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
And smarm...loads and loads of smarm! Which the role didn't require!
I don't see this side. I know others do.
I certainly wouldn't consider Brosnan a better dramatic actor, but Craig for sure has a much too limited bandwidth to be considered a truly great actor. And yes, there are quite a few facets and roles Brosnan could play handily, which would be absolutely impossible for Craig to deliver even close to believable.
I found that Dalton had much more screen charisma as Bond. That was never his problem imho. I just found that the scripts didn't really play 100% to his strengths, just like SP's didn't play to Craig's. Dalton made the most of it, but the long legacy of Moore cast a deep shadow (in terms of the public's expectations of Bond and in terms of the script writing).
I think to be honest, Dalton's style is almost too "dramatic" and maybe a tad old fashioned. Hence why you often see him in historical/period pieces. Craig has his limitations but he seems to have a genuine range as a film actor, even if he's not the big "star" if that makes sense.
Pierce is far from a great actor and is certainly sunk back more into that B-movie territory, but I've always felt he's a charismatic presence. More so than Dalton, who I've always felt fits better (at least as a lead) on the stage or television.
In a scene like this, you can't argue that both Broz and Rene look great on camera.
Sean - Nothing of note before Bond. After Bond The Hill, The Man Who Would Be King The Name of the Rose, The Untouchables (although I'm with sickboy on his Oscar for that) in terms of dramatic heft and Indy 3, Red October and The Rock for box office.
Laz - Nothing before and nothing after.
Rog - TV actor before and a few boys own films at a similar dramatic level compared to Bond after (The Wild Geese, North Sea Hijack, The Sea Wolves).
Tim - Small roles on screen in mostly historical dramas before and mostly supporting roles after. But has played Macbeth, Richard III, Romeo, Henry IV & V and Mark Antony on stage which is where he gets the level of respect as a serious actor the likes of Rog and Pierce don't (even if they are better film stars).
Pierce - TV actor before but has done a solid, if hardly spectacular, body of work since (Dante's Peak, Thomas Crown, Tailor of Panama, The Matador).
Dan - One well regarded TV series and a handful of film roles before and again solidly unspectacular since.
None of them has ever hit the same box office or leading man status after they finished.
In fact of all of them you'd have to say Brozza actually comes second to Sean in terms of post Bond CV.
The reason people give Tim backing over Broz is for his Shakespearean stage work not for anything he has done on screen (if I have to see one more person quote the ridiculously overrated Hot Fuzz as evidence of Tim's continued strong career on screen I'll vomit blood).
Tim is a better dramatic actor than probably all of them but Pierce is the better film star as are Sean, Rog and Dan. They are pretty much totally different disciplines.
And seeing him and Eva Green together was a nice "what could have been" scenario as well. Dalton would still be better as Bond today than what we got now.
Dalton's stage career is certainly not to be sniffed at. It's bloody good. But I think its fair to say that he's not got the reputation of other stage-to-screen actors (Ralph Feinnes, Judi Dench, Sir Ian McKellen etc).
But again, that's a tv series as opposed to a film.
Dalton probably wouldnt want big star status!
Brosnan seemed to crave it.Hence his hissy fit when they didnt renew his contract! I think Brossa needed Bond more than Bond needed him!
Dalton hasnt starred in anything big outside of Bond, but he's a good actor who has good screen presense! I recently viewed 'The Tourist' an awful thriller with Johnny Depp, but Dalton impressed as a one of the detectives pursuing him! Also 'American Outlaws' as a pinkerton agent and as mentioned he excelled in Penny Dreadful!
I found Brosnan, despite his more pronounced fame, less commanding on screen as Bond. It's like he had to try harder to compete (via a bit of overacting of his own) with his co-stars (particularly the female ones like Scorupco, Marceau and Pike), who tended to chew the scenery around him with their more confident and assured screen prescence. He only seemed in control around the lesser ones (Berry, Richards, Yeoh and Hatcher).
When I saw Craig's first scene as Bond in Dryden's office in Prague, I knew this new guy would own it once again.
That's just my perception.
Thats just it re Brossa. He was outclassed by other actors (and actresses) Bond shouldnt have to compete. He should hold his own against the rest of the cast. Dalton did it easily. Brossa struggled.
He did. I like Dalton's interpretation for what it is and I wouldn't change it, it's a refreshing watch (particularly that first 45mins of TLD), but when it comes to presence, he doesn't have the 'movie star' sheen of the others. It isn't coincidence that his career as a leading man is lacking next to Brosnan. Pierce is a safe pair of hands. He isn't going to be bagging any oscars, but he's a dependable leading man, with heaps of charisma and when he's on form he's a much better actor than some give him credit. Pierce is what I'd define as a proper 'film star', where I'd define Dalton as an 'actor'. That's what separates them for me and why you'll still find a lot of casual film fans citing Brosnan as their favourite. He resonated in a way Dalton only did with a select few, by comparison.
