It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Merely most & least favourites.
*as in, the performance of the actors playing Bond himself in the film, not other cast members
Was he the best? That's subjective. But favourite? Ha! There you and I agree solidly, my friend! \m/
But with the actors it's much harder. Because what would it take to be the best Bond really? The closest to Fleming? The most popular? Connery is iconic and set the standard, but is it fair to call him the best Bond when other actors have come closer to Fleming's vision? At the same time some of the actors that were closer to Fleming don't have as much charisma Connery had. And if the best Bond is the most charismatic then Moore and Brosnan have to be up for consideration too. But Moore and Brosnan don't have the dangerousness of Dalton and Craig, and the best Bond should be dangerous right? But Bond throughout the years has become known for his quips and neither Craig nor Dalton nor any other Bond actor was as good as quips as Moore.
This could go on for a while but my point is that I think "best" Bond is too vague a term to be looked at objectively. I think it's entirely subjective. You could probably say that one Bond was objectively the most deadly (Brosnan has the most kills) or the best womaniser (Moore has slept with the most girls) and so on, but I think the overall best is entirely subjective, because too many people have different ideas about what Bond should be for there to be an objective best.
So I think Dalton was the best, simply because his Bond was my favourite, I like his Bond better than the others.
Like Connery?
The amount of insults toward Brosnan is amazing. Why has he suddenly become the fans' boogie-man? I enjoyed his performances as Bond as much as I had enjoyed the other actors who have portrayed the character.
\m/
Believe me most of those insults come from outspoken fans of Daniel Craig. That's a phenomenon that can be seen around the forums of different websites.
Everything will change once Craig is the "former Bond" and a new one has made at least two movies.
The focus on Brosnan as being the one to bash will vanish.
I don't beleive this to be true. I beleive Connery to be the best Bond and have always thought Brosnan was the worst of a good bunch based on performance and films. I must be different from the phenomenon you describe?
If you find Connery to be the best you even don't belong to that group I was describing.
I was talking about those who are outspoken fans of Daniel Craig. And a phenomenon doesn't include everyone, it just says that there is a noticeable amount of Craig fans that are disliking Brosnan or even bash him.
There are Craig fans that don't bash Brosnan or find him the worst.
However, I think Craig probably is the superior Bond. To me, scenes like the torture sequence in CR and M's death in SF (a favourite of mine because of Craig's acting) really show how Craig has surpassed Brosnan in the role. They give Craig meetier moments and you really feel for him in a way you rarely did with Brosnan (or Dalton for that matter).
I suspect Brosnan would say the same.
Watch the very similar torture scene with Elektra. And then how Bond waits to the last second and then shoots Elektra, and how he kisses and feels her good-bye when she's dead on the bed.
That was great acting but not overacting.
If you like Craig's similar scenes better that's ok, but I don't believe Craig was more convincing than Brosnan.
I'd even say Brosnan had the much more difficult job in doing serious scenes as the overall tone of his movies was very lighthearted and humourous.
However, I think the torture scene in CR is far more unpleasant to watch and also better directed.
I agree. The scene itself in CR is one of the most memorable in the whole series.
And Martin Campbell is bloody fantastic. And of course Craig makes this scene believable and I doubt any of the others could have pulled it off so convincing. But then if CR had been made with Brosnan, Campbell would have done the scene much different anyway.
Apted short of failed completely as a Bond director. TWINE could have been a masterpiece with a different director.
That being said Brosnan wasnt terrible; he could have been better but overall his Bond was weakly executed and although he did have a dew standout moments, it could be tge death of Paris or Elektra but neither come close to matching this
I agree with all you say. The Electra killing was Brosnan's equivalent of Moore's killing of Locque in terms of cold blooded Fleming moments. A real high point of both films.
I think Moore and Brosnan could have given more such moments but they simply were never asked to do so.
Craig on the other hand is in movies that take themselves seriously and are more realistic and hard-edged. So he gets a lot more of that stuff to do.
But that's got some serious scenes in the first half too (Bond being traded, greeted by M, parts of Cuba etc). You may not like his performance in those scenes but they're still in the film.
They tried to have it both ways in DAD because of the whole 40th anniversary thing. Be a serious, dramatic thriller "going into new territory" AND OTT comic-strip nonsense.
I agree. They wanted too much probably. I like the PTS the least of the movie. Bosnan's performance is marvelous but it is too brutal for me.
But the comic-strip nonsense (very accurate description) that I like, no I love it.
The end sequence in the plane is fantastic and a decade later they practically made a remake of this in Captain America.
1. Craig/Connery
2. Brosnan/Dalton
3. Lazenby/Moore
Then I don't have to really choose ;)
I can understand your thinking.
For me in pairs it'd be:
1. Dalton/Brosnan
2. Moore/Connery
3. Craig/Lazenby
Hmmm, and if you think the first half of DAD is high quality then fair enough, but I've always felt it was as bad, if not worse, than the second half.
IMO it actually improves in the second half - it's complety bat shit crazy but at least you don't fall asleep.
Pierce is the whole thing you can ask for in a Bond actor the most complete along with Sean Connery. Maybe his strongest assets weren't the phyiscal parts but he still did a good job in them and definitely excelled In Charisma, Sex appeal, charm, humor, sophistication and style.
Now i like the idea of pair ups rankings and here is mine
Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery
Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig
Roger Moore and George Lazenby
I never said it was "high quality" but it is more watchable and offers something with a bit of potential.
Nah. The first half is dreadful, but in a dreary, worthy kind of way. At least the second half is bad in a hilarious, camp, utterly OTT way.
Still amazes me that apparently sentient beings conspired to make that movie. I mean people actually sat down and thought it was a good idea. How does that happen? I understand how it happens with Transformers, where the whole point is to make utter rubbish, but how does EON end up making a movie like DAD?
Babs and MGW must have been on something really strong when they signed off on DAD.
Oh and the idea to reference all the preceding movies - total genius!