Brosnan - What went wrong?

MilleniumForce · November 2015

Brosnan's time as Bond is rather tragic, honestly. He had one great film, one really good film, and two sub par films (if you look at my ranking of the film's below, you can probably figure out which one is which). And he was great as Bond. He had potential to be the best Bond. So, what went wrong?

I'll start with TND. TND was a refreshing entry in the franchise; both LTK and GE felt like different approaches to the franchise, taking the series out of the 'adventure' type Bond films and grounded them more in reality. TND undid this, with the return of gadgets, a villain with an outrageous plan and a more light hearted tone. Not a bad move, this is really what Brosnan's films should have been. It was bringing the classic type of Bond film into the present, something we wouldn't see done successfully again until SP.

So, the turn. TWINE. This film just couldn't decide what it wanted to be. Grounded in reality, or big and adventurous? Dark or light hearted? It just didn't have the feel of a Bond film, there was no spirit or atmosphere. It was just.....bland. Brosnan really needed something along the lines of FYEO or OHMSS, a film that wasn't too outrageous but had the charm a Bond film needs.

And finally, the one that jumped the shark. Virtual reality, DNA changing, ice palaces, laser beams, robot suits and invisible cars.........and of course, surfing. DAD is rather sad. The franchise's 40th anniversary, the 20th film.....and we get this. This was a time of celebration. This should have been Brosnan's best. His Goldfinger. His The Spy Who Loved Me. But, it was just too silly. This should have been a film that should be in everyone's top 10, but instead turned out to be a film disliked by many. What a sad note to leave on for Brosnan. He had such good potential, but it just couldn't be done right.

Now, the run Brosnan should have had. TWINE ahould have been more like TND, followed by a film to top them all. Something that really showed that Bond was still strong and going. And after this, Brosnan should have had another great one to go out on, one that would end his run on a high note.

So, what did go wrong? The films were having an identity crisis. Did they want to be like Dalton? Like Connery? Like Moore? Obviously this couldn't be decided, and were left with the films (well, his last two anyway) that turned his run into a mis match of films, that really didn't fit well.

broadshoulder · November 2015

Quite a lot went wrong

I will be posting my thoughts on him later

eric7064 · November 2015

I think the era he was Bond honestly had alot to do with it. I also think as do many others that the scripts were very poor.

I honestly think if Brosnan had his own CR he would have owned it. I think he looks the most like Bond and acts the most like Bond in my eyes. I think he could have done a darker grittier Bond like Craig and still been able to deliver the humor.

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

To me there are many issues surrounding the Brosnan Bonds:

1. The hiatus disrupted the need for Bond to come back as being anything a continuation of Dalton's edgier portrayal. GE is a great film, but essentially pretty formulaic - this leads into TND too (based on the success, they almost doubled-down on the formula).

2. The 90s to me represents a bit of a creative lull for Bond. The action films of the era are pretty generic anyway because of the increase in budgets and special effects. They're just action porn - this really translates in TND in particular. Thinking of True Lies here. Bond didn't really need to do much other than give people a good time, because that's what they basically needed to rely on. They also had the brit-pop revival here which was particularly evident in TND.

3. Changing of the guard - crew settling in etc. There's little continuity between the writers of Brozza's first 3 films. David Arnold gets going in TND. Directors come and go. Cubby is gone. All seems like a transition phase.

4. Pierce, while I love the guy and enjoy his portrayal as Bond - is probably the weakest in terms of influence on the character. He seems to mostly just do what he's told as opposed to a real personality coming from everyone else.

IMO, TWINE is the strongest of the Brosnan Bonds, at least because the storyline is challenging and interesting. It's my favourite Bond film overall. I just wish one more Brosnan film was as strong and as "creative" (in comparison with his others) as that.

Brosnan had to deal with mixed up production and changing tastes - he carried this pretty well IMO.

eric7064 · November 2015

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

2. The 90s to me represents a bit of a creative lull for Bond. The action films of the era are pretty generic anyway because of the increase in budgets and special effects. They're just action porn - this really translates in TND in particular. Thinking of True Lies here. Bond didn't really need to do much other than give people a good time, because that's what they basically needed to rely on.

That is what I was going off of and I think is really the main reason. It's the era the movies were in. 90's action film.

