Now that it is official that Brosnan's career as James Bond 007 is over, a little review of him as Bond. Down the road, how will he be seen?
PostPosted:Sat Jun 05, 2004 2:32 pm
<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>First of all I will go over his movies:
GoldenEye had a lot going for it, a massive budget, new characters, a lot of big name actors, and a massive ad campaign. Not to mention it had arguably the most popular videogame in history backing the lisence; which I believe was very key to brininging Bond back to the younger audience. If you ask most younger people which Bond movie was the first they ever saw, they'll say Goldeneye, and they didn't see it in theatres either, they saw it on video after playing the game. Sean Bean was one of the best Bond villains in the history of the series, and I believe that it was Bean's role as Rogue Agent 006 which really built the backbone of the movie. In reality, I wasn't too impressed when I saw it in Theaters, I felt this movie was inferior to other Bond films; I grew up on Bond, and was a huge fan of Connery and Dalton's work, so my initial opinion was a bit biased, however, time certainly did not make me feel better about the film, so I believe my initial instincts were fairly dead on for this one.
Tommorow Never Dies I felt was Brosnan's best film by quite a distance. The movie flowed a lot more smoothly than GoldenEye, and it brought back a number of old Bond traditions, like a secret base =P Overall, I felt that the strengths of this one in Brosnan's era was that it had the strongest plot, the best overall cast, and the best scenary. Overall, it may have done better in the box office than GoldenEye, but it did not have the worlds most popular game backing it, so was not as popular among young people.
The World is Not Enough: Two words, explosions and plenty. This movie was by far the most dramatic of the Bond movies done by Brosnan, and if you're a fan of action, this is the one. I did feel that this one had more in common with GoldenEye 007 than any of the others.
Die Another Day was my second favourite, it was closer to Flemings work than any of the previous three. It was also the most popular at the Box office doubleing GoldenEye sales, and making it up into the all-time top lists. It is the first movie after the tragic death of Desmond Llelywyn (Q).
Brosnan as Bond: In order to judge a Bond you first really have to have a means for comparisson. There were 4 Bonds before Brosnan. Most people will always associate Connery as Bond, and most of those fans will see Brosnan as being a wimp in comparisson, and indeed he is, he is the least tough character of all the Bonds. As a Bond, I felt that his style was closest to Roger Moore, but I always felt that Moore was smoother, he was by far more a ladies man than Brosnan; and he also had more coolness about him than Brosnan. Dalton, he was certainly the best actor of the bunch, and I felt that his movies were probably the most similar to Brosnan's, but I liked License to Kill and The Living Daylights more than any of Brosnan's movies, the way I see it, Tommorow Never Dies ranks up with Dalton's two, but I still liked Dalton's movies better. In comparisson to Lazenby, Lazenby was the most arrogant and cocky James Bond (but Connery came pretty damn close), and his character is almost dead on with Connery's, (in fact the only problem people really had with him was that it wasn't Connery); so anything I say about the difference between Connery and Brosnan can also be applied to the difference between Lazenby and Brosnan.
All in all, I think that 20 years down the road the general audience looking back on these movies will see Brosnan's era as fairly inferior (Most of those who are fans of the series already do). Not to say he is a bad Bond, inferior does not necessarilly mean bad, he was still a good Bond, but inferior to the rest he was.</div>
GoldenEye had a lot going for it, a massive budget, new characters, a lot of big name actors, and a massive ad campaign. Not to mention it had arguably the most popular videogame in history backing the lisence; which I believe was very key to brininging Bond back to the younger audience. If you ask most younger people which Bond movie was the first they ever saw, they'll say Goldeneye, and they didn't see it in theatres either, they saw it on video after playing the game. Sean Bean was one of the best Bond villains in the history of the series, and I believe that it was Bean's role as Rogue Agent 006 which really built the backbone of the movie. In reality, I wasn't too impressed when I saw it in Theaters, I felt this movie was inferior to other Bond films; I grew up on Bond, and was a huge fan of Connery and Dalton's work, so my initial opinion was a bit biased, however, time certainly did not make me feel better about the film, so I believe my initial instincts were fairly dead on for this one.
Tommorow Never Dies I felt was Brosnan's best film by quite a distance. The movie flowed a lot more smoothly than GoldenEye, and it brought back a number of old Bond traditions, like a secret base =P Overall, I felt that the strengths of this one in Brosnan's era was that it had the strongest plot, the best overall cast, and the best scenary. Overall, it may have done better in the box office than GoldenEye, but it did not have the worlds most popular game backing it, so was not as popular among young people.
The World is Not Enough: Two words, explosions and plenty. This movie was by far the most dramatic of the Bond movies done by Brosnan, and if you're a fan of action, this is the one. I did feel that this one had more in common with GoldenEye 007 than any of the others.
Die Another Day was my second favourite, it was closer to Flemings work than any of the previous three. It was also the most popular at the Box office doubleing GoldenEye sales, and making it up into the all-time top lists. It is the first movie after the tragic death of Desmond Llelywyn (Q).
Brosnan as Bond: In order to judge a Bond you first really have to have a means for comparisson. There were 4 Bonds before Brosnan. Most people will always associate Connery as Bond, and most of those fans will see Brosnan as being a wimp in comparisson, and indeed he is, he is the least tough character of all the Bonds. As a Bond, I felt that his style was closest to Roger Moore, but I always felt that Moore was smoother, he was by far more a ladies man than Brosnan; and he also had more coolness about him than Brosnan. Dalton, he was certainly the best actor of the bunch, and I felt that his movies were probably the most similar to Brosnan's, but I liked License to Kill and The Living Daylights more than any of Brosnan's movies, the way I see it, Tommorow Never Dies ranks up with Dalton's two, but I still liked Dalton's movies better. In comparisson to Lazenby, Lazenby was the most arrogant and cocky James Bond (but Connery came pretty damn close), and his character is almost dead on with Connery's, (in fact the only problem people really had with him was that it wasn't Connery); so anything I say about the difference between Connery and Brosnan can also be applied to the difference between Lazenby and Brosnan.
All in all, I think that 20 years down the road the general audience looking back on these movies will see Brosnan's era as fairly inferior (Most of those who are fans of the series already do). Not to say he is a bad Bond, inferior does not necessarilly mean bad, he was still a good Bond, but inferior to the rest he was.</div>