Controversial opinions about Bond films

1359360362364365707

Comments

  • edited September 2017 Posts: 12,837
    He definitely overacts at times but that can work in his favour depending on the character. He's not suited to playing "normal" people imo, I think the example @BAIN123 posted proves that.

    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.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think Pierce Brosnan brought loads of charisma to Bond. He also had a physical style and grace in the way he moved, he looked around a room, he buttoned his suit, etc. And crucially, he served as an anchor of sorts for his films. Whether the movie was serious or lighter, fantastical or down-to-earth, whether he was seducing a girl, threatening someone or delivering a bad pun, he would sell you the stuff happening on the screen. Most of the time, he'd make it convincing or almost convincing. He was the Bond for all seasons.
    Even my favorite Bond actors are Connery and Craig I totally agree with you about Brosnan. I totally appreciate him in the role. After Dalton (who has his strong supporters and I personally also like TLD quite much) was not accepted the way Roger Moore was, they cast ideally for the mid-90s plus early 2000's with Pierce Brosnan: He definitely continued the Roger Moore approach of the role and that he did brilliantly. And the audiences loved it and made his 007 movies great successes at he box office.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    jobo wrote: »
    Exactly. Brosnan's strength is his on screen charisma. One could also say he does comedy well, albeit not so much as Bond for some reason unfortunately. I don't understand the need to champion him as a great dramatic actor as well

    +1.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    I think Pierce Brosnan brought loads of charisma to Bond. He also had a physical style and grace in the way he moved, he looked around a room, he buttoned his suit, etc. And crucially, he served as an anchor of sorts for his films. Whether the movie was serious or lighter, fantastical or down-to-earth, whether he was seducing a girl, threatening someone or delivering a bad pun, he would sell you the stuff happening on the screen. Most of the time, he'd make it convincing or almost convincing. He was the Bond for all seasons.
    Even my favorite Bond actors are Connery and Craig I totally agree with you about Brosnan. I totally appreciate him in the role. After Dalton (who has his strong supporters and I personally also like TLD quite much) was not accepted the way Roger Moore was, they cast ideally for the mid-90s plus early 2000's with Pierce Brosnan: He definitely continued the Roger Moore approach of the role and that he did brilliantly. And the audiences loved it and made his 007 movies great successes at he box office.

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Brosnan certainly was a popular Bond. However, the film makers seemed to be going out of their way during his time to make popular films. Movies that would resonate with the masses and fair weather fans, full of tropes and what not. So I'm not surprised that the box office was there.

    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.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    bondjames wrote: »
    Brosnan certainly was a popular Bond. However, the film makers seemed to be going out of their way during his time to make popular films. Movies that would resonate with the masses and fair weather fans, full of tropes and what not. So I'm not surprised that the box office was there.

    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.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    @BAIN123 funny, I find that scene very compelling. I see a family man crying because of the loss of a loved one whom he apparently might have been able to safe. Is that from Mamma Mia? Anyway, I agree with Brosnan himself on his Bond he never felt really sure about him beeing Bond and it shows. It's a pity, because I think he's a fine actor, but it only works when he feels comforteable in the role (with The Thomas Crown Affair as an absolute highlight). And yes he's still ridiculously handsome and he sure has a decent fanbase in that regard.

    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).
  • Posts: 15,125
    bondjames wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think the problem I had with Dalton is that he often felt like an actor ACTING. He gives off that "thespy" sort of vibe sometimes.

    Brosnan on the other hand tended to be too cheesy in his line deliveries.
    I've personally always felt that neither of these two were completely up to the job, which is why they remain at the bottom for me. They each have notable flaws that the other addresses. Together, they would perhaps make a perfect Bond.

    Craig is a more complete cinematic Bond imho.

