› ›

Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig (poll added)

1…5681011…21

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Kim Newman is a MAN!!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    I die of shame :-B
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    This'll really get @Getafix going. :))



    I LOVE this bloke.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Brosnan being a good or bad Bond is debatable till the cows come home. However, it's hard to discredit the man when it comes to his entertainment value. I'm not terribly a big fan of Brosnan's Bond because I felt Brosnan the actor was to a certain degree compromised by Brosnan the fanboy. However, I do think that Brosnan definitely approached Bobd significantly different to Craig in that, Brosnan simply had fun with the role with him not doing anything particularly special with it. Craig on the other hand to a certain degree has fun with the role but u feel Craig's approach is geared more towards repairing the damage the Brosnan era created for the Bond character. In short the Craig era is all about re-establishing Bond's credibility where the Brosnan era with every subsequent release machine-gun fired holes into the series.

    Brosnan IMO gave us a superficial Bond, ticking off every single shallow stereotype which to an extent entertained audiences buy blatantly stripped Bond of any significant credibility as a trend setter, innovator or anything classic. By DAD Bond was knocking on and entering through the doors of the pastiche plaza.

    Craig has to repair all that and in doing so has done and is doing an amazing job. I think SF is going to be a juggernaught of a movie and be another classic. More do than CR and that's saying something.

    Just compare Brosnan's Bond interviews with Craig's. You'll see just how much better an actor and better a Bond Craig is to Brosnan. One simply went there to play the role the other went in to work and become the role.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I enjoy Brosnan as Bond but I'm not going to disagree with @doubleoego. He made some very valid points BUT I don't think Brosnan himself can be blamed for everything that led to his era becoming a parody. Like I've said before it wasn't his decision to make an entirely CG based sequence.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    This'll really get @Getafix going. :))



    I LOVE this bloke.

    Just watched it and laughed the whole way through. I love the way he starts off by slating the PTS. The rest of it is nonsense and he even sounds bored as he drones on about the tedious, derivative plot. The only bit where he gets excited is talking about Natalia. Apparently she's the best ever Bond girl.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    He doesn't look bored at all. If anything quite the opposite AND he doesn't slate the PTS ("a pretty awesome stunt to start the movie") - he just jokingly nit-picks it.

    (For the record Natalya is my favourite Bond girl too).

    You want to watch a review where he looks bored/annoyed watch this one:
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    I don't like TB either, despite some great underwater fight scenes. Not Sean's best at all.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    I enjoy TB but I don't consider it his best.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    But you have to admit that Sean in TB give one of the most self-confident, cool and masculine performances in the entire cinematic history. I'm sure tens of millions of men/boys in 1965 looked up at Sean in awe.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    But you have to admit that Sean in TB give one of the most self-confident, cool and masculine performances in the entire cinematic history. I'm sure tens of millions of men/boys in 1965 looked up at Sean in awe.

    I think it was probably his best performance as Bond.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    Both are excellent for their time. Brosnan was very much a Bond of the time. He suits the 90's. He was the type of Bond the audience craved back then with his style and charm. Skip forward to now and Brosnan would not be able to deliver as the more realistic, hard hitting, rough round the edges hero that is demanded of Craig. Craig is more verstile an actor and more convincing. Craig can do the style and class thing but can also get his hands dirty unlike Brosnan who's only attempt at the rough edges was looking like Robinson Crusoe in DAD!
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    Both are excellent for their time. Brosnan was very much a Bond of the time. He suits the 90's. He was the type of Bond the audience craved back then with his style and charm. Skip forward to now and Brosnan would not be able to deliver as the more realistic, hard hitting, rough round the edges hero that is demanded of Craig. Craig is more verstile an actor and more convincing. Craig can do the style and class thing but can also get his hands dirty unlike Brosnan who's only attempt at the rough edges was looking like Robinson Crusoe in DAD!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    myworldisenough wrote:
    Both are excellent for their time. Brosnan was very much a Bond of the time. He suits the 90's. He was the type of Bond the audience craved back then with his style and charm. Skip forward to now and Brosnan would not be able to deliver as the more realistic, hard hitting, rough round the edges hero that is demanded of Craig. Craig is more verstile an actor and more convincing. Craig can do the style and class thing but can also get his hands dirty unlike Brosnan who's only attempt at the rough edges was looking like Robinson Crusoe in DAD!

    The 90s was a "slick" period. Brosnan did suit that era.
  • myworldisenoughmyworldisenough
    Posts: 1,143
    BAIN123 wrote:
    myworldisenough wrote:
    Both are excellent for their time. Brosnan was very much a Bond of the time. He suits the 90's. He was the type of Bond the audience craved back then with his style and charm. Skip forward to now and Brosnan would not be able to deliver as the more realistic, hard hitting, rough round the edges hero that is demanded of Craig. Craig is more verstile an actor and more convincing. Craig can do the style and class thing but can also get his hands dirty unlike Brosnan who's only attempt at the rough edges was looking like Robinson Crusoe in DAD!

    The 90s was a "slick" period. Brosnan did suit that era.

    That's a great word to discribe it - "slick" and I think the two most recent Bond's are refreshing different enough to please those that love either style or both.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Like it or not Brosnan is more slick than the likes of Dalton and...perhaps...Craig (though Craig is definitely a good competitor).

