Brosnan: My Bond not good enough

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/ap ... ood-enough

Pierce Brosnan: My James Bond was 'never good enough'

Actor, who played Ian Fleming's secret agent in four Bond films, describes his portrayal of 007 as 'tame'


Pierce Brosnan has dismissed his own run as James Bond "never good enough" and admitted he hates watching himself as 007.

"I felt I was caught in a time warp between Roger [Moore] and Sean [Connery]," said Brosnan. "It was a very hard one to grasp the meaning of, for me. The violence was never real, the brute force of the man was never palpable. It was quite tame, and the characterisation didn't have a follow-through of reality, it was surface. But then that might have had to do with my own insecurities in playing him as well."

He added: "I have no desire to watch myself as James Bond. 'Cause it's just never good enough. It's a horrible feeling."

Brosnan's other films as 007 were 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies and 1999's The World is not Enough. His Bond debut in 1995 followed a six-year hiatus for Ian Fleming's secret agent caused by legal disputes over rights, and was generally well-received. Even the poorly-reviewed Die Another Day, with its invisible cars and cameo by Madonna, was a huge box office hit: it was the highest-grossing instalment of the series at that stage.

However, the Daniel Craig Bond films, with their introduction of a starker, more human 007, have since pushed the series to new heights of critical cache as well as succeeding commercially. Last year's Sam Mendes-directed Skyfall was the first Bond film to cross the $1bn barrier at the global box office and currently stands as the highest-grossing film of all time at UK cinemas.

I can understand where he is coming from is must be annoying that he did not have the control over his movies that Craig has, especially as Brosnan is keen on production. But it does give the Craig fans ammunition to say "yes Brosnan's [traditional] Bond was awful, Moore was a joke, Craig saved Bond etc etc".

[Omega]

In a way he has to be tough on his own time as bond I don't think Moore Dalton or Lazenby claim any if their movies were the best even though they made money and were popular.

Also Brosnan has his own spy movie coming out that is said to be the bond he wanted to play so that could be part of if too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[John P. Drake]

Well, when Brosnan was fired in the most disgraceful way from the production, he has developed a lot of hatred heading towards the franchise and quite doesn't want to be related to that product by any means. Sure, people still recognize him as 'James Bond' more than they recognize him as 'Remington Steele', but I can see why he's trying to draw himself out of the reputation, or at least trying to. But, I have always disagreed with those who hated him and called him 'Austin Powers version of Bond' for no reason. Well, I'll take Austin Powers over the most disturbing Hollywood character, Jason Bourne, any day. To me, Brosnan's films (the first two especially) are regarded as Great Flicks in the series. I really think he should stop being harsh on himself and stop supporting the braindead people who regard him as 'da worst bond'. Heck, I can never accept to hear it.

[Dr. No]

Well he did complain while making the films he felt like a guy in a suit, Craig said much the same thing. I think pierce was happy to be part of the series and truly wanted to make a great more critically acclaimed Bond and was denied the chance he is bitter on some lever about being denied the chance and he never watched Cr or QOS, he did say he watched SF and liked it. I think it hurts his pride he was never able to make the film he wanted because he played along with the team and what he get for being a team player was stabbed in the back. Then they jump the rails rebooting instead of letting him take Bond more seriously.

In a way what he said is a jab at the series, more the producers for holding him back. I think when people look back at it because of this statement people will have an footnote about how he didn't get the chance to really play Bond, even though I conciser him to be very good at the role. I think maybe this is the way Bond actors are remember better in the following years, Everyone now thinks they know Dalton never had a fair shot at it, Lazenby left too early, Connery was cut out of the process and made to feel like a man in suit instead of a partner in a iconic series. Despite how people try to say Moore was a clown even he was surprised watching his movies how viscous his Bond was at times. I think the Bond who had one more Bond in them when they left will always be remember better by history because the big what if hangs over their departure. I don't think Moore get this treatment because he stayed too long in most peoples mind, I have a feeling Craig will as well.

[Kiwichris]

Had Brosnan ended with TWINE he would probably get more kudos than he does now. Regrettably he has the toxic presence of Die Another Day which marred his tenure and caused him to leave on a low. The worst part is that it wasn't his fault it was a bad film. It was a combo of a terrible script with a crap director. Despite critics scoffing at it, DAD actually went on to make more money than any other Bond film before it, so maybe Brosnan should have got another shot at a fifth film.

I agree about him, Lazenby and Dalton having the "what if" scenario about them that makes them remembered less critically than Moore or possibly Craig in the future who some might say overstayed their welcome as Bond.

[Jamesdude]

Its really too bad because many Bond fans have considered him the second coming of Sean Connery when he made his debut in Goldeneye.

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

Its really too bad because many Bond fans have considered him the second coming of Sean Connery when he made his debut in Goldeneye.

That was the case all through the 1990's. When Dalton was looked upon as some sort of Pariah, Brosnan was praised as a golden saviour of the series.

