Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan & Craig?
Chela
Posts: 10MI6 Agent
Hello All-
New to the forum. May write some spoilers so thought I would warn you now.
I grew up w/Brosnan as Remington Steele. I loved that show and was quite disappointed when PB lost out on Bond in favor or Dalton.
My JOY when PB was case knew no bounds and I liked each of his films (but hated all of the ladies, w/the exception of Michelle Yeoh and Halle Berry who weren't total drips.)
I was NOT happy w/the choice of Craig and dragged my feet b4 going to see CR (I didn't want my bucks to count towards his first week's haul.)
Well, when I finally saw the film, I understood WHY he had been chosen (or, more correctly, why PB was retired.)
The only way to show Bond as a rogue spy, new to the game, was to begin again (and frankly, CR felt more like Bourne, which I also love, than Bond). I actually thought Craig acquitted himself quite well (but I still LOVE tall, DARK, and handsome...PB!)
While I am glad the franchise will continue, b/c I am at heart a Bond fan, I really wish people (reviewers, posters, etc) would stop acting as if PB was a TERRIBLE Bond. Remember that HE saved the franchise in 95 when it was on the cusp of going under. I went back to all of my mags from that time (I kept everything PB Bond): Total Film, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Newsweek, First, etc. To a reviewer, people were calling PB the BEST Bond since Connery. I admit that Craig is also tops, but please, stop the PB bashing?
For me, it's Connery, PB, Craig/Dalton, Lazenby, Moore (the only truly horrific Bond to see the light of day.)
Just my thoughts, and no spoilers actually.
Cheers to all,
Che
New to the forum. May write some spoilers so thought I would warn you now.
I grew up w/Brosnan as Remington Steele. I loved that show and was quite disappointed when PB lost out on Bond in favor or Dalton.
My JOY when PB was case knew no bounds and I liked each of his films (but hated all of the ladies, w/the exception of Michelle Yeoh and Halle Berry who weren't total drips.)
I was NOT happy w/the choice of Craig and dragged my feet b4 going to see CR (I didn't want my bucks to count towards his first week's haul.)
Well, when I finally saw the film, I understood WHY he had been chosen (or, more correctly, why PB was retired.)
The only way to show Bond as a rogue spy, new to the game, was to begin again (and frankly, CR felt more like Bourne, which I also love, than Bond). I actually thought Craig acquitted himself quite well (but I still LOVE tall, DARK, and handsome...PB!)
While I am glad the franchise will continue, b/c I am at heart a Bond fan, I really wish people (reviewers, posters, etc) would stop acting as if PB was a TERRIBLE Bond. Remember that HE saved the franchise in 95 when it was on the cusp of going under. I went back to all of my mags from that time (I kept everything PB Bond): Total Film, Empire, Entertainment Weekly, Time, Newsweek, First, etc. To a reviewer, people were calling PB the BEST Bond since Connery. I admit that Craig is also tops, but please, stop the PB bashing?
For me, it's Connery, PB, Craig/Dalton, Lazenby, Moore (the only truly horrific Bond to see the light of day.)
Just my thoughts, and no spoilers actually.
Cheers to all,
Che
Comments
And I completely understand your frustration with the slagging Pierce is suffering now that a New Guy is playing the part, but that's the way of things. Sir Roger Moore recently observed that he gets a new round of 'bad reviews' every time a new Bond takes over
Take comfort in the fact that Brosnan's place in Bond history is assured. He had some great moments in the role :007)
Once again...welcome to the best Bond site on the net... -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I do have issues with the way in which Mr Brosnan played Bond much of the time, and his portrayal of the character was one I sometimes had difficulty warming to: among other things he lacked depth and resorted too quickly to a glib look. That said, to blame him for poor CGI work, odd direction and poor writing is bizarre and I concur that this is something that seems to be taking root in many discussions. This sort of 'bashing'—the harsh criticism of Mr Brosnan for decisions in which he played no part—*is* unfair. Still, Mr Brosnan did get to play James Bond four times and made rather a lot of money from the character: he was very lucky indeed and it is difficult to feel much sympathy just because some Bond fans do not feel the films in which he starred were up to much—even though in placing all responsibility on Mr Brosnan said fans are being somewhat unjust.
I must also take issue with your contention that Casino Royale felt like a Bourne picture. This is something I see argued often and I cannot understand it: I enjoy both Bond and Bourne immensely but the two are rather divergent. Yes, Craig's debut does have a greater sense of realism about it than previous Bond efforts, however the glamour, exoticism and romanticism of Casino Royale are nowhere to be found in Bourne. The indulgence of the second act during the casino scenes is a level of sumptuous high-living completely non-existent in the Damon pictures, and the fact that the casino scenes are complemented by a harder, grittier edge (the fight in the stairwell, the poisining) does not detract from this. Then there is the whole internal conspiracy element in Bourne which is an entirely different cul-de-sac from Craig's Bond.
On another note, welcome to AJB Chela; it is nice to read posts with context and open-mindedness.
