Being a James Bond fan I decided to take a look at the four 007 films of Pierce Brosnan – GoldenEye (1995), Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), The World Is Not Enough (1999) and Die Another Day (2002). After making video reviews of all the previous entries in the Bond series, Brosnan seemed like the next inevitable step.
Titled The Brosnan Age, this series was meant to convey my opinions and feelings about this seven year period in the 007 film series, along with some history about the films and some fun stuff thrown in for fellow Bond fans.
These reviews have gotten much more detailed, longer and much more involved than how I started them. Originally they were meant to be quick one minute reviews of each film. But as things progressed I realized I had much more to say about the films, so why not do it. Even if these reviews almost equaled the running time of the films.
I completed The Brosnan Age awhile back, but as I’m currently working on the next batch of 007 reviews I thought it would be nice to take a moment and thank the followers of this series. I really appreciate those fans who’ve been watching my 007 video projects from the beginning and have consistently asked me about when the next one will be arriving, along with the newer fans who have discovered them.
Knowing that these projects are being anticipated by some has kept me motivated to continue them. Their enthusiasm for James Bond, the feedback they’ve given me about these 007 projects and hearing their passionate feelings about all things Bond (whether they agree with my opinions or not) makes all the time and work that goes into making them well worth it.
This has been in my head lately, since I’m back working in Bond territory. I realize that I am no longer making these just for myself, but a few other 007 fans who are looking forward to watching them. And that’s pretty cool!
The Brosnan Age Introduction
The Brosnan Age Introduction from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.
GoldenEye (1995)
GoldenEye Review from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.
Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
Tomorrow Never Dies Review from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.
The World Is Not Enough (1999)
The World Is Not Enough Review from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.
Die Another Day (2002) – Part One
Die Another Day Review Part One from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.
Die Another Day (2002) – Part Two
Die Another Day Review Part Two from HaphazardStuff on Vimeo.
You know you've hit every mark in your commentary but to me D. Craig is the worse Bond and I wish they would have let Brosnan give it one more try !
Pierce Brosnan is the WORST James Bond of them all, his got a licence to suck!
Haphazard Stuff, I hate Pierce Brosnan because he ruined James Bond, of course he is credited for saved the series but he's a very bad actor and even a poor choice who is trying too hard to be the new James Bond by making him too commercialized, too lousy and even overrated.
You get a lot of TWINE wrong. Most of the buildup (like 2/3 of the film) is designed to make the audience think EK is the damsel in distress. So when her head of security is caught red handed, everybody thinks the inside man is gone, confirmed by Bond following the apparent accomplishes and ending up with XMas J. All the apparent evidence of Renard planning to nuke her pipeline quickly dispelled the first brief suspicion against EK. And of cause Bond is required to always be a bit smarter than his boss M (male or female).
EK's mothers side family is mentioned earlier in the scene where she talks the villagers into letting the pipeline past by playing on her deep personal ties to the area.
Renard is immune to pain, but not immune to direct physical damage. Like getting his balance-sense (inner ear) knocked out of kilter for a second, or loosing air to his brain through strangulation.
I like how you mention that Brosnan didn't' bring anything new to the character. he was just a one note bond relying on gadgets and machine guns instead of wits and intelligence to defeat the villains of them movies. He tried to combine Connery and Moore with a bit of Dalton and that combination just didn't work. In a series if you are going to take a different take on the lead character you better go all the way (go big or go home).
TWINE lost me when Denise and Pierce crawled out of the pipeline and Pierce asked "so, what are you doing here in Kazakhstan?" The better question would have been, "what are either of us doing here in Kazakhstan, since we've been told and shown that the pipeline was supposed to connect the Caspian Sea and the Med, and Kazakhstan does not lie between those two points!"
Brosnan turned every Bond film into a really bad 90-minute television show. The reason he was never allowed to make the character "grittier" was because the producers knew he'd never pull it off. Dalton should have been retained- a vastly better actor who was bringing the role a gravitas it had lost in the early-60s when Connery's Bond was crawling around fake volcanoes.
Hap…I love your Bond reviews but I feel you're to harsh on the Brosnan era. To say Brosnan is the worst when we have Roger Moore in the series as well is very unfair. Next to Moore (and I think Moore is fine), Brosnan's output is the second most problematic but that's not to say his movies are uniformly bad. They're not, they're very good but with jarring moments here and there.
There isn't the bandwidth here to go into what I think makes the Brosnan era good (not great, good…that and I'm planning a big in depth and metatextural look at James Bond on my own site…plug, plug) but the following should be taken into consideration:
1. The need to bring back James Bond into a cinematic world which considered True Lies and XXX to be high water marks in the action-spy genre.
2. The context of both a post Cold War world, a Hollywood now owned and controlled by non-movie moguls and the state of British film making at that time.
3. How focussing on Denise Richards in TWINE completely misses the point as to the real story and saga of Bond and why Brosnan delivers his best performance with real depth. Yep, you read that right.