[Omega]

Its really too bad because many Bond fans have considered him the second coming of Sean Connery when he made his debut in Goldeneye.

That was the case all through the 1990's. When Dalton was looked upon as some sort of Pariah, Brosnan was praised as a golden saviour of the series.

I enjoy License to Kill but as Dalton said they didn't get a script to him until just before shooting, the real trouble was 1989 was a legendary year going over the competition it's a year of movies that are still well liked to day although IMO Batman is way over rated.
In some way 1988 is like 2015 is shaping up to be although the complete list of 2015 movies has too many reboot there are a lot of really big names.

The point is LTK didn't kill at the BO. Since then there hasn't been a headline for a bond movie that didn't claim to set some record with the pr spin of best ever and biggest record. I think fans of the day feed in on the negativity not actually judging daltons performance as bond then the legal troubles that brought production to a stop. I don't know much about what happened or if LTK making more money might have stop it, but the fans blamed dalton for all the crap letting eon off the hook. Dalton is a d**n fine actor too bad eon wasted his time by not planning a little better for LTK, or at the very lest getting a third movie made. Look at the LTK opening weekend what the hell were they thinking?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Kiwichris]

Whilst GoldenEye is the Bond film I enjoy watching the most, I regard Licence to Kill to be the best from a critical point of view. It's tone is the closest to a Fleming novel than any other and is the most "Flemingesque" film since the 1960's. 1989 was a massive blockbuster year so competition was high, the title changing right before opening and audiences (particularly in the US) still being in love with Roger Moore all conspired against LTK. Dalton was purely a victim of extreme bad luck. Ironically Bond 17 (Property of A Lady) was not supposed to be as dark and grim and be on a similar tone to The Living Daylights which was received reasonably well at the time so a future with Dalton might have worked out better than people were thinking.

... although IMO Batman is way over rated.

I like the 1989 Batman better than the Dark Knight trilogy films myself. But that's just me...

[Daltonite Toothpaste]

... although IMO Batman is way over rated.

I like the 1989 Batman better than the Dark Knight trilogy films myself. But that's just me...

Same here. I'll take the 2 Keaton films over the 3 Bale films anyday.

[The Saint 007]

... although IMO Batman is way over rated.

I like the 1989 Batman better than the Dark Knight trilogy films myself. But that's just me...

Same here. I'll take the 2 Keaton films over the 3 Bale films anyday.

The same for me. The recent Batman films are okay, but I personally enjoy the two Keaton ones a lot more.

[Kristatos]

I thought the Burton films were a triumph of style over substance, but I do love the look of the films. To me, the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm animated series gets the balance right. It retains Burton's visual sensibility, but most of the episodes were much better-written.

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

[Kiwichris]

To me, the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm animated series gets the balance right. It retains Burton's visual sensibility, but most of the episodes were much better-written.

1000 times yes! I love that show, a cartoon that merely included children in it's target audience instead of making for kids. I enjoy it much now than when I was young. Subtle pieces of clever writing like quotes and references to Through the Looking Glass in the Mad Hatter episodes and the awesome reinvention of Mr. Freeze as a serious character with a tragic past instead of a gimmicky mad scientist. The visuals were also amazing with that cool gothic/art deco mix which gave it such a sense of timelessness.

[Dr. No]

To me, the Paul Dini/Bruce Timm animated series gets the balance right. It retains Burton's visual sensibility, but most of the episodes were much better-written.

1000 times yes! I love that show, a cartoon that merely included children in it's target audience instead of making for kids. I enjoy it much now than when I was young. Subtle pieces of clever writing like quotes and references to Through the Looking Glass in the Mad Hatter episodes and the awesome reinvention of Mr. Freeze as a serious character with a tragic past instead of a gimmicky mad scientist. The visuals were also amazing with that cool gothic/art deco mix which gave it such a sense of timelessness.

Batman 1989 was a big fuss. At teh time I felt the Burton's batman was reaction to the campy 1960s show. I remember this ad on the family channel or whatever they called themselves back then, they reran Batman relentlessly anyway 1989 batman had rocked teh summer and they ran an ad of I think families who just came out of the theaters and had comments about how they like the batmobile then run footage of the 1960s show for each comment.

My parents thought I was too young for the movie when I finally watched it staying over at a friends house I was disappointed, as the forbidden fruit it had more appeal I guess. Anyway I never saw what the hype was about. I do enjoy it and batman returns but I don't know, they just never were as good to me as most of my friends said they were.

Now Batman the animated series, loved it! It took the best of Burton and toned the rest of it down to make it work. One of my favorite stories was the Bruce Wayne Terminator clone, incredible story telling. Most the the bad guys had better stories too. The heroes were the more set in stone they had to be to keep up the image, it allowed them to work with the stories more for everybody else I guess.

[Blowfeld]

By the way Batman of the Future the animated series has a nice follow up to Mr. Freeze.

[The Saint 007]

Found an article about Brosnan turning down the role of Batman.

Here's the full Reddit interview.

