Perhaps I should feel ashamed of this, but I only came into the Bond films with Pierce Brosnan. He was my first Bond, and though I’ve seen every film since Goldeneye, I’ve never loved them enough to go back and watch the earlier ones. If you think they’re great, I’ll take your word for it. I feel like I know plenty enough from listening to Matt Mira ramble on about them on Nerdist podcasts.
Anyway, I mention that by way of introducing Brosnan’s thoughts on the new Bond film, Spectre (which Matt Mira apparently placed 2nd all time, behind only Casino Royale, which makes Mira not only a huge Bond fan, but a total contrarian). Brosnan didn’t think much of Specture, as he tells Hitfix:
“I was looking forward to it enormously. 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.”
He though it was a little too Bourne, buer Bond nor Bourne. Am I in a Bond movie? Not in a Bond movie?”
I believe it may have been Shakespeare who first asked tt not Bourne enough to be a good Bourne film (I think):
”[‘Spectre’] is neither fish nor fowl. It’s neithhat question. “Am I in a Bond movie? Not in a Bond movie? ‘Tis Nobler in the mind to suffer.”
Brosnan, however, is quite the fan of the current James Bond, Daniel Craig:
“Daniel, in the fourth go-round, has ownership of it. He had a nice looseness to him. He’s a mighty warrior, and I think he found a great sense of himself in this one with the one-liners and a nice playfulness there. Just get a tighter story, and he’ll have another classic.”
On all points, Pierce Brosnan is not wrong.