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
But the rest of the film? It wouldn't work. He's too cool. Lazenby was cool too (physically he's on par with Connery imo in the way he moves and carries himself) but what makes him and OHMSS stand out is how he seems like a real human person. Compare Brosnan ever so cooly strolling towards the printing press exit in TND to Lazenby's panic and fear as he tries to lose the guards in the village in OHMSS.
I think Lazenby could have been the best James Bond. He had Connery's presence and physical charisma, Craig's physicality in the fight scenes, he was just as cool as Brosnan and Moore (emerging through the door throwing knife in hand, sliding down the ice with a machine gun, sidestepping that bottle of acid and gunning down the scientist then looking at the burning hole in the wall where his head was and casually sauntering off) but he also felt real and human and physically vulnerable as well as emotional in a way that only Dalton matches. The only thing that lets him down is he's clearly the weakest actor of the bunch, he's so wooden at times. If he'd stayed on, grown into the role and got better at acting then he could have easily been the best Bond imo, especially with Hunt guiding him.
Hear, hear.
I like Pierce and he does a competent job as Bond, but to pretend his acting chops are on a par with Sean, Dalts, Dan and even Rog is risible.
What are we actually discussing here?
Performances as Bond or career?
Never said he was as good an actor as any of them did I? Just said he bought a lot of passion/emotion to it and that I think he could have channeled that well into the romance stuff (something he always wanted in his films iirc, a genuine romance, I remember reading that Paris was added for this reason) and losing Tracy in OHMSS.
Obviously he isn't as good an actor as Craig, or even Connery or Dalton, but I would say he's at least on par with Moore as a dramatic actor, if not better. The Tailor Of Panama? The Matador? Seraphim Falls? He can be very good when he has the right script. He's a solid charismatic leading man and a good character actor. And I'm not going to argue he's as good an actor as Connery but he's a lot more consistent, I've at least seen Brosnan attempt an accent a few times.
Learn to accept other people's opinions.
Don't like him? Fine. That's your opinion. But, to say he's bad? The box office numbers beg to differ as do the reviews of the films in his tenure. The reviews that were pinned down upon their release, not the ones implicated by the fans of today.
Completely agree with you.
I don't think Brosnan nailed anything, because he didn't do anything with the role. He is the most middle of the road Bond. He isn't as _______ as any of the other Bonds. I never got the impression that he was the driving force of his films.
Well now I'm torn guys. I like Brosnan, I'd go as far as to say I'm one of his biggest fans on here. Nostalgia probably does factor into it. I was a teenager in the late 90s and have fond memories of that time growing up, and seeing his Bonds at the cinema was a big part of that. Still remember how unbelieveably hyped I was for TND, I wouldn't shut up about it at school. But I also think he was genuinely really good and that GE and TWINE hold up brilliantly.
Gone off on a bit of a tangent there but my point is I really like Brosnan. But I don't think he measures up to Dalton at all. There's stuff he does better sure, he was more suave and charismatic and I'm not going to argue that Tim was anywhere near as good as the one liners. So I get the uncomfortable comments. But I think the uncomfortableness works for Dalton's Bond. He was a man who was burnt out and on edge after years in the field. He doesn't seem at ease because he's a troubled assassin, why would he be at ease? I think a lot of the criticism for Dalton comes from comparing him to the Connery cinematic Bond template, when he wasn't trying to do that. He's his own man, so it isn't really fair to say he didn't come across as cool (in the suave charismatic sense rather than grizzled badass sense, since he nailed the latter) and comfortable enough as weaknesses when that isn't really who his Bond was or who he wanted him to be.
And I do think Dalton is a better actor. Not a method actor no (isn't that where you stay in character the whole time?) but his classical training probably did help. He was just more convincing as a spy than any of the others for me. Part of that was his commitment to the role, getting involved with the action in a way only Craig has matched, but a lot of that is also down to his performance. I can't imagine any other Bond, Brosnan included, nailing the Pushkin scene in TLD like he does. Not just when he snaps but also the way he orders the girl to lock herself in the bathroom after. It's such a small line but with his delivery he manages to sell the idea that he's done this many, many times before. I like Brosnan a lot. But I think as Bond and as an actor, Dalton is on another level. And he's shown plenty of range outside of Bond too. Hot Fuzz anyone? A charismatic theatrical pantonmime villain. That's the complete opposite of the world weary assassin he played in his Bond films.
I don't know if it has anything to do with his classical training or the way he approached the part (reading Fleming on set, etc). I'm just basing this off his performance. He was perfect. Love Brosnan but Tim's the better actor and the better Bond imo.
Having said that, I think Craig is by far the most talented actor to play the role. But I prefer Tim and Pierce as Bond (I could easily see him taking second place if Bond 25 is really good though).
I still prefer Connery, Moore & Craig in this regard though.
Tomorrow Never Dies was the first one we had on VHS in the late 90's. Maybe I over watched it or something when I was younger because recently it's sat at the bottom of my rankings comfortably.
I still have fond memories of playing the PS1 version of TWINE to death when I was younger. I think a lot of my love for TWINE may be driven by that nostalgia, but I can't deny that Brosnan is fun to watch. He stills remains an actor I love to watch in movies and he's been awesome in a lot of non-Bond efforts (After The Sunset, Live Wire, The Matador, Shattered, The November Man, The Tailor of Panama, ...Mrs. Doubtfire lol) but I feel the actual films in his era (with the exception of GE and parts of TWINE) are rather generic, and I expect a little more from Bond.
...doesn't bother me so much as there having been one-liners for him to not be up to the task of delivering. Part of the larger issue, I think, is how his scripts juxtapose moments where the full extent of his source-material interpretation should come through (the sniper sequence in TLD or the finale of LTK) with moments of the habitual cinematic Bond, undermining the intent of his take on the character.
