ridiculous and dull IMHO.
- Die another day: This is one of maybe two or three movies where I came really, really close to walking out of the movie theater. Apart from the fact that it was so incredibly over the top that I felt it was simply too much, it was also (and more importantly) filled to the brim with stupid, sleezy remarks - worse than Bond movies from the 60's. No thank you.

So, essentially, I think it's a real shame that Brosnan never got movies on par with what I think he'd have deserved. As an aside, I also think it's a shame that Cleese never got the chance to be in a good Bond movie since I really liked him as Q's replacement. I will say that I'm glad he wasn't in Casino Royale, however, since I think it just wouldn't have worked with the direction they've taken.

 

[Robotpo]

Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

Personally, I thought "GoldenEye" was pretty good, never saw "Tomorrow Never Dies," thought "The World is Not Enough" was meandering and thoughtless, and rather enjoyed "Die Another Day," purely from an action stand-point. But overall, I really like Brosnan in general and agree with those who feel he was the best Bond since Connery.

Technically, Brosnan sort-of made a fifth appearance as Bond is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_007:_Everything_or_Nothing
I understand this was a pretty good game, and had a cast to rival any of the later Bond films. I guess this is the closest we'll get to another Brosnan Bond movie...

 

[Starbreaker]

Re: Pierces Brosnan’s Tenure as James Bond…

I think GoldenEye is the best of the lot, with Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day being pretty good films. I never cared for The World is Not Enough.

 

[StarMan]

Emh said:
GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies are excellent James Bond movies, but the other two are...not.

Sums it up for me; Sean Bean was an excellent antagonist.

 

[TedShatner10]

I liked Sean Bean, he played the resourceful ex-SIS agent turned crime lord well, but his character's motives and origin were too far fetched and illogical even by James Bond standards. And it could've worked better in my mind if Trevelyan was British and was captured by Janus instead, rather than faked his death (but was "turned" in Janus' captivity).

 

[Good Will Riker]

^^^

Sean Bean is probably the 007 villain to be the most successful at generating the same type of debonair on-screen "sex appeal" as 007.

There were villains who were perhaps more memorable, such as Auric Goldfinger, but generating "sex appeal?" The only other that came even remotely close to that was Gustav Graves, and he came across quite obnoxious in "Die Another Day."

 

[GoofCustom]

I think the biggest problem with Goldeneye is Eric Serra's score. It really doesn't sound like a Bond soundtrack at all. David Arnold, while he tends to overuse the Bond theme (with the exception of Casino Royale) did a much better job on the later films.


Still, it's probably the strongest Brosnan films. It helps, I think, when they hire mostly unknowns as Bond girls such as those in Goldeneye and Casino Royale (and that's pretty much the case with Quantum as well). Teri Hatcher, Halle Berry, Michelle Yeoh and Denise Richards were all fairly well-known actresses before Bond, and that hurt the later Brosnans.

 

[Good Will Riker]

^^^

They all wanted "a piece of that."

Unfortunately, most of those "famous women" endedup being some of the worst Bond girls in the franchise's history.

 

[HRHTheKING]

All of Brosnan's movies were good as 007.

Die Another Day was the weakest for the following reasons:

- Halle Berry, she added nothing useful to the film.
- Madonna's pointless and crap cameo.
- Overkill of crappy SFX.