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
I think he's just naturally a larger than life sort of guy. Ridiculously handsome and charismatic and very animated (some might say overacting) in the way he acts. Which worked for Bond because he's James Bond. All eyes have to be on him. But that's what makes Craig the better actor imo. More of a chameleon. Brosnan could never have pulled off something like Our Friends In The North.
I read a comment once saying that Brosnan is a character actor trapped in the body of a leading man. I'm not sure I agree with that because he's done some fine work as a leading man (Bond, Thomas Crown) but I can see where they're coming from. He excels at colourful, larger than life, usually quite seedy characters. Subtelty has never been his strong suit. Doesn't mean he's a bad actor, in fact I think he's quite good. He just doesn't have that much range.
I do think he could do anger/passion/emotion quite well though. Look at the bankers office scene when he's counting down to kill the banker. Or threatening Renard. Or trying to execute Miranda. Or "no, for me". He always did hot headed, seething with rage Bond really well imo. That's what sets him apart from the rest I think, how emotive/passionate he was.
I'd love for him to work with Tarantino. Obviously they both wanted CR to happen but I've read since that Tarantino has said he's his favourite Bond. And he'd be perfect for that sort of thing. Colourful, larger than life, probably foul mouthed and lacking in morals. That's his strong suit. I think he knows that as well and always wanted to bring a bit of that to Bond, a darker seedier side, but obviously was limited in what he could do. I respect him for that though. His suggestions/comments were always ignored but he never phoned it in. Always went out and gave it his all and anchored the film no matter what. No other Bond could have made DAD work, but Brosnan somehow pulls it off.
+1.
Agreed, but it was all a bit uninspired and mediocure. Casino Royale brought back the spirit of Fleming and Bond back as real quality, inspired cinema.
As I said somewhere else, if they had taken that more 'predictable' and lowest common denominator approach with Dalton, I'm reasonably sure the films would have been more successful as well. It's a testament to their courage that they decided to try something different post-Moore. It didn't work out so well financially, and given the risks of irrelevancy in a post-Cold War environment, they decided to play to the masses in the 90s until Bourne showed them a new viable way and the Casino Royale rights became available.
I wouldn't say that Brosnan continued Moore's approach though. Moore was in a different league as far as I'm concerned. Unique and genuine. Brosnan didn't give me that vibe. Rather, he projected as a greatest hits amalgam.
Good post. The 3rd Dalton script sounded like the lowest common denominator approach, so I'm glad they only made the brilliant TLD & LTK with him.
Moore was a better actor then he himself would admit, and because of his humbleness he wasn't taken seriously enough. But I don't think anyone safe for perhaps Michael Cane could've pulled his Bond off. When I saw FYEO recently on the silver screen I was amazed about the balance Roger brought to the role.
Craig and Connery I think are the best actors, but that doesn't mean their performance is always up to par. Lazenby is the odd one out as he more or less was Bond for the parts that matched his persona, and was wooden (didn't know what he was doing) that didn't.
Dalton is most certainly a stage actor and that works sometimes (love him when he's seeding doubt in Davi's mind) and sometimes just doesn't (personally I hate the scene where he lands on the boat while the girl is on the phone).
My take on it: Dalton was comfortable with the character of Bond but not the icon of Bond. Brosnan was very happy with finally being the icon... but was never at ease with Bond as a character.
Brosnan had a harder edge to him.
Brosnan wasn't perfect as Bond, but he was pretty damn good, and endlessly watchable and charismatic. He filled the screen with the presence; a star in the true sense of the word.
He was cooler about it perhaps. More nonchalant, whereas Brosnan tended to emote more. It is that undertone of 'emotion' which I wasn't too keen on although I can see from comments here that some like it.
He is charismatic, but I've thought that of all the Bond actors cast to date.
In terms of holding the screen as Bond, I've always personally thought Dalton was far more formidable however. There was something lethal about his presence. It's in the look.
Now this is something I think Brosnan is good at, the stern look.
Maybe its just me but I think at least some of Dalton's expressions felt very...in your face. But not in a natural way. Like he's intentionally trying to convey Bond's coldness (watching Killifer being eaten in LTK or earlier when he's sneaking around the wavekrest with the knife). Though I admit Brosnan was sometimes guilty of this too.
Craig is particularly good at subtle, sinister facial expressions though (when he quietly stabs Domitrios at the airport). THAT is a true killer.
Moore was much better at this imho, with the trademark slightly cocked eyebrow. Examples include the showdown at the dinner table with Scaramanga.
Craig, Dalton and Connery are much tougher looking blokes, so they pull it off just on account of their physique and facial features.
Lazenby was probably the least lethal looking imho.
The one time I don't think Brosnan sells that look is when he glares at the camera in TWINE at the bankers office. It feels very posed to me.
The rest of the time I think he does it well.
The way I see it we have two ultra serious Bonds, Dalton and Craig, and two more unrealistically fun Bonds, Moore and Brosnan.
Connery's and Lazenby's style are somewhere between those two and maybe that's why I like them too.
But, and I am not saying I don't like the other two, my favourite ultra serious Bond is Dalton and my favourite unrealistically fun Bond is Brosnan.
I would go out of my way to see any picture outside Bond that features Tim or Pierce, can't say that about the others.
(Maybe also because Sean is in so many famous films one doesn't have to look him up and George is in hardly any film at all.)
That said, I think GoldenEye is one of the better Bond films in the series (I rank it in my top third), Brosnan did a good job in it, and I do find Brosnan's other Bond movies entertaining. But I also get the feeling that the producers lost either some focus or initiative during that run, things that I think were regained with the Craig films, and I happen to like CraigBond's "psyche", ruthlessness and uncaring quality more myself. I also wonder if some of the issue during Brosnan's tenure was due to the revolving table of writers (and directors?) he had, though I respect that Brosnan fans might not see any issue.
I am the one who commented on his physique, and I think he was far more credible in this respect than Brosnan, who I thought was far too slight for the part, despite his height (especially in GE). It's quite apparent to me in any fight scene (GE on the Manticore for instance). It could be the shoulders or perhaps just the way he threw those punches.
---
@Thrasos, yes I agree with you. There is certainly that "pitched a little higher" element to Brosnan as you note. It's there with Dalton too imho, which is perhaps why these two are my least favourites. I personally prefer the more emotionless and 'on the level' portrayals of the others. That is one of the key elements I liked about Craig in CR. He can sell it with just his eyes without having to overdo it (most notable just prior to the shower scene with Vesper).
As someone who has devoted a great deal of time and thought to studying said physique, I beg to differ.
Well,i bow to your superior female assessment of Dalton's torso,of course !! haha ;)
There are pics on the internet of these scenes with Lupe. They're not pretty.
However, structurally, he is broad (just lacks muscle and tone), and makes PB look like a little boy beside him. Plus Dalton has the best face of any Bond- square-jaw and chiseled; long, straight nose, and feline-like eyes.
IMHO, he had the best look (features-wise) of all the Bonds.
Brosnan in contrast seemed like a pretty boy imho.
Dalton's height also gives him an advantage.