I had high hopes for Brosnan in the role, just like with Craig. Brosnan did have his moments, but IMHO and on the whole he was a weak Bond. Is that bashing? Feels pretty balanced to me...but to each their own. If Brosnan floats yer boat, that's swell. But the "negative" comments have always been out there, and likely aren't going anywhere soon.
1. I agree that some of the Brosnan gadgets were over the top. They did need to go.
2. I don't feel that Brosnan's portrayal was "thin"; but, I will submit to you that as a female of a certain age, as soon as I see PB, my thoughts tend to wander...not being "sexist" or anything, but the man is, IMHO, gorgeous and that goes a long way in helping him "look" like Bond for me (even though PB does not actually fit the description provided in Fleming's books.)
3. I always felt that Dalton also got a "bum rap" for his portrayal, when in fact, he was as good as PB and Craig...the scripts simply stunk.
4. Poor Roger Moore, I do feel for the man. As noted in my OG post, he's my least favorite Bond, and he does keep getting pushed down as time goes by.
5. Yes. Those of you who never liked PB do have a right to your opinion. I pride myself on not being part of the "Craig NOT BOND" group. Frankly, what I want is for Bond to keep saving the world...that HE lasts is more important than an actor continuing in the role. Ultimately, I live for Bond (um, well, I live for movies, but that's a whole 'nother story.)
6. I'm sorry. But Craig's Bond really feels like Bourne to me. The person who posted re: this topic was quite thoughtful and I concede that your points are valid; but when watching Casino Royale, I FEEL the same adrenalin rush I feel whenever I watch Bourne. So, it's not so much that I am comparing setting, but tone. The overall vibe I have when leaving the theater is the same. W/other Bonds, I had a thrilling time watching the film, but the rush wore off b/c I felt that it was,well, a film.
7. Finally, I went to see Casino Royale a 2nd time (I missed the first 20 minutes when I went before.) This time, I went with friends and their kids. I was sitting next to the 11 year old and I wasn't sure he understood what was going on (he kept asking me questions in a QUIET whisper.) My thanks to the makers of the film for supplying me with lots of teaching material (who is really the bad "guy"...use inference to figure this out; what city in Europe is full of canals/waterways; can you actually give CPR to someone who has no pulse...you get the idea.)
Sorry for the long post. Will try not to be so wordy next time.
Glad to have found the site. Best of week-ends to all.
Che
Hi Chela, and welcome.
Well said Lazeny880. I would go a step further than your Brosnan analysis and say that all the films' problems after, say, Thunderball, were more the result of the formulaic, hokey scripts than any real deficiency in the actors. CR's on the other hand had some real nail-biting moments and some real laughs as well. It also had an actual plot that the audience had to pay attention to -- such a rarity in a Bond film that some of us forgot to the first time.
I also completely agree on your Bourne comments. If anything, Bourne is a James Bond knock-off, but devoid of personality, romance and exoticism. Good stunts, though, and enjoyable films. But saying that CR is more like Bourne is putting the cart before the horse IMO.
Blue, my problem with this whole Brosnan-bashing thing is not with people (such as yourself) who may not like Brosnan, but with critics (who are not exactly huge Bond fans) who, with the release of CR, are attacking Brosnan (and Moore) as if he destroyed the franchise or something. The one good thing about you is that you're at least consistent.
Chela, I agree with you completely that "Frankly, what I want is for Bond to keep saving the world...that HE lasts is more important than an actor continuing in the role." I couldn't have said it better myself. {[]
In regards to the comparison to Bourne, I agree to a degree as I found CR to be a gadgetless, at times dour film. This wasn't the case the entire film, but I can definitely see why someone would compare it to Bourne.
Lazenby880, I don't agree that Brosnan lacked depth. While the scripts weren't wonderful, I think he showed amazing depth, for example in his relationship with Electra.
My problem with Brosnan's films came down to the scripts. Even the best written of his films (GE/TWINE) had script problems. However this isn't unique to his films as IMO the last Bond film to have a truly great and pretty flawless script was TSWLM, one of the five best written Bond films of all time IMO. Although several films post-TSWLM (FYEO, OP, GE, TWINE, CR) did have quite good scripts, none of them were completely satisfying IMO and all of them had problems which lessened the films. I consider Brosnan to have been the second best Bond of all time. Unfortunately, he wasn't given a film with a script with the quality of DN-TB/TSWLM.
Thank you highhopes. I should say that *some* of the post-Thunderball pictures are good, even though there exist some substantial flaws (depending on the picture). I would absolutely agree that Casino Royale is a colossal step upwards and really in another league: the plot you mention, as well as the acting, the writing, the cinematography, the lack of formula, the expertly crafted tension and suspense, the travelogue feel and a myriad of other factors combine to produce the most satisfying of Eon's many enterprises.
