Brosnan was a good Bond in that it was his charm more so than his acting that kept the movies afloat. Bond movies will always make money and the idea of questioning Bond's relevance in the world is obtuse. So intelligence gathering, national/international security is a past time contained to just the cold war?? I don't think so. Brosnan was a popular actor and this was made clear by various interviews of the general public's impression of his casting. He had the typical "look" that people came to associate with Bond.
However, through no real fault of his own, Brosnan's movies declined with every subsequent release IMO. His acting didn't particularly help either, which I suppose doesn't count for much because he wasn't really given strong material to work with anyway. The Brosnan era spent too much time box-ticking typical, past time cliches and often delved into self parody just to make the audience feel comfortable and remind them that we're watching a Bond movie.
Brosnan not returning is something he needs to get over and accept. It's not like he initially had plans to come back anyway because he didn't even want to do a 5th initially. However, if I were Brosnan I would be pissed at the fact that the level of care, detail and the caliber of the scripts, actors, production and the high level of effort going into these movies is something the producers just felt they didn't need to do with him in the role. That can be seen as a somewhat huge slap to the face but what ever. Craig is here, Craig is a far superior Bond and Craig is bringing back a Bond that can be taken seriously as opposed to the juvenile nonsense of the Brosnan era.
Great post. I agree. Brosnan started off with a bang but each of his films got more an more generic and became Americanized action films. It was never more apparent than with Die Another Day. GoldenEye was the one truly great film he did. TWINE has its moments but its not as good. Elektra King as an interesting character but Christmas Jones has to be one of the weakest Bond girls ever.
With the material Brosnan was given later his Bond came off a little smug. Another issue I had was that his Bond could be too much of a physical superman in later films. He got hurt but some of those physical stunts looked outlandish even for Bond. I enjoy the more physically toned down work of the Graig movies where Bond is clearly a resourceful man but still a man.
Bosnan could be more of a composite Bond. I suppose thats one reason he was so successful...his films had something for everyone. A bit of Connery, a bit of Moore, and a dash of Dalton from time to time. But his strength could also be his weakness. He never quite had as much of Connery's cool, Moore's charm, or Dalton's darkness so there were times when he didn't leave his own distinct stamp on the role the way others did love them or hate them. People might not like Moore or Dalton but their takes where distinctly theirs. In the short term people loved The Bros but in the long term his run may not have left the impression with some that Connery and Moores did because they each played it their own unique way.
I just wish Brosnan had really been given a stronger film with more character moments to work with because he had it in him IMO. EON just played it too safe in that department. Its interesting that Brosnan was also the one that got the least Fleming material to work with. Bits an pieces of the books made their way into his films as inspiration but not nearly as much as the others.
Though Dalton never had the classic film, he is still my favorite Bond. His portrayal just in my opinion falls closer in line with Fleming's man, and he looked the most similar too.
GE as originally written could have been great. From what I've heard they lightened the tone considerably when Bros came on board.
As much as I loved Brosnan as Bond I always enjoyed Dalton a little bit more. His more grounded human take on the character was refreshing. Moore was best at playing the gentleman spy but Dalton was so cold and sharp that he was arguably one of the best when it came to portraying Bond the would be assassin. When he told General Pushkin to get down on his knees it really seemed like Bond was going to execute him. Bond usually doesn't take pleasure in killing but will do it when necessary. Dalton seemed like the most natural at that.
I don't get when people call Dalton "dull" I just can't see that, he seems very similar to Craig imo, like an older and more experienced version of Craig's interpretation. In my opinion both Dalton and Craig are the most human Bonds. I guess if you like your Bond as a cartoon like character that may seem "dull" but I disagree completely. I specially like how Dalton reacts to things, wether the emotion he is displaying on screen is anger, surprise, scare, etc, it seems very genuine..far better than anything Brosnan was able to display, and eventhough I like GE I think it is grossly overrated by a lot of fans.
-In LTK I speacially like the look Dalton gives to Sharky after some silly comment he does when Bond just dropped the corrupt cop to the shark with the 2 million briefcase..and of course the delivery of Dalton moments earlier when he drops said corrupt cop to the shark.
-The reaction Bond has when he sees Felix Leiter maimed at his place.
-In TLD when his collegue Saunders is killed in the fair, Dalton stare is just nuts.
Just to name a few...I think the only other Bond actor that matches that is Craig, but that is how I like my Bond, I really don't care about Brosnan and his smugness..not to sound ranty because I actually enjoy Brosnan movies, they are very entertaining.
If anything Dalton was just 20 years too soon. He paved the way for some of the things Craig is doing now. Craig just got a better movie and more of a character arc to work with. I'd love to hear their thoughts on each other.
Dalton had his own kind of dark humor that worked for him. That look he gives Koskov when he's spinning his BS post defection story at the safehouse in The Living Daylights is hilarious. Great acting. He tells you with a look that he thinks Koskov is full of sh**.
Dalton was never the problem with his films it was the films themselves. They weren't bad. In fact I though they were solid Bond films but they weren't spectacular either. John Glen was a serviceable workman but he didn't give his films that bigger scope. Part of that was budget. When GoldenEye rolled around you could tell they spent a lot more money on it.
I think TLD had some pretty weak villains in Whitaker and Koskov. Koskov was great comic relief but he never seemed threatening. Whitaker was like a big kid. Necros was a cool henchman though. Sanchez was a villain more on Dalton's Bond's level. He was ruthless and their showdown at the end of LTK was pretty nasty. Even Brosnan got that one great rival in 006. Dalton never got his TSWLM or GoldenEye...that one film that was perfect and one of the best. GoldenEye could have been that for him if he hadn't stepped down in 94.
There are some things in the finished movie that Brosnan was clearly better at (romancing the ladies, the sly charm) but The darker parts of that story had Dalton written all over them. He would have played Bonds anger over Alec Trevelyan's betrayal to the hilt. Bonds "Its what keeps me alive" line sounded tailor made for Dalton.
Parts of the films questions about Bonds relevance in a post cold war world may have worked better with Dalton continuing on. Dench's M calling him a relic would have been strong although her line about him being a sexist misogynist worked better with Brosnan since he was so good at the womanizing elements.
Dalton's Bond films weren't as good as Brosnan's best (GoldenEye) but they were miles above Brosnan's worst (DAD).