They weren't necessarily going for big box office, crowd pleasing and box ticking with his iteration, unlike what they tried to do with Brozz. Rather, I believe they were trying to chart a new course with a more genuine novel interpretation.
We never saw Dalton playing in a more 'formulaic' (to the crowd) Bond capacity, but I don't think he would have had any problem pulling it off, based on the earlier part of TLD.
Maybe in the Living Daylights but he was easily outclassed in Licence to Kill. Pierce always dominated the screen.
I agree with you @bondjames funnily enough. Just listening to both men in interviews you get the impression Dalton really studied the character and his comments carry more weight than Brosnan's, who mainly focused on what the audience expected of Bond and his own feelings.
@Murdock. Yes, I think Davi outclasses Dalton in LTK too.
Dalton almost dispensed with the style entirely to embody a 'real' person in his characterization. Sadly, that also made his Bond far less box office friendly.
If he had gotten his slightly more flashy Bond 17 in 1991 as was initially planned, I think he would have shut the critics up.
Brosnan on the other hand tended to be too cheesy in his line deliveries. His mannerisms, smirks, pouts were somewhat overdone.
Craig is a more complete cinematic Bond imho.
As is evident by their apparent dislike for one-another. I get the impression Glen missed Roger when he left.
I'm halfway through TWINE right now and my impression is that he played Bond in two different general "modes": the more restrained one he used in GE and TWINE, and a more expressive one in TND and DAD. You will note GE and TWINE are the more relatively down-to-earth entries, and TND and DAD are the more escapist films. Brosnan would do that; he'd follow the script and try to bring it to life. I have the feeling that's why he didn't go back to the books: he wanted to play what was on the page, as many actors choose to do in book-to-screen adaptations (well, maybe there was also some laziness involved; I'm not ruling that out). But at any rate, it's not a requisite to read the books to play Bond. Brosnan tried to work from the script and the history of Bond, and that's probably why, in retrospective, he is not satisfied with his work and his films: he felt the scripts didn't give a real sense of who Bond was (and that's why he asked Michael Apted to "give him scenes to play"). But I think Brosnan was skillful enough to fill the screen by himself; he made up for that perceived shortcoming.
I'm trying to think about exactly what he brought to Bond that the other actors didn't, beyond his versatility. For now, all I can think of is that he had a certain nervous edge. When confronting a villain, more than once you'd see him tense up, get angry, as if he knew things were probably going to turn nasty. The best example is him and Renard in Kazakhstan. You really get the sense this guy despises the act of killing, as if he's been surrounded by death for too long.
Well, you might call that overacting. Personally, I'm ambivalent about it. It's worth analyzing, however.
Last but not least, I'd like to say Brosnan in TWINE, with his relatively restrained style (okay, barring the scene in which he confronts Elektra) reminded me of Craig, who acts in a similar way in Skyfall. And I just have to say Brosnan beats Craig in that department. Craig seems too restrained, to the point he is a bit dull; Brosnan comes across as more lively, more passionate. So he is not without skill!
I dont think they disliked one another. If you read Glens book, they clashed over some aspects of Bond,which Glen did with Moore too (FYEO, the car kicked over the cliff scene!) and were at odds on the last day of filming LTK, but Glen put that down to an ardous and difficult filming schedule!
As for Davi outclassing Dalton, i disagree totally. Both actors sparked off one another and made the movie all the more compelling!
From the relatively little I've heard, Glen has praised Dalton but I don't get the feeling Dalton is particularly fond of Glen. Either way Glen has stated his "favourite" Bond as Roger.
There's also the rumour of Dalton supposedly backing out of Christopher Columbus: The Discovery when the original director was replaced by Glen.
As much as I hate to say it, I don't think Brosnan has a particularly great "emotional range". He can't seem to do "dramatic" emotions particularly well, such as anger or rage. Referring to the issue of grief, which was discussed a few pages back, I point you to the scene below - which is uncomfortable to watch but not for the right reasons.
To me, this feels very mannered and you can see him trying to sell the scene. Kind of a shame really as he's undoubtably experienced his fair share of grief in his personal life. I suppose feeling grief and acting it are two different things.
Dalton would probably have pulled off a scene like this better, but I think even with him the emotions sometimes felt forced.
I like Pierce a lot. As I've said he's a charismatic screen presence and can act when given the right role. But he's not really an actor with much range. He's primarily the strong silent type or the romantic family man.