[Newsbot]

Title: Pierce Brosnan says he 'was never good enough' at James Bond
Category: Showbiz
Posted By: Regina
Date: 2014-04-14 20:35:19

[Regina]

I wouldn't say he was a bad JB but I preferred Sean Connery and the current Daniel Craig. He was a much closer transition from Roger Moore who was a bit namby pamby and was an anti-gun nugget which made them change the character. Brosnan was certainly made the character tougher but was no Connery or Craig

[Guy_Fawkes]

Check out the documentary, 'Everything or Nothing', Moore claims it was more the audience they were marketing the films for rather then his own personal requests. Brosnan does say after Goldeneye "those other flims just blurred together [laughs]," he was also very nervous about acting in the first real post cold war Bond film.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I'd have to agree with Brosnan's self assessment. I don't dislike him as an actor, I could just never buy into him as James Bond.

[maldonsfecht]

seen this many years ago and it still cracks me up... personally I pull for Craig, but it's still hilarious:

[Regina]

[Jonny_C]

Somehow Pierce Brosnan, whether in the role of James Bond or anything else, seems to me to be one of those actors who you know is acting. The really good actors make you forget they're acting.

[commanderkai]

That Bond mismash was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

I didn't think Brosnan was bad at Bond. His movies are still fun.

[maldonsfecht]

commanderkai commanderkai:

That Bond mismash was one of the funniest things I've seen in a while.

I didn't think Brosnan was bad at Bond. His movies are still fun.

I liked Goldeneye, as it was the first Bond film I had seen all the way through... and I like Sean Bean in everything since the Sharpe series and Patriot Games (though he should always be the hero).

I through the Brosnan films were too slick and shiny and enjoyed the rougher Casino Royale/Craig.

[desertdude]

I agree with Brosnan after golden eye the other two films were a blur. Personally I think he was a great bond and well suited for the role but other than Goldeneye he just got shitty and forgettable bond movies.

I was also proven wrong with Craig, who I thought would be a crappy bond and didnt fit the Bond type and actually supported Robbie Williams to be the next bond

And the worst Bond ever : Tim Dalton, Thankfully he did only one bond movie, Didn't care for Moore much, thought he looked already old even at that time for playing Bond

[commanderkai]

I think the biggest issue with Brosnan is that they relied on far too many gadgets in his films. They're cool, and everything, but by his last movie (Die Another Day, I think) the Bond car was basically a prototype stealth tank built into an Aston Martin.

[bootlegga]

Personally, Goldeneye is my favourite Bond movie - and I think it ranks up there as one of the best period. Connery's were mostly great movies, but sometimes the dated special effects just rip me out of the moment.

I agree with Brosnan that his other roles were a bit repetitive, but I still liked the old Bond to the new one.

Bond used to be the best job in the free world - invincible at gambling, immune to alcohol, tons of cool cars and awesome gadgets and he always got the girl (often more than one).

If they were going to reboot Bond and turn him into Jason Bourne, they should have done it in the 80s after Moore left (and they couldn't get Brosnan). Now, it just looks like their copying Ludlum's work - and let's face it, the two of the last three movie plot lines have been absolute garbage. Trying to cash in on the Texas Hold'em craze...really? And what the heck was Quantum of Solace? Those two were so awful, I haven't even bothered with the last one (Skyfall?).

Of course, it's not Craig's fault that the scripts they've given him have been crap. The only decent thing in Casino Royale were a couple fight scenes. He didn't get the girl, he didn't have any cool gadgets and his car was some factory model from a dealership. Lame-O!

[desertdude]

Not only that the gadgets themselves were too far fetched from reality to be digested by the audience even for a fictional movie. The bad special fx, the bad guy was crappy and lame, not like other bond movies cool evil geniuses, I couldn't bring myself to really hate him or my evil side to be rooting for him.

[commanderkai]

See, I liked Casino Royale. Had a bit more intrigue and...dare I say...subtly, than most other Bond films, while still having the action scenes in the beginning.

Skyfall was good, except for the part where "OH HEY LOOK! THIS GUY IS A COMPUTER GENIUS, LET US HOOK UP HIS COMPUTER ONTO OUR NETWORK. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?"

Seriously, the new Q should be immediately fired for being a stupid shit at that moment.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

See, I liked Casino Royale. Had a bit more intrigue and...dare I say...subtly, than most other Bond films, while still having the action scenes in the beginning.

Skyfall was good, except for the part where "OH HEY LOOK! THIS GUY IS A COMPUTER GENIUS, LET US HOOK UP HIS COMPUTER ONTO OUR NETWORK. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?"

Seriously, the new Q should be immediately fired for being a stupid shit at that moment.

Fair enough, I know I'm distinctly in the minority on this issue - most people love the new Bond. I just see it as a rip off of the Bourne movies.

Casino Royale wasn't bad - but it dragged out the poker story way too much.

Most of that beginning action scene was pretty stupid IMHO. All that running and jumping through hoops made my wife ask me if I watching a Jackie Chan movie!

Some of the fight scenes (in the stairway for example) were great, but so much of the movie either dragged or copied other movies (the torture scene reminded me of Payback).

One of these days I might request a copy of the new Bond movie from the library, but I have zero plans to spend a penny on the Bond series for a long time.