Jag · November 2015

Brosnan was the last of classic Bonds, and with his departure an era came to an end. His movies were nowhere as bad as some suggest here. But the problem is, as usual, with writing. Someone writes the script, someone accepts it, and someone has to direct it.

Agent Purple · November 2015

@OP: Bear in mind that there are people who love TWINE and DAD. Bond fandom is diverse and what one fan dislikes may be liked by another.

I get the impression that one common complaint about the Brosnan Era is that there was too much emphasis on action and too little on story. And how much action or story you want in a Bond film is a subjective crieria which will inevitably affect your perception of it.

Take the Moore Era. A lot of fans complain that it had too much humor. But there are fans that love that aspect of Moore's movies.

Many fans love the character development present in the Craig Era. But some fans don't really care that much for that sort of thing.

So to say that the Brosnan Era "went wrong" merely implies that, according to you, it went wrong.

We constantly nitpick Bond films from different eras according to what WE would have wanted in these movies. Should MR have been more serious? Should TMWTGG have excluded that martial arts school? Should QoS ave had better editing? Should the invisible car in DAD been avoided? Should GE's score have been done by someone other than Eric Serra?

My point is, what you accept or reject from a Bond film is up to you.

I prob would've liked to change some things in Brozzer's films, but I can watch all 4 of them, so it's no big deal for me.

Devereaux · November 2015

eric7064 wrote:

I think the era he was Bond honestly had alot to do with it. I also think as do many others that the scripts were very poor.

I honestly think if Brosnan had his own CR he would have owned it. I think he looks the most like Bond and acts the most like Bond in my eyes. I think he could have done a darker grittier Bond like Craig and still been able to deliver the humor.

Absolutely. I would've loved to have seen a Brosnan CR. He can certainly play the darker roles as shown in The November Man, and elements of his character in Survivor. There is no doubting his ability to deliver the humour, and I still imagine him as Bond now.

caractacus potts · November 2015

primarily, the scripts
they all had good story concepts at their root, each with some clever formula-defying twists, but by the time they got filmed those stories were fragmented beyond coherence by all the sprawling action setpieces

I noticed it as soon as I saw GoldenEye in the theatre, they establish a new location, theres a bit of exposition, then they spend 20 minutes blowing up that location, repeat about six times, adds up to two hours

thats the reason I too think The World Is Not Enough is the best of the four, the largely original story manages to stand above all the explosions moreso than the others

also the constant change of directors means there is no consistent tone, like we can talk about the tone of a Roger Moore movie

I think the problems were internal, not due to historic context ... Dalton's problems were due to audiences not caring about the Bond thing anymore, the 1980s were very earnest times and people I knew really did avoid the films because of the alleged sexist/imperialist/capitalist propaganda

whereas when GoldenEye came out, people embraced the whole mythos, "girls", guns and all, and I personally was running with an even more PC crowd in those days ... culturally, I think the 90s were more ironic, and pop culture could be enjoyed despite all the outdated stereotypes so long as one was aware, and that first film certainly did acknowledge, in-dialog, all the critiques people had been making over the last decade, and audiences I knew ate it up cuz it was knowing and self-referential, and genuinely fun to be back in that fantasy

I think people who had given up on the movies really wanted them to be back, and I think the films themselves let the audience down by not actually being very good

...then Austin Powers came along, and it delivered the fantasy better

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

^ Great post.

It's what I was hoping to get across in my post too.

The whole difference between the 80s and 90s Bond is really interesting - I believe that if Dalton did another one, and the hiatus not happening may have actually killed Bond. Unless of course, Dalton's 3rd was entirely different and really successful.

LTK is cool, but it just feels tired - worn out. At least with GE/TND, Brosnan renewed the interest during the 90s acceptance of what you've said above.

Another TWINE fan! {[]

superado · November 2015

My son and I just discussed this over breakfast. As mentioned, the hiatus was a huge factor and by the time EON was back in business, Cubby was no longer active. Not that Cubby was the critical element; the effect was that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli were under pressure to lead and IMO their reaction because of (1) the hiatus, and; (2) the lack of rousing reception for Dalton's Bond, they decided to emphasize on the formula that they propped up through rote production at the expense of quality. To this, Brosnan produced with what he was given, which resulted in a series of movies, or at least his last 3 or 2 that were made with the artistic ethic of music videos, again, IMO.

