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
The era had far bigger problems elsewhere though...
If it did, it would be a good one.
+1
I really enjoy how that all plays out, it pokes the audience to be engaged, it's very well done and not overlong for me.
It's not that I can't follow, it just still feels like a missed opportunity. I love that chase, to me it's one of the best car chases in Bond-history. Doesn't take away the feeling it could've been even better.
I also love GE pts. But then again, I love GE in general. Very little wrong with it IMO.
Not sure how controversial that is. Several of us have said so before.
Yes. Despite the strong staging of the boat chase, it’s all so gratuitous and bloated after Bilbao.
I think whereas some members go to pains to downgrade DC's acting abilities, I think some Sir Roger fans try to argue he's a lot more subtle a performer than he's been given credit for. Whereas as DC has evidence before and during his time as Bond that would suggest that he is much more than his detractors say. I would argue Roger does what he does well but an actor of any great skill he is not.
I think Roger has natural comic timing and also makes a charming Bond but there isn't much depth to his performance.
He can pretty much leave everyone else standing when it comes to comic delivery but as an actor he's serviceable and gets away with his natural charisma and charm.
Connery some might say the same but depsite his lack of ability to change his accent, Sean can do more varied roles and has played some deeply psychologically scarred characters like in The Offense for instance. This is an example where Connery is definitely stretching himself and working outside of his usual persona.
I've heard the argument for The Man Who Haunted Himself but it's hardly where Connery goes in The Offense.
He doesn't really need to as his Bond doesn't require it and I'm sure some would like an actor like that to play Bond again and they might well get there wish one of these days.
Trying to claim he's anymore would be like me saying that at times DC levels Rog's abilities for delivering amusing quips, of course he doesn't but Roger isn't a gifted and varied performer as DC.
Some actors litterally play themselves and not much more and I would say that Roger definitely fits into that bracket, no one could ever confuse him with having any chameleon like abilities.
Can't argue with any of that.
Depth to the character? Probably not. Though that's on the scripts, too. How much was there to work with? As you say:
And of course all this depends on how we all exactly define 'an actor of great skill' or 'gifted' acting. Like, when you say:
You're emphasizing the quality of variety, presumably the ability to capture a variety of emotions? And then on top of that, the ability to capture those emotions realistically? And here I'd agree that DC is better.
But for me where Rog exceeds DC -- and this is far from an original observation -- is in his ability to hit a variety of tones, which is a gift in itself and not to be dismissed. A lot of performers wish that was in their tool bag, or should.
This is no slight against Dan of course. I love what he's done. But just because, in TSWLM, Rog couldn't pull off as well as DC might be able to the scene where Bond admits to Anya that he killed her lover (though Rog does pull it off, and that's key), I don't think DC could've done nearly as well as Rog in, let's say, the scene where Bond and Anya are in the van and Jaws is trying to get in.
For me that doesn't hold because I don't even think he entirely played the same Bond twice. But then we're back to the subtlety thing...
But Roger, as good as he was, did everything on the surface with a wink, or a nod, or (rarely) a steel jaw.
DC and SC did things below the surface of the physical, and that's why their performances resonate. I have a 17 year old son, who is too cool for school, but even he, in his omnipotence and knowledge about everything dealing in everything, chooses Connery and Craig as the bad asses (follow up: GL), and; these two actors portray the agent 007 that is most believable to him; RM (whom I respect, dearly), is a cartoon that can't hold a stick to DC , or SC; my boy can't make a connection to RM...
... in the same breath, he and his buddies do love PB as a cartoon. They genuinely enjoy him and the Bugs Bunny dialogue that comes with him.
This is not a scientific study... but still...
I think at least as many think the PTS as it stands is one of the best of the series. Overall it is rated pretty high.
Couldn't agree more with this. Rog was far more versatile than anyone gave him credit for.
I don't think anyone suggested he had better dramatic chops than Craig, but he certainly was able to bring a wider variety of different flavours.
I think Moore was a very underrated actor, and it's seen in all his films how versatile he was.
He could do light comedy but he could also be serious. Check out his acting in the centrifuge scene from MR. Pretty bloody convincing if you ask me.
I never thought I'd say it but Moore was a more convincing Bond than Pierce Brosnan.
I can explain the reasoning later, but if you didn't like Skyfall, you're very unlikely to like any future Bond films.
Unless EON find themselves wanting to return to a more lighthearted approach after Craig, this is what I fear. Didn't particularly enjoy SF, and I think SP was a bad movie – not only by Bond standards.
For the first time I am not sure if the next 007 movie will be seen in the cinema by me or I'll wait for the de bluray.
Even if the movie is total shyte, there are enough folks on this forum who will make the movie sound like bloody brilliance. ;)
If you compare Sir Roger in his interviews and documentaries you see a man who managed to survive a harsh environment by comedy, avoiding fights he knew he couldn't win. He hated guns. Still, he handles the Walther as though it's an extention of himself, and i.e. can be very threatening (Lazare at gunpoint, TMWTGG). He was as natural a fighter as a Koala (no, not a dropbear, you odd auzzies), but still pulls of the fighting scenes. Not as good as natural fighters Connery, Lazenby and Craig, but convincing none-the-less.
His Bond-movies are lighter, more cartoonish for sure, but that was a choice, it was the idea. Not per se to stay close to his personality but because the times were asking for it. His Bond also changes with the times. The LALD Bond is a different one then the one in AVTAK.
To me this shows he was an underrated actor who's self-deprication made for the press not to take him too seriously. In the end it made him beeing typecast. He never complained for he was very thankful, knowing very well from where he came, to complain. But I think it's a pity. In my experience comedic actors are often the best (allthough this doesn't fly anymore with modern Hollywood 'comedies' alas).
I can understand your son's preferences, but I think that's also part of this day and age and what kind of level of violence we're used to to be 'badass'. And obviously the more fighter-like Bond appeals more to younger men. For sure I can still remember I my thoughts were similar when I first got to know th films. I appreciate Roger's films far more now than, say, 25 years ago.
But both CR and SF fully made up for giving it a try, so I will the next time as well.
Whatever your preferences, that doesn t besmirch any of them.
I might be in a similar situation this time around, even if I like Fukunaga's work on True Detective. It really depends on what we learn about the film going forward. Anything about Bond dying for example doesn't interest me at all, and if that happens, I'll happily save my money.
I appreciate his films more for every year that passes, to the extent that I now think I can say Roger is my favourite Bond – even more than Sean. I can understand those calling Daniel the best Bond since Sean, with his "range" and everything. But I see nothing wrong in the way Roger played the role to his strengths (charm). That even outshines Craig's acting ability to me, as it fell so natural to Roger's portrayal.
Anyway for a perhaps controversial, perhaps not opinion- I think Dalton did what Craig does, but did it better.