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
OK I take back what I said :p
Still, I don't think he's as memorable as some of the other henchmen. I actually prefer the likes of Gobinda as he seemed to have a bit more of a personality.
Roger Moore, whatever people may say, looked bloody good at the time, despite his 52 years of age. I also want to compliment the director of photography for shooting Moore from the right angles, using the proper light, ... Still, a man of over half a century old convinces me that he's got the right physique for the job. I'm always somewhat upset over deliberate attacks on Moore's age. Frankly I never feel he's too old when playing Bond, except in AVTAK and that's because it's bleeding obvious he had some 'fixing' done after OP. In truth, if I could look like Roger when I turn 52, I'd be happy and proud. Nowadays, 65 year old actors get polished and smoothed and trained to where they can still play tough action heroes as if they were still in their 30s. In MR, Moore had only some basic make-up to rely on. No fancy CGI yet. And he looked damn fine!
Pierce Brosnan, in DAD, was a few years younger than Moore in MR. I think he looked rather well too. The 'makeover' from bearded hermit with long hair to shaven, well-dressed gentleman with a nice haircut is one of my favourite scenes in the film. I think Brosnan's looks command my respect as much as Moore's do in MR. The problem is not so much Brosnan's looks though, it's how he manoeuvres his body. Brosnan's always had a particular manner of walking and doing things. Think about how he opened the door to the Manticore in GE or how he poured in a glass of Smirnoff in TND. He tended to exaggerate certain moves, to slightly overact with his body. But this little mechanical overemphasis on his bodily motions never irritated me in Brosnan's first couple of films; rather, I found them somewhat charming. In DAD, by contrast, it feels to me like he's taking things too far, like he's nothing less than arrogant. In the PTS especially I find Brosnan's posture truly annoying. His nervous moves on the beach, when planting the satellite knife in the sand and ordering his two companions, are just silly. And what's with this keeping his back so straight, he looks like a walking blackboard? He comes off as a man with a fat belly sucking in his stomach to hide the signs of ageing. Yet later on in the film he didn't need these tricks. Somehow he played things more naturally in those scenes and thank heaven for that.
Connery and Moore always seemed to move so gracefully and spontaneous. They acted in the films as if they were in the supermarket picking some bread and milk: natural. Brosnan, by contrast, never ceased to put some extra effort in how he moved as Bond, almost as if he realised he wasn't Sean Connery and wanted to somehow compensate for that. But when I watch Brosnan in other films, his motions are perfectly normal. For some reason, he seemed to think that as Bond, he needed to do more. By the time he did DAD, his acting came off as forced, uneasy, wooden at times, whereas Moore in MR simply played Bond as Roger Moore and that's a Bond I'm quite fond of. It aids Moore tremendously in many of his reaction shots: his facial expressions and line delivery are spot-on. Brosnan's reaction shots are sometimes tainted by his failed attempt at some incredible stage performance. So while Moore interacts very smoothly with his talented co-stars, Brosnan sometimes struggles with blending in on even a basic level. That said, it didn't help Brosnan that some of co-stars were equally wooden in their acting or, worse, totally talentless. One might say that in some respect Moore's acting helped MR to be more enjoyable than it probably should be, while Brosnan's acting suffered from the film and from his own pursuit of a Connery-esque performance.
Let me finish with positive words though. DAD is a flawed film and so is MR, but neither Moore nor Brosnan are to blamed for that IMO. Despite my criticism of Brosnan's physicality in DAD, I still find myself enjoying him most of the time. I think both actors deserved better films. I continue to think that Pierce Brosnan especially wasn't given a single film, after GE, that allowed him to show his true potential as Bond.
I can never understand why. The public loved him yet still as late as his fourth film, DAD ... maybe he just was never too sure of himself. He does okay in some scenes and in some of the films but that "monkey" he seems to be carrying around on his back....
Interesting point my friend.
By contrast, Moore always seemed to be sure and at ease in his Bond portrayals. Expecially since TSWLM, Moore in MR and later films was so "in his element."
Agreed...i thought he was best in TSWLM and OP was a strong performance with some good dialogue.
TSWLM and MR were where Moore definitely came into his own, I agree, although I even like his performances in LALD and TMWTGG although it's pretty clear that Hamilton was probably directing him to be a bit more like Connery.
edit: I'm sure this has enough discussion value for its own threat!
I think he did a decent job with Dalton as well, although they seemed to end up hating each other.
Totally agree. His films are all different, but they also have a recognisable Glen style to them, which I have always enjoyed.
However, Glen MORE than makes up for it (as @DarthDimi and @Getafix have pointed out) by coaxing out 3 great performances from Moore and 2 for Dalton (although I find Dalton much stronger as Bond in TLD... just a personal opinion obviously). Also, his eye for action and his background with the genre greatly benefited his films. As far as action goes his films are some of the best in the series. TLD, in my opinion boasts probably the best action period, and the other 4 are all excellent in the action department. For a Bond film, that's quite an honor.
So, yeah, I like John Glen as a director quite a bit! 2 of his films are in my top 10 and I quite like all 5. As I mentioned in my first paragraph, I don't think he's the best Bond director, but he's definitely okay in my book.
There was a consistency and assuredness to his directing that I really liked. You felt you were in safe hands and that you knew you were going to be entertained. I love OP and TLD. Very enjoyable movies.
I don't mean CR because,personally,i dont think Brosnan has the acting range to pull off a film of that magnitude and importance,but a deeper,serious film,with less one-liners and gadgets.
From the historian point of view you couldn't be further off as DAD did brilliant at the BO and any competition was swept aside as if they were not there.
A possible fifth outing became Brosnans Waterloo, and I do not know the truth about the rumors of his salary wishes. That said he did deliver plenty of income for his bosses, so that reason would be moot in my view.
Luckily it was the series' Waterloo
I now you folks dislike Brosnan and DAD but if you call it its Waterloo then LTK must be the Boston tea party as Americans threw out an Englishman that was not wanted.
;)
DAD was in its days critically positively accepted and now where as bad as some of you seem to like it.
QoB was a far poorer effort with not even a finished script or a decent director, and the editingskills of an ADHD patient.
Disagree. The reviews were very mixed in '02. There were as many good reviews as there were bad.
I know it was successful at the BO, it also turned the franchise into a joke and contributed to a revision of his tenure and hurted Brosnan's credibility as Bond. He had his detractors before DAD, but I would venture that they were not as.numerous. In any case, it did play a role in the recast. In that sense, it was his Waterloo.
Actually Timothy Dalton is Welsh. :)
I may be splitting hairs here but of all the six Bond actors only two (Moore and Craig) are actually English. :)
Yeah you are splitting hairs throwing Dalton out of the series is the series Boston Tea party if Brosnan is Waterloo, after all Brosnan is Irish and not French,
:D
DAD might have had mixed reviews, and we all agree that the movie is detestable but it did make boatloads of money. Pity it was such a suck ass piece of crap as a Bond entry and it closed the book on the Brosnan era.