The most disappointing James Bond movie ever, according to Pierce Brosnan: “Kind of weak”
When it comes to dinner party conversation staples, the question of the greatest James Bond film is as about as reliable as they come.
Like all debates generally do, this one fractures the generations and exposes gaping differences in their societal views. Maybe the creepy uncle in the corner, who’s on his fifth brandy, might lament that Sean Connery’s Goldfinger is the very best of the lot, for it represents a simpler time. A time when wooing women and killing for King and country were the only skills required to play the sleazy spy.
Naturally, a more contemporary voice may refute that claim and stake Daniel Craig’s more introspective thrillers as the greatest of the lot. His emphatic introduction on Casino Royale seemed to hit all the traditional notes, while presenting something slightly more emotionally alternative, which, with Skyfall, descended into something deeply psychological.
Maybe you’re like me, and enjoy the Pierce Brosnan collection of films because of how simply shit they are. Brosnan’s films were akin to a greasy cheeseburger. Absolutely not good for you, it’s probably best not to know what the thought processes were going into it when making it, and come the finish, you’ll feel a little bit worse about yourself. But in the moment, with every bite, you’ll enjoy the gluttony of something so simple.
Despite starring in said junk-food Bond films, Brosnan himself seemed to enjoy the more nuanced take led by Craig and director Sam Mendes. Skyfall was the coup de grace of their project and left a palpable mood of expectation in its wake. How would Bond fare without Judi Dench’s M? What’s left for him in the world now, as an ageing special agent on the emotional brink? The follow-up Spectre had big boots to fill, and Brosnan wasn’t so sure that it managed.
“I was looking forward to [Spectre] enormously,” Brosnan told Hitflix, before drastically pulling a U-turn, claiming, “I thought it was too long. The story was kind of weak – it could have been condensed. It kind of went on too long. It really did.”
But where Mendes and Craig’s approach differed from what came before was that the films were treated more like sequels than anthologies. The plot lines continued on from one another, and what stories that were left unresolved in the previous films had to bleed into the next.
Mendes explained, “You could even argue that at the end of Skyfall, he has failed. He has not kept M alive, and though Silva’s death is a victory for Bond, there are other elements that are failures. Hence, with Spectre, I wanted to give him a chance of redemption.”
“What we’ve got here is a kind of creation myth at play,” Mendes continued. “We are not adhering to any previous version of the Spectre story. We are creating our own version. Our film is a way of rediscovering Spectre and the super villain, setting him up again for the next generation.”
Maybe the individual story of Spectre was weaker than some of its more action-packed counterparts. But it was part of a wider story that spanned the length of several films, which ultimately became much stronger than any individual Bond output.
