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 dubbing him was a bad move.
I really don't understand how anyone could prefer Lazenby. Brosnan has his flaws of course but I think he's a very competent actor. Lazenby is so wooden. It's a shame that, until the Craig era OHMSS was the only Bond film which required real, emotional acting from the star and it was given to a guy who looked good but as soon as he starts to move and talk it's painful.
I would not qualify by any means the whole barn sequence with Tracy as "wooden" or "painful". From "an agent must not be concern with anything but himself" to "I love you...I know I'll never find another girl like you" Lazenby brilliantly delivers.
I wonder how many viewings of Brosnan's Bond films would it take to find a strong acting performance as that one. Sure, Brosnan's one-liners may be better delivered, but you've got to have more than good one-lines and a clean haircut to be convincing.
Dalton12, you have it nailed.
Brosnan is a great actor - Seraphim Falls, The Matador, Tailor Of Panama - are all proof positive. He is also a hell of a nice guy but unfortunately, with the POSSIBLE exception of Goldeneye, the material he was given was appalling.
Lazenby, on the other hand, had a great adaptation of one of the best two novels (FRWL being the other), a great director and with zero acting experience he knocked one out of the park!
Shame they didn't do the Blofeld trilogy (TB,OHMSS,YOLT) in chronological order, have Lazenby as Bond and have Hunt direct the lot. Now that would have been something!
OHMSS is obviously far superior to any of the Brosnan films.
I have recently come around to the idea that had he had better directors Brosnan MIGHT have been able to give a decent performance. But the fact is that he didn't.
One thing I do realize, now after having read Bond fans opinion about it, is that Brosnan, being stuck with a bad team of writers, was still able to kept the franchise alive. Just for that he must be praised.
I just can't shake the feeling a cosummate or proficient actor like Timothy Dalton would have flatly refused to play in such poor films, DAD being the top of it all.
There's some truth in this. But bear in mind that the films are often tailored to the actor's strengths, therefore Brozza was given material that that EON thought would suit him. TWINE provided him with plenty of opportunities to show a more complex Bond and he blew it. The result was DAD - surely EON's response to his below par performance in the previous film.
Also, was the base material in QoS particularly good? Not especially and yet Craig still manages to put in a decent performance.
No other actor was as consistently poor as Brozza and for that he must take a lot of the blame.
Contrast him with Laz who hadn't even acted before and Brozza has no excuses whatsoever.
And Lazenby may have been supported by those around him, but it's not as if Brosnan was pro-active in his era and carried his films.
Its the most "talky" part of the film
The problem with QoS never was Daniel Craig. The problem was a serious one, name Marc Foster.
I love his face just before he "offs" Kaulfman :D
Brozza's not the greatest of actors but sometimes he got it right.
I find Lazenby is a little awkward in some scenes but for the most he does a great job, never really notice he's wooden and in the quieter moments with Rigg he delivers as well as looking credible in the sequence where he confronts her when she aims his gun at him, I think he handles the fisticuffs far more credibly and I like his look more than Brosnan's coiffured cut.
I also prefer his voice, yes the dubbing is unfortunate but it's never bothered me that much it takes me out of the film, love his moments in Gumbolds office.
Yes he did get the by far better material but if he was as bad as some say would the film really be as acclaimed as it now is, he James Bond for fecks sake, if he doesn't work in the role then the film doesn't.
I understand quite a few people love Brosnan in the role, I acknowledge he was the right man at the right time to keep the franchise alive and should be commended for that but I honestly don't think EON trusted him with anything outside of what he got, cookie cutter films that made money but are hardly to go down in the series as anything special.
So Lazenby all the way, it was his fault he never made more and by all accounts he's not a nice man but it must really irk Brosnan he'll never be in a Bond film as respected as OHMSS.
Plus:
Laz got Diana Rigg and Joanna Lumley
Broz got lumped with Denise Richards, Halle Berry and Teri Hatcher.
However he also got Isabella Scorupco (who I thought was great), Judi Dench and Rosmund Pike so things weren't all bad.
I agree with Getafix here and disagree with JohnBarryFan. I'm always surprised when people use the "Oh, if only he had better scripts!" defence of Brosnan.
Short of OHMSS and LTK no Bond actor was given as much meaty, emotional moments to work with as Brosnan. Death of Paris, all of TWINE, first part of DAD...over and over again Brosnan was given his chance to shine and he couldn't put the puck in the net. Imagine what Dalton or Craig could have done with those scripts...a good actor can inject a lot of life into a poor script by making interesting choices in line delivery or reactions, a poor actor can suck the life out of what should be a knockout scene if can't bring conviction or an interesting take on it.
Brosnan had his chances, he just couldn't deliver. And I say this as someone who liked him. Liked him, but understood his limitations.
D. Rigg : The role made Sean Connery a millionaire. It made Sean Connery ... I truly don't know what's happening in George's mind so I can only speak of my reaction. I think its a pretty foolish move. I think if he can bear to do an apprenticeship, which everybody in this business has to do - has to do - then he should do it quietly and with humility. Everybody has to do it. There are few instant successes in the film business. And the instant successes one usually associates with somebody who is willing to learn anyway. According to an interview, Lazenby experienced difficulties on the set stemming from director Hunt's refusal to speak directly with him, and Hunt's brusqueness in asking Lazenby's friends to clear the set before filming. Sounds like it went to his head. Shame all the hard work of becoming Bond just melted
Brosnan was some guy they put in a tux and had him strut around acting like "James Bond" and shooting up the set with a lot of machine guns. His films progressively got worst finally culminating in that trainwreck of a film, DAD. He was as overrated as Tony Romo and he qualifies as one of the weakest Bonds. Sean Bean would have made a better Bond.
And that is why he's a legend!
Imagine the sheer bravado and self confidence bordering on arrogance to do that and get away with it? The only person I can imagine doing it other than Bond himself is Mourinho. The difference is Jose has the trophies to back up his attitude whereas George had nothing. Basically the guy just blagged his way into the biggest job in the world and that takes cojones.
I must admit the guy is a dude for doing that.
I have to admit, this alone makes me consider switching my vote from Brosnan to Lazenby. While Brosnan pretended to be Bond on screen, Laz WAS Bond in real life!
Or he was just a bit deluded. As much as I admire him for doing it I can't shake the feeling that George was actually a bit of a simple chap. I find this happens a lot in popular culture, individuals become revered for being people who push the boundaries when in reality they're too lacking in intelligence to determine right from wrong, normal from abnormal. After all wasn't there the classic story about George claiming he was a 'Star' and being reprimanded by Cubby? Like I say, it strikes me that he was a few strawberries short of a punnett.
;)
I think a lot of people are very good at inadvertantly riding the crest of a wave.