Therefore, I believe, after they chose to take a bold risk with the reboot with so much conviction (it involved the gargantuan task of getting their new studio partners, Sony, on board), despite going in a direction that conceivably would have gone against Cubby's vision of Bond, it was then that Michael and Barbara finally made Bond their own and everything else in terms of production elements, just followed. Of course, the business dimension as it had always been integral to the producer's strategy, was instrumental in this success and the studio had put unprecedented amounts of money into the recent productions starting with CR.

So, as it goes with discussions, analysis and comparisons between the different Bond actors, most often between Craig vs. Brosnan, I think the factors of individual performance and scripts are minor elements that among many other factors, are hugely determined and influenced by the management transition I mentioned and whichever studio was involved, especially in the determinations of budget that's perhaps the single most critical determiner of a Bond film's outcome and success.

chrisisall · November 2015

What went wrong? Hiring Tamahori. His vision of Bond was too schizophrenic.

superado · November 2015

chrisisall wrote:

What went wrong? Hiring Tamahori. His vision of Bond was too schizophrenic.

I just used the same word in the Continuity thread!

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

superado wrote:

My son and I just discussed this over breakfast. As mentioned, the hiatus was a huge factor and by the time EON was back in business, Cubby was no longer active. Not that Cubby was the critical element; the effect was that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli were under pressure to lead and IMO their reaction because of (1) the hiatus, and; (2) the lack of rousing reception for Dalton's Bond, they decided to emphasize on the formula that they propped up through rote production at the expense of quality. To this, Brosnan produced with what he was given, which resulted in a series of movies, or at least his last 3 or 2 that were made with the artistic ethic of music videos, again, IMO.

Therefore, I believe, after they chose to take a bold risk with the reboot with so much conviction (it involved the gargantuan task of getting their new studio partners, Sony, on board), despite going in a direction that conceivably would have gone against Cubby's vision of Bond, it was then that Michael and Barbara finally made Bond their own and everything else in terms of production elements, just followed. Of course, the business dimension as it had always been integral to the producer's strategy, was instrumental in this success and the studio had put unprecedented amounts of money into the recent productions starting with CR.

So, as it goes with discussions, analysis and comparisons between the different Bond actors, most often between Craig vs. Brosnan, I think the factors of individual performance and scripts are minor elements that among many other factors, are hugely determined and influenced by the management transition I mentioned and whichever studio was involved, especially in the determinations of budget that's perhaps the single most critical determiner of a Bond film's outcome and success.

You're right. The difference between Brosnan's Bond and Craig's Bond is that it seems behind Brozza was almost just creating Bond films for the hell of it - behind Craig there's a real purpose to ensure the survival of the franchise.

Almost like the difference between TMWTGG and TSWLM.

superado · November 2015

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

superado wrote:

My son and I just discussed this over breakfast. As mentioned, the hiatus was a huge factor and by the time EON was back in business, Cubby was no longer active. Not that Cubby was the critical element; the effect was that Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli were under pressure to lead and IMO their reaction because of (1) the hiatus, and; (2) the lack of rousing reception for Dalton's Bond, they decided to emphasize on the formula that they propped up through rote production at the expense of quality. To this, Brosnan produced with what he was given, which resulted in a series of movies, or at least his last 3 or 2 that were made with the artistic ethic of music videos, again, IMO.

Therefore, I believe, after they chose to take a bold risk with the reboot with so much conviction (it involved the gargantuan task of getting their new studio partners, Sony, on board), despite going in a direction that conceivably would have gone against Cubby's vision of Bond, it was then that Michael and Barbara finally made Bond their own and everything else in terms of production elements, just followed. Of course, the business dimension as it had always been integral to the producer's strategy, was instrumental in this success and the studio had put unprecedented amounts of money into the recent productions starting with CR.

So, as it goes with discussions, analysis and comparisons between the different Bond actors, most often between Craig vs. Brosnan, I think the factors of individual performance and scripts are minor elements that among many other factors, are hugely determined and influenced by the management transition I mentioned and whichever studio was involved, especially in the determinations of budget that's perhaps the single most critical determiner of a Bond film's outcome and success.

You're right. The difference between Brosnan's Bond and Craig's Bond is that it seems behind Brozza was almost just creating Bond films for the hell of it - behind Craig there's a real purpose to ensure the survival of the franchise.

