agree, from head to toe he's all bond

No, Connery is Bond.

Fully agree.

Well Pierce definitely doesn't really blend in with the average populous. Even in the movies were he is all scruffy and poorly dressed he's head turningly handsome

I feel like there should have been a 2004 Bond film with Pierce brosnan one for him to do the way he wanted and then have the 2006 casino Royale with Daniel Craig 🎲🎰

What if he did a 5th James Bond movie

He was 48 when he did this interview

Trump 2020 he’s a spy in sooo many movies

The writers wrote the thing. The producers gave their approval. Those two hack writers, Purvis & Wade, should have been fired after The World is Not Enough frankly. How they're STILL writing for Bond (every single script of their since Die Another Day has had to be redrafted and polished by better writers, sometimes multiple) is beyond me. It's like they have dirt on the producers or something... seriously, get rid of them ffs. They are absolutely pathetic writers, throwing any old garbage together and always the same basic plot points regurgitated and filled with lame fanboy references to old Bond movies.

@@AD-kv9kj What if they brought back Bruce Feirstein and Jeffery Caine Goldeneye script writers for Die Another Day

@@AD-kv9kj Like any writer, the pair have their flaws, but they are not neccessarily to blame for all the flaws of the films themselves, and many positives about the films could well be because of them. I think the reality is somewhere inbetween. Their Bond/Jinx dialogue in DAD was smutty and awful, for example, yet the first two thirds of Casino Royale is entirely theirs.

@@davidfriend4328 Die Another Day's major problem is the massive tonal shift about 50 minutes into the film. The first part was fairly serious in tone, not humorless but not slapstick either. That's the "reality-based" bit he's probably got in mind, not so much the invisible car. But then, suddenly, like Dorothy being swept out of dustbowl Kansas and dropped into Technicolor Oz, Bond leaves the world of Goldeneye behind and gets suddenly deposited in Moore-era style bombasity. I *like* Roger Moore's films, even the silliness, but they swapped horses in the middle of the race and I think it wrong-footed the audience badly, hence the constant blow-back this film gets from critics. I feel like a lot of the problem was in the writers' room and with the director, but even more of the problem was likely in the studio trying to over-egg their pudding on the whole "Reference all the previous films" thing along with too much blatant product placement. Plus the camera f**kery that every action film was doing in those early-00's years when all of the industry was still suffering a post-Matrix hangover. This film gives me a bit of heartache every time I watch it because if they had kept the tone of the first hour, it would have been much better. Brosnan deserved to go out on a better note. Ah, well...

@@telegramsam Exactly. By the time you get to the second half of the film, it seems downright peculiar to think back to the South Korea scenes. It's like remembering another film entirely. It's strange that Pierce - who always championed a grittier style - was ultimatley dismissed while Purvis & Wade, who actually wrote the script, were retained. Seeing it at the cinema last week was the first time I had viewed it in several years. For the most part, I enjoyed it as a comic-book-y adventure, but the switch in tone is glaringly obvious and general audiences must surely have noticed it. I think the film is also a good fifteen minutes too long. The problem with staying in one location for a long time - in this case, the ice palace - is that once you finally leave it the change is jarring, particularly when you have't had a major bad-guy character get killed at the end of it. To a markedly less extent, I feel there is a weird narrative shift in Casino Royale too, in that the film is either sitting-still-at-a-card-table/talking or running-jumping-punching, and nothing of much inbetween those two extremes.

John Chan Chan Qiyang I guess if u count November man that would be 5 movies lol

he wasn't, he really wanted to do a 5th film.

​​@@codezero7981 pierce brosnan said in an interview that he really wanted to do a 5th bond movie. But in 2003/2004 when he was in the Bahamas filming after the sunset, pierce brosnan was fired from the role by micheal Wilson viva a telephone call. Pierce said he was angry over it

Not that bad of a film. Just a couple bad cgi scenes. I enjoyed it.

Sed1er "Not that bad of a film" Tell me, why did the producers decided to reboot the Bond series then?

sgtfrozty Because the films were beaten out by the Bourn films so they wanted to copy that formula. The films haven't felt like bond films, ever since.

Sed1er Casino Royale and Skyfall are highly rated as some of the best in people's minds. If the series continued like Die Another Day, it could've become a laughing stock, a parody of itself, a shadow of its past compared to the competition. The series had to move on.

sgtfrozty Couldn't agree more. They did the same with Moonraker. They went too far and afterwards they went back to a down to earth spy thriller in For your eyes only. Flemings bond character was a serious, ruthless killer, hence Timothy Dalton read all the books and went for a more realistic approach which I loved and I consider him a really strong bond. Craig and Tim are quite similar. I don't altogether blame Brosnan for the downward slide in his movies, it was the scripts and choice of directors. The producers knew DAD was a bad movie (despite making lots of money) this is why they had nowhere else to go but to recast and reboot the series.

@Sharon Plume I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm just making an observation.

Brosnan was getting too old. James Bond should never be over 50.

Cough Moore

Friedrich Schmidt Daniel Craig will be 52 by time his last Bond is released next year. Brosnan should have been allowed to make a fifth and a sixth Bond.

@@lukasnummer1 what a dumbshit comment, tom cruise is 57 looks 40 at most

@@khav11 That's not a sound argument. Tom Cruise still IS 57 and his looks regularly profit from the Hollywood procedure of intensive make-up and/or surgical interventions. Plus, he looks young because he's probably never had a bad day in his life. James Bond leads a very different life.

😂😂😂