As regards Bourne, I am a *huge* fan of those two films (though not of the Ludlum books—they are *awful*). I don't think that Bourne is a Bond knock-off; the two characters are completely different and develop from divergent points of reference: one is an anonymous and amnesiac and supremely proficient professional while the other is a high-living and quite complex agent (ruthless at times, munificent at others) defined by his relationship with a traitor. I write, of course, specifically of Craig's Bond as opposed to the other interpretations of the character. But taking the Bourne films, they are man-on-the-run thrillers steeped in internal conspiracy with a dark and dingy and almost 70s atmosphere. They take *far* more inspiration, in my view, from earlier gritty spy thrillers and characters such as the neurotic Quiller and the office-politicking and mole-hunting of many a spy novel from the 60s and 70s. Frankly I cannot see *anything*, really, that would suggest that Bond and Bourne have in common to any substantial degree.
Is there a Freudian slip in there (Brosnan=Bond)?
However, this is all just subjective of course and the world would be rather a boring place were we all to agree.
My view on Brosnan's depth is that many of the scenes you identify are IMO quite terribly written (I didn't appreciate the "It's why you're alone" "It's what keeps me alive") yet he goes beyond them and delivers a very convincing performance. Writing strong emotional scenes has IMO never been a major strength of the Bond films in general, and the Bond films of the past decade in particular. Much of it goes down to underdevelopment (why are we really expected to care about Paris when we barely know her?) but nonetheless these scenes aren't IMO always ideal. Brosnan IMO rose above this and really never failed to convince me. That's not to say that I think he's perfect, but rather I don't think he ever had anything but a terrific day at the office. In fact, I became convinced that Brosnan was a great Bond (including his handling of dramatic scenes) when I saw DAD. It had a terrible script yet Brosnan IMO was still very impressive.
Absolutely. In fact, that's one of the reasons I'm 'addicted' to this site; the amount of debate. -{
The thing is that he didn't live up to the expectations I had for him. He tried, but there were pure Moore moments (straightening his tie in GF and TWINE... unbelieveable and comic fight scene in TND and ALL of DAD after he gets "cleaned up").
To say "he saved the series" is rubbish. The series was caught up in some legal stuff in the early '90's. Anyone could have been Bond in GoldenEye and it would have been a smash, since it was the first new James Bond film in 6 years.
As far as CR being a Bourne film... I don't see it at ll that way. Maybe since Bond came first, is Bourne a copy of Bond? They share the same initials, after all and Bond was created in the early '50's (in Casino Royale) so Bourne is a ripoff, not Bond.
2) In 1982 when Brosnan came on the t.v as "Remington Steele", I fell in "love" with the man. (Mind you I was in my early teens). I have been a fan of his since that time and own almost every movie he has done.
3) But, I don't belive Pierce should of done CR because of the fact that CR is Bond's first 00 mission. Which means that Bond would be in his 30's. I don't belive that Pierce could pull-off being in his 30's anymore. Also, the way Pierce betray's Bond is not right for CR. I have read the book eight time's. I belive that Daniel has gotten it right. Daniel is a wonderful actor and I am looking very forward to having him as Bond in the next movie.
4) I don't care if Daniel has bold hair. Hell Mr. Connery has brown eyes and Mr. Dalton has green eyes. I have looked pass the fact the Bond has blue and this actors did not. So I can look pass the fact that Mr. Craig has blode hair. I may don't have if he was bleach blode, but he doesn't and he is a very good actor. Just watch "LayerCake"
Indeed, Pierce Brosnan did not put his own stamp on the role in the same way as Sean Connery, Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. He's often referred to as the good all rounder and I think that's a fair assessment. I certainly wasn't disappointed by any of his performances.
Ah well, moving on. -{ Babs sure seems to have a firm grasp on what makes Bond Bond. About time somebody did and hope it sticks around for a few films.
Truth be told, I don't think either of the Bonds post-Dalton will have left their personal stamp on the series (which is not always such a good thing, as IMO it wasn't with Dalton); so the question is, did they do what they did well? IMO Brosnan did what he did extraordinarily well, and so was the second greatest Bond of all time; and it was through being a magnificent Bond (surpassed only by Connery IMO) that I think Brosnan did leave his own mark on the series. -{
Dan, you should get seriously reprimanded for mentioning that sport. It's a very sore subject with us Poms right now.
I agree, Pierce Brosnan as an all-rounder is not a bad thing at all. He had all the Bondian qualities and convinced me whether he was being tough or charming.
Leaving aside your misjudgement regarding your Bond actor rankings.
Surely, Daniel Craig has already left his personal stamp on the series. If only for the fact he was portraying a "rookie" rough round the edges Bond, not the fully refined experienced 007 that his predecessors portrayed.
How many times do I have to tell you, I consider Moore to be a saphire!
True, Craig did leave his own personal mark, however that doesn't mean that he did a good job. :v (Dalton also left his personal mark but to me his films were a nightmare.
I don't know, because it's a chat site?
Then don't post. It's a voluntary chat site, and if you are bored, then stop posting.
Fine, if you're through, then stop responding. Fish, nobody forces you to respond. If you find it boring or whatever then stop responding, but don't criticise me if I choose to respond. Especially since I was responding to MNL!
Were you, Dan? I wasn't listening.
I did see your post and chose not to respond to it because I didn't feel like it.