Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
^ 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
Anyway, I think Brosnan is definetly the better Bond.
Any competition where you are pitting Brosnan against any of the other Bond's is not fair game, because we all know who the loser will end up being.
;)
For me Lazenby wins.
You should check out the "Brosnan is overrated thread" for some wicked discussion.
Not yet there isn't.
You don't know that.
I can't be sure no. But he was terrible in DAF and was apparently bored behind the scenes. Lazenby was in better shape at the time too. So I think having Lazenby instead of Connery was a good thing.
If it was Connery in his prime, that would be another story.
-Physically, Lazenby sure looks the part. Agile, strong, athletic, he's got the tools, nobody will challenge that. Brosnan's narrow shoulders and overall frail-looking attributes does not even begin to compare. Admit, Onatopp looked more threatening than Bond...
-OHMSS is action-filled, and boy, do George delivers. He is in his element. Fistsfights, chases you name it, Lazenby is the best looking Bond of all. No actor who took on the role could have performed the Piz Gloria attack like he did: smoothly, almost NATURALLY.
He looked and was believable. Brosnan's action sequence are good, but not something you could consider great or even above average. The only scene I remember, in all his outing in which I told myself, "he's got it right", is the scene in which he looked for a way out of the helicopter in the cemetary graveyard.
-Even if George's acting is, like some of you would say, rudimentary or not very well-schooled, it's good enough to support the story. I'll tell you a story; I asked my wife and a friend of hers last year (after showing them both scenes) to pick the best scene between Lazenby's "I love you, I know I'll never find another girl like you" and Daniel Craig's "Whatever's left, I'm yours" and both picked Lazenby's delivry, without hesitation. So Lazenby's acting was not bad or a drag by any means.
It's a shame really that George Lazenby did only one Bond. As a fan, I feel like I was robbed of something great. Same for Timothy Dalton. However, I'll cherish that one outing, who in my opinion was greater than any Brosnan performance.
So, I vote wholeheartedly Lazenby!
To be fair, Connery only did DAF for the pay cheque. He was out of shape and didn't do it for any artistic integrity or as a favour to the producers or the fans. He made the film as a one off to satisfy his own agenda. One of the reasons he left was because the story and real acting was taking a major backseat in favour of the gadgets and other OTT silliness, which would make his return for DAF all the more strange as it's the sort of movie that embodies why he left in the first place. Connery would have loved to do OHMSS and I think had he done it he would have done an amazing job, especially if he was still in his prime as you mentioned but as OHMSS is, I love it and rank it in my top 5.
Not really sure how you reason this. By 67 Sean loathed everything to do with the role - lack of privacy, the long shooting schedule, the money Cubby and Harry were paying him. Just assuring him that the script would be back to Fleming and not packed with gadgets would have made no difference. If they had paid him the DAF fee then perhaps but even then I think he wanted a break from Bond more than the money.
I think it's not an exaggeration to say if they had managed to sign Sean up the tone of the film would have been rather different and I maintain it would have been to its detriment.
In terms of the question posed in the thread - is it even a contest? Pain face and underwater tie straightening v sliding on the ice with a machine gun and that look he gives when the scientist throws acid at him.
But this is about the Broz vs Laz and as @TheWizardOfIce beautifully put it - "Pain face and underwater tie straightening v sliding on the ice with a machine gun" - no contest.
Lazenby was horrible, and even I as an Australian am NOT proud to have him as Bond...
In my opinion, taking past performances and in every single appearance on screen and sometimes even in public:
Sean Connery WAS (and to some degree still is) James Bond
George Lazenby WAS James Bond
Sir Roger Moore ... WAS James Bond
Timothy Dalton WAS James Bond
Pierce Brosnan played Bond on 4 movies
Agreed. If they were both working at Mi6, "M" would've given Lazenby a license to kill, and to Brosnan, a driver license.
You're right. That never happened to other feller.
Ohhh... I used to hate that pain face and grunt everytime he fell down. Seeing him also standing like a weak school boy to open the door at the boat in GE, or jumping the last few steps from a ladder in TND... he should have been doubled for those scenes by the Captain Scarlet puppet.
It is my opinion that there is no good or bad Bond, although there are good and bad Bond films. Whoever plays Bond, he is there to make sure the movie works. Lazenby, whether you hate him or love him, had done just that. In my eyes, he has done Her Majesty and the 007 institution a decent – if unappreciated – service.