[Omega]

Found an article about Brosnan turning down the role of Batman.

Here's the full Reddit interview.

Wow he turned down 1989 batman?
He might have been better than Keaton but I don't think he can gravel talk for batman and I don't know how his American accent sounds for Wayne

[Emilio Largo]

Well, when [highlight=#ffff40]Brosnan was fired in the most disgraceful way from the production[/highlight], he has developed a lot of hatred heading towards the franchise and quite doesn't want to be related to that product by any means. Sure, people still recognize him as 'James Bond' more than they recognize him as 'Remington Steele', but I can see why he's trying to draw himself out of the reputation, or at least trying to. [highlight=#ffff00]But, I have always disagreed with those who hated him and called him 'Austin Powers version of Bond' for no reason[/highlight]. Well, I'll take Austin Powers over the most disturbing Hollywood character, Jason Bourne, any day. To me, Brosnan's films ([highlight=#ffff00]the first two especially[/highlight]) [highlight=#ffff00]are[/highlight] regarded as [highlight=#ffff00]Great Flicks[/highlight] in the series. I really think he should stop being harsh on himself and stop supporting the braindead people who regard him as 'da worst bond'. Heck, I can never accept to hear it.

My sentiments exactly, John P. Drake. But it was that double-dose of crapfest 007 with WINE and DAD that sunk the 'Brosnan Ship of Bond' for me. That 'Austin Powers version of Bond' stems directly from the sheer idiocy Brosnan was put through (not to mention the truly lame CGI) in DAD. That's why it was so crushing that Brosnan didn't get that fifth Bond film made where he could have had one more chance to make a really solid Bond adventure (just like he wanted to do). But Babs and her half-witted half-brother had other ideas, eh.

Speaking of DAD: this was the last Bond film that I saw with my older brother and I can still hear him saying afterwards, "Well, Pierce was fine but the rest of the film was garbage." I saw my very first Bond film with my older brother (along with my younger brother) and it was incredibly ironic and telling that we both immediately started to discuss the Connery Bond films after complaining about DAD. We were both compensating for that bad Bond film experience we had just shared. But neither one of us blamed Pierce Brosnan for this debacle. Unfortunately, too many punks still blame Brosnan for the decline of the James Bond films. But all of us here know exactly who to blame for this: Babs and Mike!

[Emilio Largo]

Despite how people try to say Moore was a clown even he was surprised watching his movies how viscous his Bond was at times.

But .... but .... Roger Moore was a clown in Octopussy:

[thumbnail]http://www.top10films.co.uk/img/Octopus ... _Clown.jpg[/thumbnail]

I kid, I kid! My biggest gripe about Moore's tenure as Bond is the juvenile humor and crude sexual innuendo that continually brought everything down to the LCD. Moore could have made an even better Bond than what was eventually presented if the filmmakers had jettisoned sophomoric elements like these and concentrated on every one of the Ian Fleming James Bond Basics.

[John P. Drake]

Well, when [highlight=#ffff40]Brosnan was fired in the most disgraceful way from the production[/highlight], he has developed a lot of hatred heading towards the franchise and quite doesn't want to be related to that product by any means. Sure, people still recognize him as 'James Bond' more than they recognize him as 'Remington Steele', but I can see why he's trying to draw himself out of the reputation, or at least trying to. [highlight=#ffff00]But, I have always disagreed with those who hated him and called him 'Austin Powers version of Bond' for no reason[/highlight]. Well, I'll take Austin Powers over the most disturbing Hollywood character, Jason Bourne, any day. To me, Brosnan's films ([highlight=#ffff00]the first two especially[/highlight]) [highlight=#ffff00]are[/highlight] regarded as [highlight=#ffff00]Great Flicks[/highlight] in the series. I really think he should stop being harsh on himself and stop supporting the braindead people who regard him as 'da worst bond'. Heck, I can never accept to hear it.

My sentiments exactly, John P. Drake. But it was that double-dose of crapfest 007 with WINE and DAD that sunk the 'Brosnan Ship of Bond' for me. That 'Austin Powers version of Bond' stems directly from the sheer idiocy Brosnan was put through (not to mention the truly lame CGI) in DAD. That's why it was so crushing that Brosnan didn't get that fifth Bond film made where he could have had one more chance to make a really solid Bond adventure (just like he wanted to do). But Babs and her half-witted half-brother had other ideas, eh.

Speaking of DAD: this was the last Bond film that I saw with my older brother and I can still hear him saying afterwards, "Well, Pierce was fine but the rest of the film was garbage." I saw my very first Bond film with my older brother (along with my younger brother) and it was incredibly ironic and telling that we both immediately started to discuss the Connery Bond films after complaining about DAD. We were both compensating for that bad Bond film experience we had just shared. But neither one of us blamed Pierce Brosnan for this debacle. Unfortunately, too many punks still blame Brosnan for the decline of the James Bond films. But all of us here know exactly who to blame for this: Babs and Mike!

Sir, I'm speechless. Very well written!