Almost like the difference between TMWTGG and TSWLM.

Those are very good examples, because with TMWTGG Harry Saltzman was just about to exit and the movie was done like an employee trying to look productive at 3 pm while waiting for quitting time. TSWLM was Cubby's opportunity to prove that he could do Bond on his own and it shows in the quality!

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

superado wrote:

Those are very good examples, because with TMWTGG Harry Saltzman was just about to exit and the movie was done like an employee trying to look productive at 3 pm while waiting for quitting time. TSWLM was Cubby's opportunity to prove that he could do Bond on his own and it shows in the quality!

Yeah, I think TMWTGG is a great Bond film, it's got a lot of "Bond" stuff in it, plus for me, it's the one where the humour was the most intelligent of the 3 TM written.

But yes, I get the feeling that Bond would've still made plenty of money with another Brosnan flick ala his others, but Craig has revitalised the series and created new fans - it's a new era really.

IMO Brosnan starred in two styles of films:

Bond films - TWINE & GE.
Action films - TND & DAD.

The only other film recently which comes close to the "action" generic level to me would be QoS - but it's much better than those two.

Matt S · November 2015

I wish Brosnan had a second chance. Brosnan's four were like Moore's first four. Then Moore and his films changed a lot in the 1980s. Brosnan could have made three Craig-like films. Considering many of the other films I've seen Brosnan in, he would have made a fantastic dark Bond. The November Man and Butterfly on a Wheel prove he could have played Bond for another few films and played him completely different.

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

One more Brosnan one, done properly of course would've been cool as a swan-song.

But DAD was potentially the final nail in the coffin, I wonder if Barbara and Michael hate it?

)

James Suzuki · November 2015

Seriously. I've been a die hard Bond fan for about seven years now.
And this here is new to me. I always thought that DAD was a terrible film, no doubt, but saved by a fantastic and competent performance by Brosnan. His other films are superb action . Entertainment.
Goldeneye is his best.
Brosnan is a great Bond. And we are just throwing poo his way because we are all caught up in the " moody Craig era".
I'm guessing this is part of the "hate the bond before trope".
When Craig leaves (a shame as he is a fantastic Bond). People will start picking on him and declaring Bond number seven the best.
Brosnan oozes sophistication. Sure some of the scripts were dire. But that's the same with the Connery and Moore scripts.

Agent Purple · November 2015

James Suzuki wrote:

Seriously. I've been a die hard Bond fan for about seven years now.
And this here is new to me. I always thought that DAD was a terrible film, no doubt, but saved by a fantastic and competent performance by Brosnan. His other films are superb action . Entertainment.
Goldeneye is his best.
Brosnan is a great Bond. And we are just throwing poo his way because we are all caught up in the " moody Craig era".
I'm guessing this is part of the "hate the bond before trope".
Brosnan oozes sophistication.

Generally speaking, I like your style. {[]

I wonder how much crap Moore got when Dalton came in with TLD.

eric7064 · November 2015

What I don't like is when people say Craig saved Bond. Yes, he brought it into a new Era. But didn't every Bond?

If anything give Brosnan credit for SAVING the franchise. After TLD/LTK the Bond franchise was in trouble and took a 6 year hiatus. What if Brosnan wasn't casted? And EON had casted a bust? Then what? Honestly, I really think Brosnan saved the franchise somewhat. Say what you want about his films. He is my favorite Bond and the one I grew up on.

heartbroken_mr_drax · November 2015

James Suzuki wrote:

Seriously. I've been a die hard Bond fan for about seven years now.
And this here is new to me. I always thought that DAD was a terrible film, no doubt, but saved by a fantastic and competent performance by Brosnan. His other films are superb action . Entertainment.
Goldeneye is his best.
Brosnan is a great Bond. And we are just throwing poo his way because we are all caught up in the " moody Craig era".
I'm guessing this is part of the "hate the bond before trope".
When Craig leaves (a shame as he is a fantastic Bond). People will start picking on him and declaring Bond number seven the best.
Brosnan oozes sophistication. Sure some of the scripts were dire. But that's the same with the Connery and Moore scripts.

Have you read the other comments in the thread? While the person who started it may be slinging poo at Brozza, I certainly am not and I don't think superado is either. We're talking about the films, not him.

