Rank Pierce Brosnan's Bond fillms

1. GoldenEye
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. The World Is Not Enough
4. Die Another Day

In release order, but the only one of them I really don't like is Die Another Day. GoldenEye is great and the two in the middle are good.

 

1. Tomorrow Never Dies is the only one I consider very good
2. The World is Not Enough is well acted (by some) but dull, ugly and with some terrible action scenes (except the boat chase)
3. GoldenEye I have never liked
4. Die Another Day is a joke

 

1. GoldenEye
2. The World Is Not Enough
3. Die Another Day
4. Tomorrow Never Dies

 

1. 1) Goldeneye (I rank this second best overall behind Goldfinger)
2. 2) Tomorrow Never Dies
3. 3) The World Is Not Enough
4. 4) Die Another Day

Personally, I love all them (yes, I liked DAD, it was OTT but enjoyable), but Goldeneye owns all of them).

 

Goldeneye is so ridiculously overrated. I watched it last night nd sure its a cool film, I mean most Bond movies are but the amount of adoration GE gets is ridiculous. Pierce's best movie is definately TWINE.

 

I agree, it's over rated. No-one has ever been able to explain to me why it's so popular. I can see the merits of all the other fan favourite Bonds, but not GoldenEye. For me, it just doesn't work. It's a clumsy and ugly movie that doesn't gel with the rest of the series and doesn't understand the internal workings of a Bond movie, only the external ones. It's a better movie than Die Another Day of course.

 

Goldeneye is the film that revived the franchise. Many had feared that we wouldn't get another one because the Cold War had ended (you will recall in GE that M refers to 007 as a "relic of the Cold War), and Goldeneye was the film that put the fans' fears to rest, and they were very grateful for that. It also had a smart, well written storyline, a great villian in Trevelyan, two of the hottest Bond babes ever, a great theme song and the best Bond since Connery (I loved Moore, but Brosnan was better).

 

I appreciate that GE was a good enough movie made after a lengthy absense but to me, it still doesn't warrent the blind adulation it gets. I find it tedious to be honest. Like I said its a good movie but I wouldn't consider it as the greatest or within my top 5. Now, TWINE imo is Brosnan's best Bond movie but to each his own.

 

I think TWINE lacks two important things; glamour/exoticness, and quality action scenes. GoldenEye atleast has the latter, but is even uglier than TWINE. St Petersberg? Military bases? No thanks. TWINE comes to a complete standstill everytime the action team take over, as director Michael Apted had no experience with action and it shows. Apart from the boat chase, terrible action scenes.

 

Strange. I think that it is the Bond movie that captures Bond best and follows the mold of great Bond films like From Russia with Love and For Your Eyes Only. All three rely on much more realism and doesn't go off the deep end of fantasy, gadgets, and villains. They are actual spy thrillers and not just the stereotypical Bond film.

 

1.Goldeneye
2.TWINE (This might have been number 1 if Christmas Jones wasn't in it)
3.Tomorrow never dies
4.Die another day

 

1. GOLDENEYE - Flawed and far too self-aware, but overall the best of Brosnan's entries as James Bond. Entertaining throughout, with a nice "neo-classic" vibe that harkens to the 60s while bringing Bond squarely into the new world.

2. TOMORROW NEVER DIES - A film that's little more than just a typical action flick with a guy named Bond in it. Still, Brosnan does some solid work here, and there are some fairly good moments.

3. DIE ANOTHER DAY - A film that has the worst screenplay in Bond history with some appalling performances, but does have a sense of style and scope not seen in a Bond film for a while.

4. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH - The worst Bond film ever made, and fails on nearly every level. The only two things that work for it are its most excellent title and the great pre-title sequence.

 

It is a very good Bond movie, but overpraised (I would say it is more overpraised than overrated) because it came after an absence of six years and because it managed to make a post-Cold War Bond relevant again, something that the Dalton-era Bond, whow as fighting drug dealers like so many 80s action heroes, failed to do. Sure it isn't as great as the early Connery Bond and it isn't as typical as it could have been, but it generated enthusiasm for the franchise again, and this is why it is still loved, probably more than it should be.

 

Bond fights bad guys relevent to the time. Yes, he fought drug dealers in the 80s - drug dealers were public enemy number one in the 80s. He fought a yuppie, Max Zorin, in the 80s, he fought a media mogul in the 90s, obviously the Russians in the 60s, and ironically fought alongside the Mujahideen in the 80s as well. Bond wasn't considered irrelevent in the late 80's, it just adapted perhaps too well, with Licence to Kill, to movies like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard.

 

I disagree. I think they're just the right amount of serious. They don't go overboard with campy villains or sidekicks. Most of the weaponry is fairly realistic. It's not overly fantastical, which most of the Bond movies have tended to be. Give me those three movies and both Dalton movies any day of the week.

 

1. Ge
2. Twine
3. Tnd
4. Dad

 

1.Goldeneye
2.The World Is Not Enough
3.Tomorrow Never Dies
4.Die Another Day

Close between GE & TWINE.All are enjoyable save DAD.

 

I don't have a problem with drug dealers, but all the drug dealers Bond fought lacked something (even as early in LALD, which I overall liked). And LTK was not really a spy story, which could have been, even with a drug baron as an adversary (ruthless, yes, but without the panache of a Goldfinger or Dr No). That's what I meant by atypical, and that's how his relevance got questionned. I remember an article in the early 90s talking about basically a writer's block in the James Bond franchise, because of the end of the Cold War. Something was lacking in LTK and I think it was the spy element. And if you think about it, even in the 60s, Bond barely fought the Russians (or the Communists). Quite often, his direct adversary was an apolitical man or organisation, that used the Eastern bloc for its own benefit.

 

Oh, and for my classification:

1.Goldeneye
2.Tomorrow Never Dies/TWINE (ex aequo).

...and that,s it. Those were the three Bond movies Brosnan played in. No, there wasn't any other one. Nothing happened after that. No, don't say it. It never existed.

 

Of all the Bond films...Goldeneye is the oddball, even moreso than Die Another Die. As absurd as DAD was, even for Bond's standards, it still has the feel of a Bond film, still has the Bond elements, no matter how ridiculous or overzealous those elements were used.

But with Goldeneye, it just sticks out and I can't explain why. From the cinematography to the odd score by Eric Sierra, it feels "different," and personally, I never was a fan of the "production value" used with the Brosnan films. It always seemed lackluster or dull. TWINE looks horrendous, and I have no clue what I'm talking about from a technical standpoint, actually I have no clue what I'm talking about period, but aesthetically, the Brosnan films feel very different from one another.

That was my little rant that probably made no sense to those who read it, but what the hell lol

 

1. Goldeneye
2. Tomorrow Never Dies
3. The World is not Enough
4. Die Another Day

...hm coincidence?

 

1. Goldeneye (9/10)
2. The World is not enough (8,5/10)
3. Tomorrow Never Dies (7,5/10)
4. Die Another Day (7,5/10)