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
Connery at his worst is at least 10 times better than the best Brosnan.
GoldenEye
Hmm I suppose I get what you mean BUT I'd argue Brosnan did pretty well with the "me too" and "I never miss" lines. Dare I say those small moments perhaps rival anything Connery did.
Ok maybe thats exaggerating they were moments where I wasn't thinking of Connery, Moore etc but of Bond
In DAD I wasn't thinking of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or even Brosnan himself, I was thinking of Bond. It's when I went out of the cinema that I saw that this film and the actors in it, specially Brosnan and Berry, were rubbish.
In DAF Connery is not at his best, it's true, HOWEVER, Connery had some great moments where we could see some reminiscence of his greatest times and acting in FRWL.
Brosnan wasn't that bad in DAD He had his moments. Berry was though :-&
He was all right in the PTS, the rest was rubbish.
The Perfect Bond Film
Diamonds only had four things good about it: The PTS, Mr Wint and Kidd and The John Barry track "Bond meets Bambi and Thumper" with the organ version of The Bond theme and Connery despite what people say his bond was affected by Tracey's death but in a very subtle way- when Moneypenny gives him the line about the diamond ring (you can see him pausing almost hurt looking and he had a rage in the PTS) apart from that sadly the film was terrible
i'll vote for DAF just because it's got sean in it.
Um... are you voting for FRWL? Because that's not one of the films at hand right now.
Sorry, I was just making a comment on two of my favourite Bond movies..
Of the choice, i'll go for 'Goldeneye'..
It's one of the better Bond films to date!
That's like comparing The Beatles "Let it Be" to one of Paul McCartney's 1990's solo records.
Never! Not that I dislike Connery by any means, but Brosnan wipes the floor with Connery, it is just a proven fact! Brosnan IS James Bond, I mean just look at him, it is undeniable. His raw swagger and cool, deadly authority mixed with a chill attitude makes him the winner of this contest.
I couldn't agree less. Brosnan is now considered as the ultimate Bond because his Bond just finished ten years ago, or two films ago, and not everybody on the streets has seen Connery's, Lazenby's, Moore's or Dalton's.
I consider Brosnan as one of the worst Bonds, only saved by his first and third films, which are great, specially the first one. That doesn't make him a good actor. It's like saying that as Missing in Action was acceptable, and even fun to watch, Chuck Norris is a good actor. (I hope he doesn't read this and kill me).
I'd have thought the majority have seen at least Connery's and Moore's.
As I said on another thread Brosnan is probably the third most popular Bond behind Connery and Craig at the moment (Moore seems to divide people more due to his "lighter" approach). Only yesterday I was in Waterloo station and saw a magazine with his face on the front cover in a Bond stance. He was one of four possible covers for that week, the other three were Connery, Moore and Craig (the article inside referred to them as "four of the best Bonds"). Lazenby and Dalton were no where to be seen.
And that's the problem they haven't seen every Bond's strengths and weaknesses.
For me the rank's clear:
1) Connery/Moore (I've always believed that they were both sides of a coin and that we wouldn't appreciate one so much without the other.)
2) Craig (I like his human and ruthless Bond)
3) Lazenby (the most underrated one, he would be in second position if he had done more flicks so that we could see the revenge side of him in DAF)
4) Brosnan (he was good in his odd films, GE TWINE, but not that good in the even, TND DAD)
5) Dalton (he was one of the best actors to play Bond, but was the worst Bond, specially in LTK, in which he plays more a Die Hard kind of character than Bond. TLD wasn't that bad, it's actually very fun to watch)
Ouch! Quite a controversial feeling to have around here. I've always had rather mixed feelings about Dalton myself. I can see what he's trying to do and admire him for it but there's just something he doesn't have.
Anyway, this is meant to be about GE and DAF.
That said, the fact that a lot of the creative talent behind the films was dispersed by the time of GE means there is no guarantee that a Dalts GE would have been significantly better than the mess it turned out to be.
Plus Dalton was never that great with the quips ("looks like he came to a dead end"). He'd probably be the first to admit that too. So I can't really see him going for a "Moore approach"
That's not to say Dalton didnt deserve a third film. He did. And I feel sorry for him that he never got to complete his three film contract. But I'm just not sure he had what it took to charm audiences in the way his predecessors (and successors) did.
I even remember him saying in an itv documentary on Bond during the mid 90s- albeit in a jokey manner - that:
"Half the world likes Sean Connery, half the world likes Roger Moore and they all hate me".
I enjoy DAF when I watch it, it has a witty script and is easy viewing, but as a Bond film it ranks the lowest of the low for me. Yet another Guy Hamilton let down.
GE wins.
He did deserve a third film, but still I don't know if he could do the right thing with the role.
Dalton never seemed unpopular to me. I was pretty young but I remember the audience cheering at parts of TLD. I think some people thought LTK was too dark and that reflected badly on Dalton.
Well, after I recently watched both films in a row I came to the conclusion that we connect the movies too much with the respective Bonds. When you watch DAF it's so much closer to the "typical" Moore film than LALD and MWTGG. The same goes for TLD which is also closer to Moore then what we connect Dalton with. So it's quite easy to blame the actors but in fact the series would have taken the exactly same direction with or without a certain actor. And I hope we all agree on the fact that the Bond of Dalt had much more in common with Ian Fleming's creation than Moore or Brozza had.
Exactly. TLD was a solid enjoyable entry and well received. LTK was a bit odd and with the 15 certificate it meant a whole younger age group missed out on seeing it. The tone of LTK, which was not of Daltons own making, meant that Tim was then seen as the 'dark' Bond, when he himself wanted a lighter tone. Because he never got to make another he got labeled with that dark reputation. However, TLD is one of my top 5 and amply demonstrates that Dalts could deliver classic Bond with a menacing twist. Really TLD is not a million miles from the better Moore films.
With LTK I get the feeling everybody concerned (including Dalton) tried a bit too hard to be dark and "brooding". Watching LTK he pretty much scowls his way through the entire film and looks a bit uncomfortable in some of the lighter scenes (i.e. the Q scene in the hotel). That ultimately, as @thelivingroyale said, reflected badly on the bloke.