Matt S · November 2015

eric7064 wrote:

What I don't like is when people say Craig saved Bond. Yes, he brought it into a new Era. But didn't every Bond?

If anything give Brosnan credit for SAVING the franchise. After TLD/LTK the Bond franchise was in trouble and took a 6 year hiatus. What if Brosnan wasn't casted? And EON had casted a bust? Then what? Honestly, I really think Brosnan saved the franchise somewhat. Say what you want about his films. He is my favorite Bond and the one I grew up on.

Brosnan did the same thing Craig did. I'm of the Brosnan generation (though grew up on Connery and Moore), and all of my friends got into Brosnan but had little knowledge of Bond before. If anything, the GoldenEye video game deserves the most credit for getting a new generation into Bond. Brosnan revived the franchise after it did its worst with Licence to Kill. I like LTK better than any of Brosnan's films, but people in the 80s and 90s apparently did not. Creatively, Craig improved the franchise. But considering the amount of money DAD made, Bond wasn't having any problems. And everyone I knew loved Brosnan, even after DAD. If CR was made with Brosnan in the darker tone, and if it was marketed well, I think it could have done as well as Craig's CR. Brosnan is capable of doing everything Craig has done as Bond acting-wise (though not stunt-wise), though Brosnan would have done it with more emotion, and people might not have liked that.

Jag · November 2015

eric7064 wrote:

What I don't like is when people say Craig saved Bond. Yes, he brought it into a new Era. But didn't every Bond?

If anything give Brosnan credit for SAVING the franchise. After TLD/LTK the Bond franchise was in trouble and took a 6 year hiatus. What if Brosnan wasn't casted? And EON had casted a bust? Then what? Honestly, I really think Brosnan saved the franchise somewhat. Say what you want about his films. He is my favorite Bond and the one I grew up on.

This is spot on!

I just don't buy the argument that Craig is somehow magically better for the survival of the franchise. To me, it's just a result of marketing and product placement done excessively. Just because you sell more tickets doesn't mean you made a better movie. In fact, some great movies are only appreciated by the select few.

ToTheRight · November 2015

Personally I think Pierce should have done a 5th film regardless. Would have been nice to have had another entry in 2004. Also, he would have been great in CR, and unlike Craig would not have had anything to prove. He was not only widely accepted, but embraced as Bond. It didn't matter really that DAD was sub-par. No one blamed Brosnan. Even in 2005 on the internet forums, PB, at 52 was still many fans only choice for Bond. He looked great and could have done 2 more easily. The franchise didn't need saving as he had already done that when GE was a success. DAD just happened to be a lesser Bond entry, and the next one would probably be better. Pierce ensured the series had a future after LTK. Re-booting the series was really just following a trend and an excuse to do a Bond begins origin story. Kind of an unnecessary, although successful gimmick.

Virgil37 · November 2015

caractacus potts wrote:

primarily, the scripts
they all had good story concepts at their root, each with some clever formula-defying twists, but by the time they got filmed those stories were fragmented beyond coherence by all the sprawling action setpieces

I noticed it as soon as I saw GoldenEye in the theatre, they establish a new location, theres a bit of exposition, then they spend 20 minutes blowing up that location, repeat about six times, adds up to two hours

thats the reason I too think The World Is Not Enough is the best of the four, the largely original story manages to stand above all the explosions moreso than the others

also the constant change of directors means there is no consistent tone, like we can talk about the tone of a Roger Moore movie

I think the problems were internal, not due to historic context ... Dalton's problems were due to audiences not caring about the Bond thing anymore, the 1980s were very earnest times and people I knew really did avoid the films because of the alleged sexist/imperialist/capitalist propaganda

whereas when GoldenEye came out, people embraced the whole mythos, "girls", guns and all, and I personally was running with an even more PC crowd in those days ... culturally, I think the 90s were more ironic, and pop culture could be enjoyed despite all the outdated stereotypes so long as one was aware, and that first film certainly did acknowledge, in-dialog, all the critiques people had been making over the last decade, and audiences I knew ate it up cuz it was knowing and self-referential, and genuinely fun to be back in that fantasy

I think people who had given up on the movies really wanted them to be back, and I think the films themselves let the audience down by not actually being very good

...then Austin Powers came along, and it delivered the fantasy better

Very interesting points about the scripts.

