Thursday, January 25, 2007
Bond? We Don't Need No Stinking James Bond
Pierce Brosnan speaks about life post-Bond with my friend Josh Rich of Entertainment Weekly. Josh likes the ladies but nonetheless he has a special bond with Brosnan, having spoken with him a number of times before. Who else would bring up Greek drama with the guy? "Casino Royale's" success must be very bittersweet since the producers did exactly what he begged them to do: relaunch the franchise with "Casino Royale" and make a gritty, more real Bond. They just didn't do it with him. Nonetheless, Brosnan seems at peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Has anyone informed Pierce Brosnan that he's OLD? Don't get me wrong -- his Bond movies were more fun than anyone since Connery in my opinion. But if Brosnan had attemped this movie, he either would have been seriously injured, or they would have needed so many stunt doubles that it would have taken too much away from the action sequences. He's just not built for that kind of movie. Nor is he as good of an actor as Daniel Craig for that matter. I think it was time to make a change and they made the right decision.
Has anyone informed you that you're a bit of a boob? What do all you Bond freaks want? For Brosnan to declare "they were right to get rid of me, I wasn't very good and am I'm old and I was lucky they gave me a job in the first place". Step away from the Brocolli Bond kool-aid.
He answers the inevitable and cringe-making Bond questions as well and with as much grace as possible. He's over it but he's not going to call himself crap to make you feel better.
FYI, Seraphim Falls was a far more physically demanding film than the last Bond movie, than any Bond movie.
As for Craig being a better actor -- pfft.
Actually no, they haven't, Mr. Anonymous.
I think you missed the part where I complimented him by the way -- nor did I say anything about the way he has handled the situation (which I agree has been pure class).
My argument was simply that Craig is better for this current Bond because of A. physical stature and B. age. We can agree to disagree on who is a better actor but I'll refrain from calling you any names in the process.
Joe, Now I think you're a boob for not calling Anonymous a boob :) Com on, Joe -- an online smackdown is always fun. Joe (and the producers) are absolutely right that to reboot the franchise they needed a new young actor. You couldn't go back ot the origins of Bond with the actor that had played him in the last four movies. Anonymous is right that Brosnan has handled himself with class and since Joe was responding to a Brosnan article talking about the situationj I think it was fair game to believe Joe was criticizing Brosnan for being a little deluded. And brosnan was -- it was just crazy to think he could have been part of a major overhauling -- especially when he embodied the Roger Moore, fluffy side of Bond so completely. I do agree with joe that Brosnan is also too old for the strenuous stunts called for in this film. His Bond is unflappable and always in a tux; the Craig Bond is ruthless and cold. I'll always be sorry brosnan wasn't able to play Bond 20 years earlier back in 1987 when "Remington Steele" was virtually at an end and the Bond people wanted him. But I think his "Tomorrow Never Dies" with Michelle Yeoh was an excellent edition to the franchise. As for who is a better actor, for the moment I'd say it's a draw.
Post a Comment