    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.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    funny, I find that scene very compelling. I see a family man crying because of the loss of a loved one whom he apparently might have been able to safe. Is that from Mamma Mia?
    It's from The Greatest. I like the scene, I just think Brosnan is not entirely convincing in it.
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    mattjoes wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.
    Brosnan had a harder edge to him.
    I never quite got that to be honest. I thought Moore was a far harder edged Bond throughout his tenure. Examples include his treatment of Rosie & Andrea in the first two outings, his deflowering of Solitaire, his dismissal of Goodnight, his approach with the likes of Sandor, killing of Stromberg, Grishka, Loque etc. etc.

    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.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    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 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.
  • Some might not agree but I think GE shows he could've been one of the best Bonds, had they not given him crap scripts to work with.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    It's in the look.

    Now this is something I think Brosnan is good at, the stern look.

    bond1.jpg

    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.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    It's in the look.

    Now this is something I think Brosnan is particularly good at, the stern look.
    In GE, I certainly agree, which is why I like his performance there. I thought he either overdid it or didn't deliver it as convincingly in the other films, most notably in the banker's office in TWINE. Again, I realize some members think highly of his performance in that film's PTS, but it really is famously overdone there from my perspective.

    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.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I'd say Moore was the least lethal looking (in some of those later publicity shots he looks more like an after dinner speaker in that tux) but he made up for it with his assertive, always confident demeanour.

    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.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,136
    Since we're still discussing Dalton v Brosnan, I seem to be one of the few who actually loves them both.

    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.)
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 1,469
    bondjames wrote: »
    ...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.
    I think my comments are in line with what you say. I think Brosnan did a fair job with the material he was given, but when I watch one of his Bond films, it's hard for me to disregard his Irish heredity, because I identify Bond as British, though of course literary Bond's father was Scottish and his mother was Swiss. Contrasting Brosnan with Dalton and certainly Connery, even Craig and Moore, to me Brosnan has more fire or a restless active nature and I can almost see him "working" on the inside (pitched just a little higher), whereas for instance with Connery's Bond, he could be so cool and emotionless a lot of the time, and for instance with Dalton I sometimes sense this dark brooding nature--Craig too with this--and I think this fits well with Bond, though yes he can "light fuses on any explosive situation" as Miranda Frost put it.

    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.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I don't think people should be commenting on Dalton's physique - he didn't have one in either Bond film,and always walked like he had a rod up his bum.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Agreed. Plus they were able to hide that with unflattering baggy 80's clothing.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Well, the guy did all the stunts he was allowed to do. Quite impressive for someone with a horrible physique...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    jobo wrote: »
    Well, the guy did all the stunts he was allowed to do. Quite impressive for someone with a horrible physique...
    Absolutely. That's what I noticed on a recent viewing of his films.

    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).
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I don't think people should be commenting on Dalton's physique - he didn't have one in either Bond film, and always walked like he had a rod up his bum.

    As someone who has devoted a great deal of time and thought to studying said physique, I beg to differ.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    I don't think people should be commenting on Dalton's physique - he didn't have one in either Bond film, and always walked like he had a rod up his bum.

    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 ;)
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Sorry, Tim Dalton had a concave chest and thin arms. With his shirt off in LTK, he looked terrible (although, great skin, tans well). I think Glen tries to show as little of his body as he could.

    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.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Dalton was more imposing. Brosnan was more striking. That's how I differenciate.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Dalton could intimidate. Personally, I found him to the be the most intimidating Bond actor. There is a certain underlying cruelty to his look imho (not unhandsome though).

    Brosnan in contrast seemed like a pretty boy imho.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I'd say Craig was probably the most intimidating. ("SIT DOWN!!")
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I'd say Craig was probably the most intimidating. ("SIT DOWN!!")
    For me with Craig it's more in the acting. In terms of just the look, Dalton is more intimidating to me. The darker features sell it.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I agree-- Dalton has far darker features. Very intimidating. Fleming would have approved, I think...
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    peter wrote: »
    I agree-- Dalton has far darker features. Very intimidating. Fleming would have approved, I think...

    Dalton's height also gives him an advantage.

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Was he the tallest Bond? 6'4 or something like that?
Sign In or Register to comment.