James Suzuki · November 2015

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

James Suzuki wrote:

Seriously. I've been a die hard Bond fan for about seven years now.
And this here is new to me. I always thought that DAD was a terrible film, no doubt, but saved by a fantastic and competent performance by Brosnan. His other films are superb action . Entertainment.
Goldeneye is his best.
Brosnan is a great Bond. And we are just throwing poo his way because we are all caught up in the " moody Craig era".
I'm guessing this is part of the "hate the bond before trope".
When Craig leaves (a shame as he is a fantastic Bond). People will start picking on him and declaring Bond number seven the best.
Brosnan oozes sophistication. Sure some of the scripts were dire. But that's the same with the Connery and Moore scripts.

Have you read the other comments in the thread? While the person who started it may be slinging poo at Brozza, I certainly am not and I don't think superado is either. We're talking about the films, not him.

Sorry. I didn't make myself clear. I can be quite passionate sometimes.
I agree with you guys.
It was solely based on the title of the thread and its beginning question which was posed

Virgil37 · November 2015

In 1994 it was a whole new team, which means it was a new job for everybody who hadn't done a Bond film yet. Cubby was still alive, but essentially the old team was gone. Maibaum, Barry, Binder... Michael G. Wilson was there, but he didn't write the scripts. Barbara and him took over from Cubby. And it shows that it was a new job.

When you get a new job, you don't get the hang of it inmediately. It takes a while. Your predecessor made it look very easy, but it's actually difficult to get everything in place. Hence, GE, although it had good scenes, was basically a flawed movie, and TND was an abysmally bad movie...They only improved with TWINE. Until DAD came about, that is...

As for Brosnan, I think the guy was just overwhelmed by it all. He had been a fan himself since he saw GF. Then in 1980 he met the whole team, and probably everyone was telling him already that he should be the next James Bond. He was just 26/27 . Then in 1986 he gets it at 33 only to lose it months later. By 1994 he must have been happy to finally get it, but at the same time the weight of all those years of being "the inevitable Bond" probably took their toll.

Matt S · November 2015

Virgil37 wrote:

In 1994 it was a whole new team, which means it was a new job for everybody who hadn't done a Bond film yet. Cubby was still alive, but essentially the old team was gone. Maibaum, Barry, Binder... Michael G. Wilson was there, but he didn't write the scripts. Barbara and him took over from Cubby. And it shows that it was a new job.

When you get a new job, you don't get the hang of it inmediately. It takes a while. Your predecessor made it look very easy, but it's actually difficult to get everything in place. Hence, GE, although it had good scenes, was basically a flawed movie, and TND was an abysmally bad movie...They only improved with TWINE. Until DAD came about, that is...

As for Brosnan, I think the guy was just overwhelmed by it all. He had been a fan himself since he saw GF. Then in 1980 he met the whole team, and probably everyone was telling him already that he should be the next James Bond. He was just 26/27 . Then in 1986 he gets it at 33 only to lose it months later. By 1994 he must have been happy to finally get it, but at the same time the weight of all those years of being "the inevitable Bond" probably took their toll.

Michael G. Wilson had already been a full producer on three Bond films before GoldenEye, though it's a shame he didn't write GoldenEye because he did fantastic work writing the previous five films with Maibaum. He had been so heavily involved with the Bond films for over a decade and a half before Goldfinger. Why did he stop writing? I've heard that LTK is more his than Maibaum's, and it's a solid script. The story is really reflective of 80s trends, but despite that it is still great and no script since has been better.

James Suzuki · November 2015

Actually that would be an inspired choice!
Would love to see another Wilson Script. Maybe Wilson and John Logan?

Gassy Man · November 2015

Brosnan didn't play to his strengths -- light comedy and adventure -- but instead tried to butch it up. Unconvincingly. His Bonds didn't know what they wanted to be. In was the 90s, so movies in general were slick but forgettable, and that's how most of his Bonds come across. I agree that Tomorrow Never Dies was the best of them. It didn't help that the writing was workmanlike, and although fans like me yearned for the glory days of the 60s, the producers were firmly trying to bring Bond into the last decade of the 20th century. The results were a series of concessions and weak efforts to have formula while striving for relevancy for tired 007.

Brosnan - What went wrong?

Comments