Also, to say that...
...does more to emphasize the distinct qualities Dalton sought to bring to the role rather than expressly make a point in favor of his successfully achieving those distinct qualities. In other words, (a) the Pushkin scene as written is a good one (of a scarce few) to serve Dalton's intentions with the character (and Dalton does do the scene very well), but at the same time (b) I can totally see Connery doing this scene in a Connery way, or of Moore doing this scene in a Moore way, etc. The scene itself is translatable, unlike something in the vein of the CR stairwell fight and its aftermath, which I'm unsure would have a Connery/Moore translation available to it. To fully comprehend the Dalton way, and how much of one there is, it might be more interesting to ask which scenes of Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Brosnan, or Craig that Dalton could have done in his way.
I would probably argue that Dalton's 'way' never becomes entirely tangible by the end of his tenure (because of the hesitancy of the scripts), and that we're left to grapple with the unrealized ideal of the Dalton way (the literary character incarnate) which in these thought experiments cannot be successfully graphed onto much of the other performers' scenes — simply because those performances are themselves so much of the cinematic character. This leaves Dalton in a kind of limbo.
EDIT: I have to say that the more I revisit Dalton's films the more I appreciate what he brought to the character. There is a genuine and authentic element to his portrayal. A wounded accessibility. I would argue that he was the most 'human' of the Bonds.
Bros actually never did much with the one-liners in the way Connery or Moore did. It was one area I thought he'd be great at going in. You can chalk part of that up to the writing too I suppose.
There are dinner jackets and dinner jackets, and there are different opinions and plain wrong opinions. You can argue that a cow is a colibri until your head pops out. It is still a cow...
Even a Brosnan aficionado has to agree dramatic acting was never Pierce's forte. When someone even argues he is better at it than Craig, we have lost touch with reality.
I love Pierce to bits, I'll say this. But, he's no dramatic actor. He's a leading actor who makes the film he's starring in likable and watchable for the audience. But, he's no dramatist.
Craig handles that better, sure. But, he's nowhere near the groundbreaking dramatist most of the people here are talking about. You're singing his praises like he's the messiah of the Bond films. Sure he's good, but not all that great. On that front, he's like Lazenby, but his acting range is also limited. Sometimes you'd just see him walk the scene and be done with it with little to no facial expressions. In the case of Brosnan? He overdoes it.
But, all in all, I will also say this... Bond isn't supposed to be an artsy drama that should be played by some Academy Award winning actor to legitimize its entity. Just have a look at Connery and Moore, you'll see they were no theatrical dramatists but suited the role perfectly without overacting or showing extensive emotions to buy the liking of the audience.
Craig is the Bond of today and earned the franchise a lot of money. But, it isn't the case that he brought it back on the larger market radar. Vice versa happened.
Exactly my thinking! I dont recall anyone referring Dalton to be a method actor! Truth is that there were 3 actors before him portraying Bond and he knew that he had to bring a fresh approach, so he looked at the novels where Bond started, and tried (and succeeded imo) to capture aspects not presented before. As he was quoted at the time. Bond is not a Superman, he's a tarnished man, with faults, he's human. Some have said Dalton hadnt enough screen presense. I disagree. When he's in a scene, even when he's not speaking you can see him actively listening to others! Unlike Brosnan who stares blankly (I'm thinking of the infamous "sexist..dinosaur" scene from GE. Brosnan seems not to be IN the scene at all!)
He brought nothing new to the role. Even his more kinder critics would say Brosnan was too generic. A recent critic described his take on the role as "Roger Connery"! You cant emulate previous actors. You have to put your own stamp on the part. Dalton did. Brosnan didnt!
Like Brossa all you want, and quote box office figures, but even the Producers felt he wasn't going anywhere with the role and dumped him!
Blaming the writers, directors, tea lady on his poor Bond movies cant hide the fact that he was a poor choice!
Well I'm sorry you're wrong. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself but I'm not going to argue with that.
Actually I don't have to agree at all because I disagree. I never said he was a better dramatic actor than Craig, That's what you said. I think he does drama just fine. But you don't have to take my word for it. ;)
http://picosong.com/wsrwr/
Precisely. What was it that someone else said when comparing Dalton to Brosnan? "Dalton had everything but an audience, Brosnan had an audience but nothing else."
As for the one liners, "salt corrosion" is a brilliant line, and one that Dalton delivers perfectly. I think if given the choice, Dalton might have chosen to have done away with the one liners, but they are there, and he does a good job in saying them. I don't recall one that he does badly. They just aren't the area that he excels most at.
He had nerves of steel and charisma.
You're forgetting his magnificent head of hair, and a blinding smile.
But of course. :D
Well, he (Dalton) quit RADA after about a term. Roger Moore stayed longer. I think the classically trained thing comes from his joining a Shakespeare rep company or something of that ilk. He isn't a good film actor though, it's a totally different discipline. It's hard to determine why some ugly, short, balding actor like Jack Nicholson is so totally dynamic on the big screen. The ones that have 'it' do tend to float to the top and become major stars.
Brosnan does have something that makes him a proper film star. He is extremely handsome of course, and that may be the major factor (like it is Clooney and Pitt). Extreme good looks can get you where you want to be. But if that was all it was then there are a thousand equally handsome actors who can't get themselves out of the TV 'guest star' treadmill. Why not?
Brosnan has a light voice, but then so does Clint Eastwood. So that doesn't hamper him. It must be that the big screen loves him, you do look at him, not behind him. Love him or not Brosnan is a proper, major movie star.