Brosnan's Bond movies seem to get a lot of hate.

Brosnan was great and although parts of his films are not that good he was a great Bond IMO. All the Bonds are "of their time" IMO.

The force will be with you always...

I love all of Brosnans films. I think hes the best Bond along with Connery of course.

I don't "hate" Brosnan in the role, but I don't think he was particularly good, either. He looks the part in a tux and he has a certain dash of brooding savoir fare, but that's about it. Whereas all of the other Bonds have a discernible personality and a distinct persona all of their own, Brosnan lacks any particular defining traits. He's just a cypher in a suit, coasting through a (by then) tired franchise, going through the motions of the mostly uninspired action sequences and robotically parroting the quips and one liners handed to him.

How much of this is Brosnan's fault? Well it must be said that he never really got any of the great Bond flicks (or even any of the upper tier ones) to call his own, which might have helped him to define himself in the role with greater authority. Tomorrow Never Dies and the much over praised Goldeneye are solid enough mid level Bonds-by-the-numbers, but still ultimately disposable and nowhere near troubling the Bond top ten. Die Another Day and The World Is Not Enough are, let's be honest, pretty terrible movies for the most part, falling somewhere near Roger Moore's nadir of Octopussy and A View to a Kill and ranking among the worst Bond flicks of all.

The Brosnan flicks weren't all that good then, but they weren't really elevated by Brosnan in any meaningful way, either. He doesn't possess much range as an actor, but then neither did Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Both of those guys had something that Brosnan lacks, however, and that's a sense of presence. Say what you will about Connery, but you took notice when the guy was on the screen. He was magnetic. Moore might not have been anywhere near as convincing as a deadly secret agent, but he did at least have charisma and comic timing.

In some ways, Daniel Craig really lucked out with Casino Royale, because it was the fist time in a long time that the franchise was approached with a genuinely fresh perspective, and in which the writing was actually of a high standard. Brosnan never got anything like that to work with. But then Craig is also a terrific actor and brought something fresh and iconic to the role. Timothy Dalton probably could've done Casino Royale as convincingly as Craig did, but I don't think Brosnan could've pulled it off, quite frankly.

THE INQUISITOR
Movies, Culture, Opinion and more...

http://robertod.wordpress.com/

Disagree with GoldenEye being mediocre, its one of the better modern Bonds. But yes, after that the Brosnan films was either mediocre or poor, so you cant blame the actor. Portraying James Bond, i think Brosnan was rather good.


o/~ Farewell and adiou to you fair Spanish ladies, farewell and adiou to you ladies of Spain o/~

GoldenEye is not a poor Bond movie. This is the film that revived the franhise after a 6 year hiatus and its also the first BOND film after the Cold War. Its often regarded by Bond fans that its one of the best of the franchise.

I know you wrote this last year, but I've seen you write this a few times:

"He was okay but not great in the role - he said so himself"

Brosnan is an actor. Actors are sensitive, and just like other people, don't always like watching themselves on screen. Cate Blanchett also said she didn't like her performance in Blue Jasmine, for which she won an Oscar. Get what I'm saying?

And for the record, many people believe GE is one of the best Bond films - regardless of nostalgia - so he did get one universally celebrated Bond film like the rest.

I like Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. I don't like The World is Not Enough or this CGI Bond.

[deleted]