Changing opinion's of actors and films

identigraph

After reading a lot of the posts and opinions on this forum, I wonder what factors come into the forming of opinions.

Pierce Brosnan seems to be getting a lot of hate at the moment, yet he seemed popular at the time, the films made decent money, was he liked by the fan community at the time or was he accepted more by the mainstream?

Timothy Dalton and Geroge Lazenby seem to have it pretty good on here, is it because they weren't round long enough for people to get fed up with them?

Roger Moore gets a lot of hate and a lot of love, is he the most polarizing of the actors?

Sean Connery seems fairly untouchable, is he overated, does his attitude towards Bond alter your opinion of him at all?

The current films with Daniel Craig seem popular, is this due to the critical love and it being new? Do you get as much enjoyment from the new films compared to classics of the past?

NicNac

I have moved this out of News and in to Movies @identigraph.

My initial feelings towards Connery, Lazenby and Moore have never changed. I can detatch my feelings about connery and Lazenby as people (Connery is an old grouch and Lazenby prickly at best) from their performances as Bond.

I did like Dalton more at the time he was around than I do now. There was always something that bothered me about his portrayal but my natural desire to defend the current Bond at all costs meant I always gave him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly with Brosnan. I liked him more at the time than I do now.

I really rate Craig now but I have no doubts in the back of my mind that he is and will always be a terrific Bond.

BAIN123

I don't like him as much as I once did but I think Brozza gets a bit too much flack on here to be honest. True he never delivered a flawless performance and he left the series in a rather prickly manner but it seems there's been a complete 180 in terms of opinion. As @NicNac said about Connery and Lazenby I can detach my feelings about Brosnan the man and Brosnan as Bond. Maybe its just a personal thing.

I thought he was liked by most of the fan community at the time - not just after the hiatus but before so aswell. Graham Rye, editor of 007 Magazine wrote this after DAD:

"I like Pierce Brosnan as James Bond. He’s got all the right qualities a good Bond should have: he’s tall dark and handsome, he handles the humour well, he’s believable in the action scenes—and the cinema-going public love him! Unfortunately I don’t think the films measure up to his ability as an actor to do something more with the role than he’s been allowed to show to date. In GoldenEye, a colourless drab looking film, he was given little to do except react to the other characters and situations around him. Tomorrow Never Dies was his finest hour as Bond, and I do mean hour. The first half of the movie is the best Brosnan/Bond to date, with some nice Bondian touches, up until the model of his BMW crashes off the hotel roof through a flurry of polystyrene bricks, then the film just simply rambles until it falls apart. I thoroughly enjoyed The World Is Not Enough, which had the best narrative structure of all the Brosnan/Bond films, and the story unfolded much more in the style of a Sixties’ Bond. Although the film is uneven, it’s about 200% better than the dire Die Another Day—quasi science fiction badly executed and acted by everyone but Brosnan".

No mention of so called pain-face or any other nonsense.

craigrules

I love Roger Moore

thelordflasheart

I would disagree with what Rye said about Brosnan. A good actor can elevate the material that they're in and Brosnan had plenty of opportunities to show acting ability in his films. This would be especially true with TWINE given its more emotional character relationships and Bond's injuries - yet ironically it showcases Brosnan's limitations more than any other of his films, especially when he tries pushing his performance.

The thing about Brosnan is that he *should* have been a great Bond - on paper he had everything that was needed. But as one reviewer noted he was a "TV actor" who lucked into films. I liked Brosnan far more than I thought I would in GE but that was partly due to fears that his approach would be very Moore-ish and that he wasn't at all tough. But Campbell really directed Brosnan well which helped. As the films went on Brosnan became more confident in his performance but it wasn't backed up by presence or acting ability. He always seemed a little bit like a kid who is pretending to be tougher than he is. I liken him to Mark Hammill in Return of the Jedi - competent until he has to project something that he doesn't have in real life (in Hammill's case a wisdom and gravity that Luke was supposed to have achieved).

I did quite like Brosnan but after Craig took the role there was a "retroactive diminishment" of Brosnan's performance in my mind. It was like someone finally showed me what could be done with the role. It was if all the Bond films since Connery were made in black and white and then suddenly they were being made in colour again. It was like...wow.

My opinions on the other actor's performances haven't changed much over the years except for a bit of a softening towards Moore who I couldn't stand when I was a kid. I would say that I see the limitations of Lazenby (really wooden in some scenes) and Dalton (a little too theatrical in some scenes) a bit more now that I'm not a young hero-worshipping movie-goer living vicariously through Bond but I still love them both. But Connery is still Connery! ;-)

BAIN123

For me it's a mixed bag when it comes to Brosnan being tough. On the one hand there were little touches in his films that were very effective:

A few examples:

"Sweet dreams" (after hitting Xenya)
"Me too" (before killing Dr Kaulfman)
"I never miss" (after killing Electra)
"Occupational Hazard" (The attempt to kill Miranda)

On the other he can overact. For the most part I thought he was ok in TWINE bar a few exceptions - namely the "There's no point in LIVING if you can't feel AALLIVE" scene.

I've seen him in a few other roles as straight up "tough guys" and it just doesn't suit him (i.e. Butterfly on a Wheel).



and Taffin



At least with Bond he was tough in smaller doses.

SaintMark

Sean Connery is James Bond and his person appearing in any movie gives it somewhat extra.
George Lazenby did one excellent 007 movie and I haven't seen that much else from the man. So he did well.
Roger Moore is the Saint & James Bond, but also a very devoted person when it comes to his extra work for the poor in this world. He is one awesome human being and easily the most impressive of all Bond actors.
Timothy Dalton is very good in supporting roles, liked him as this mad and spitting timelord, but he never convinced me as a lead actor lacks charisma. (something all bond actors have more or less and TD is seriously in the less department imho)
Pierce Brosnan is a great James Bond, allthough I prefered him as Remington Steele. He reminds me as the romantic hero from all those b/w adventure movies. I would rather have seen him as the Saint but alas. Since his leaving the franchise he has made excellent movies and his name is still a good reason to watch a movie.
Daniel Craig is in my humble opinion the 007 with the worst movies (QoS sucked and the sinking house was an awefull finish to a decent movie). I do hope for him that Bond23 gives him a decent 007 movie, he deserves it. As an actor he does not get served well in the franchise and outside he has done only a few parts that really made me sit up. When talking in the media he does have to learn a little more about tact. But he has a beautifull wife.