I think it could be, we've seen several times that Bond is no loyal to anybody but himself (and women).
share'Tis far better than Bond!
Gummitch
KONG BITES HIS HEAD OFF in a PG 13 kinda way!
http://clik.to/peterjackson
Hello people!! This is NOT a Bond movie. The only reason you think so is because Pierce Brosnan is in it. If it had been someone else in Brosnan's role you would not even be questioning this. It has nothing to do with Bond, only the similarity of being a spy film with Brosnan in it.
shareOf course it's not a bond.But if it was it would be Pierce Brosnans best performance and the closest one to how Ian Fleming wanted James Bond to be.
This film is based on a book by John Le Carre. How can all of you dumb people think it's an 'inofficial Bond' or 'a Bond spoof'. Have you ever seen a Bond film, do you know what a spoof is? This film has far more depth than any Bond.
There is a place where deals are made, and where legends are born. Welcome to Ninhenzo Valley...
True, but I'm sure that casting Brosnan was a deliberate attempt to raise allusions to the Bond movies... throughout the movie I was watching it as though he was Bond's smarter twin brother. I particularly liked the alternate ending, in that respect.
Well, considering the character is a MI6 agent, and played by the same actor as the current Bond. I think it's easy to understand why some people made the connection.
I'm not really sure why Pierce Brosnan took this role. It's practically identical to Bond, except more morally corrupt. With the Bond franchise, this movie and The Thomas Crown Affair, he's really dug his own grave if he ever leaves the Bond franchise. He's going to be fairly typecast as a spy/thief lady's man.
Right... I guess Brosnan delberately made this movie, because he wanted add more depth into the 007franchise and wasn't allowded to.
To me Brosnan is doing his best performance so far...
Le Carre's purpose in his novels is to paint a picture of how he feels spies REALLY are. So, in that way, this novel and the subsequent film, along with all of his works, are meant to be the antithesis of the Bond franchise. But the connection goes no deeper than that.
I am impressed with Brosnan's desire to do this film, but somewhat less impressed with his performance and with the overall feel of the movie.
This isn´t Bond, but in some ways it´s much better than Bond. And Pierce is more sexy than when he played James Bond. That´s my opinion.
shareHe's already typecast, was with "Remington Steele." With this and "The Matador" he's been trying to knock the whole image to bits.
share[deleted]
Very good question. I think it's more of an unofficial, mock James Bond film. The character's even working for the MI6, just as Bond. When I saw it with my buddies, we concluded taht it was Agent 007 when he's on vacation. ;) But the character played by Brosnan in this movie is far more evil and opportunistic than the James Bond we all know, but still perhaps that's how he could behave if he did'nt had to follow orders from his superiors... just a greedy, deceptive narcissic guy. Actually I think the character was cleverly drawn out to be a mockery of how secret agents are in real life.
shareIt has nothing to do with Bond, officially, unofficially or otherwise. Its based on a John LeCarre novel. LeCarre's books are very close to the reality of what spies do. Check out The Spy Who Came in from the Cold or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy if you get a chance.
Love's turned to lust and blood's turned to dust in my heart.
No, as this is the real Pierce Brosnan.
shareNo. I wished Pierce made more films like this one. He was very good as the anti-Bond. I like John Boorman a lot, so this is favorite of mine.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]