As for Brosnan It was really wierd to see him on the screen as Bond. He is a good actor ,but he doesn't have that kind of quality.Brosnan was given poor material to work with after GE; I love the first half of TWINE where he has an interesting story to work with, but once Denise Richards shows up it all goes downhill. There are certain moments that I enjoy in each movie; otherwise, it seems he's kept around to look attractive and toss of more contemporary one liners with anyone who appears on screen. Brosnan had charisma, but there just weren't enough moments to really explore his full range.Brosnan had some of the weakest scripts and did the Best he could.
Despite his good voluntee I never felt him comfortable enough as James Bond 007. As I've written before, George was more like an outspoken businessman. Still very proud of his role, which is understandable and I personally felt it in the film. It was his lastest dream come true... He lacked of serious attitude and/or...pro-side while Brosnan, the best or most gifted of James actors in my eyes, did easily (this one is a true chameleon at showing emotions and self-confidence). As Connery acted earlier and set the characteristics and later, just seriously Dalton.
I've got to vote PB. because, PB's protrayal of Bond, for me, was considerably more manly than lazenbys. as well, although we did have that terribly overblown "painface" (perhaps my biggest problem with broz) we never ever saw him pussy out and cry. beleive me, i know full well that Bond had just lost the only woman he ever truly loved, so he had good reason to loose emotional controll, but to cry, that is just disgusting, it is thoroughly unmanly and completely unnacceptable, as absolutly GODAWFULL as "legends" is (its unplayable), the ending to its version of OHMSS is far more acceptable to me in my opinion, as Bond, although he shows complete and total emotional devestation (within the best of IDtechIII's abilities) he doesnt wuss out and cry,. im sorry, but as soon as i see a man cry, i literally have to swallow down an insatiable urge to smack him across the face and tell him to grow..the...HELL.. up. and i dont care if its James Bond or John Rambo. the sight of a man crying makes me go to the boxoffice and DEMAND my money back, because it leaves me feeling about ready to vomit from disgust.
i've got a lot of time for PB's potryal of bond, sure, the films were a bit generic and videogamey, but, hey, that is what dragged in the money then from teenage boys. the only reason we get this Intolerable bourne inspired pussy who cries (because it appeals to teenage girls) now is because it what brings in the money. But, i personally feel that, for his faults as an actor, such as his tendancy to overextend" u" sounds and the painface, but to me, he was the best portrayal of Terrance Youngs BonD since SC. now, i know some of you are going to hate on that, because you want flemings bond,. well im sorry, flemings bond was a complete and total utter pussy to me, i wouldnt even trust him to make the tea if i was M, let alone assing him to the 00 division, were as i see youngs bond as my ideal of what a MAN actually is. PB always looked great in the classic suits Lindy created, he had gallons of charisma with a real glint in the eyes, were as i personally feel Lazenby had, like craig, all the charisma of a rotten 2x4. and he had real class, such as the underwater tie straighten, sure, you think its laughable, but i found it super classy, in fact, i can actually see SC's bond do it.
as for the "grunt" when he falls over. ok, just you try falling over and not grunting at the sudden shockwave of pain that feels like its trying to rip your bones out. i bet most of you would probably burst into tears, go on admit it. stop trying to be such "computer keybaord hardmen" We have enough of them on 'tube thanks.
also, why the hate for Feirsteins scripts?, he is Infinantly better than the perwade pair, as he actually uses BRITISH words in his scripts and not american ones (despite being an american), he knows what a MAN is, and his one liners always had me in stitches. what damaged his films were the casting of people like denise richards. again, as that would bring money in from teenage boys. i personally feel Bruce is the best Bond scribe since maibaum, and i cant wait for him to stop wasting his talents with godawfull cod/uncharted clones and come back to the movies!
Codename:Cobra, using this account on the owners permission because, basically, i cant be bothered to make a new one just to be told im "an outdated moron a$$F4g" simply because i have found the last 3 bond films to be a pile of emo bull aimed at the twighlight market and totally unfit for viewing by anyone with a functioning testosterone gland.
What does any of this have to do with the actor's performances in their respective films? It's also mostly your subjective opinion (and I believe you're wrong on Brosnan not throwing a snit because he was rightly dumped for CR).
Lazenby wins this one for me because I found him to be the most naturally convincing Bond and I appreciated his physicality, youthful vitality and masculine presence. The fact that he's also in arguably the best Bond film is just icing on the cake. Brosnan, on the other hand, was a joke who should never have been allowed within a mile of the role.