    Watching GE yesterday just the way he walks out of M's office in his sharp suit or looks down into the camera/vent at the start of GE when he first meets up with Alec.

    I was thinking to myself actually: "this guy may be a bit thin physically but he's pretty awesome" :D
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    After watching that TB review I just wanted to say:

    I LOVE THUNDERBALL!

    After watching that GE review I just wanted to say:

    I LOVE GOLDENEYE!

    That´s all, that´s all. Move along ;)
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    DaltonCraig007 wrote:
    But you have to admit that Sean in TB give one of the most self-confident, cool and masculine performances in the entire cinematic history. I'm sure tens of millions of men/boys in 1965 looked up at Sean in awe.

    We did, we did! He was the man then and to many of us alive then, he still is :D
  • Vancouver007Vancouver007
    Posts: 42
    doubleoego wrote:
    Brosnan being a good or bad Bond is debatable till the cows come home. However, it's hard to discredit the man when it comes to his entertainment value. I'm not terribly a big fan of Brosnan's Bond because I felt Brosnan the actor was to a certain degree compromised by Brosnan the fanboy. However, I do think that Brosnan definitely approached Bobd significantly different to Craig in that, Brosnan simply had fun with the role with him not doing anything particularly special with it. Craig on the other hand to a certain degree has fun with the role but u feel Craig's approach is geared more towards repairing the damage the Brosnan era created for the Bond character. In short the Craig era is all about re-establishing Bond's credibility where the Brosnan era with every subsequent release machine-gun fired holes into the series.

    Brosnan IMO gave us a superficial Bond, ticking off every single shallow stereotype which to an extent entertained audiences buy blatantly stripped Bond of any significant credibility as a trend setter, innovator or anything classic. By DAD Bond was knocking on and entering through the doors of the pastiche plaza.

    Craig has to repair all that and in doing so has done and is doing an amazing job. I think SF is going to be a juggernaught of a movie and be another classic. More do than CR and that's saying something.

    Just compare Brosnan's Bond interviews with Craig's. You'll see just how much better an actor and better a Bond Craig is to Brosnan. One simply went there to play the role the other went in to work and become the role.

    Excellent points, I completely agree!!
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Vancouver007 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Brosnan being a good or bad Bond is debatable till the cows come home. However, it's hard to discredit the man when it comes to his entertainment value. I'm not terribly a big fan of Brosnan's Bond because I felt Brosnan the actor was to a certain degree compromised by Brosnan the fanboy. However, I do think that Brosnan definitely approached Bobd significantly different to Craig in that, Brosnan simply had fun with the role with him not doing anything particularly special with it. Craig on the other hand to a certain degree has fun with the role but u feel Craig's approach is geared more towards repairing the damage the Brosnan era created for the Bond character. In short the Craig era is all about re-establishing Bond's credibility where the Brosnan era with every subsequent release machine-gun fired holes into the series.

    Brosnan IMO gave us a superficial Bond, ticking off every single shallow stereotype which to an extent entertained audiences buy blatantly stripped Bond of any significant credibility as a trend setter, innovator or anything classic. By DAD Bond was knocking on and entering through the doors of the pastiche plaza.

    Craig has to repair all that and in doing so has done and is doing an amazing job. I think SF is going to be a juggernaught of a movie and be another classic. More do than CR and that's saying something.

    Just compare Brosnan's Bond interviews with Craig's. You'll see just how much better an actor and better a Bond Craig is to Brosnan. One simply went there to play the role the other went in to work and become the role.

    Excellent points, I completely agree!!

    Agreed.
  • chuck007chuck007
    Posts: 172
    Brosnan 5th Bond film:

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    chuck007 wrote:
    Brosnan 5th Bond film:


    Brozza's appearance on the Muppets was actually very funny. Much better than his actual performances in the films.
  • 007RogerMoore007RogerMoore
    Posts: 1,082
    chuck007 wrote:
    Brosnan 5th Bond film:


    Great movie!
  • ShorelineShoreline
    Posts: 251
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't like TB either, despite some great underwater fight scenes. Not Sean's best at all.
    This says so much....thanks, I understand you know.

    ;)
  • ShorelineShoreline
    Posts: 251
    I vote for Brosnan.
    He has become the sacraficial cow on this forum, and I understand this to a point, but it`s clearly obvious some people here just love the act of putting the boot in for the shear love of being negative....each to their own.

    Brosnan had so many brilliant moments as Bond, and for me, his films are so much more watchable than Craigs.
    Now I am not gonna list my favourite bits, there is enough of that around here, but rather, I`d like to explain my frustration with the Craig era.....

    Craig is a great Bond. Not without faults, way too much pouting, and no sense of fun, but his take is fresh. Well, it was in CR. QOS has very little redeeming qualities, let alone the character Bond in it.

    My big problem with Craigs films isn`t Craig himself, it`s Judi Dench, and every scene they have together. She is so awful, it`s hard to believe!!!!! I have never seen so much over acting in recent times...and she brings out the worst in Craigs Bond.
    I hate her portrayal of M, yet it worked so well with Brosnans Bond, but she is playing it so different now.
    I am saddened to hear she will be playing a big role in SF, as she stinks.
    Craigs scenes in QOS when he is left alone to get on with his job are great, we just need to lose Dench and all this Mother/Son phsyco babble crap.

    Craig hasn`t been allowed to define his Bond yet, and BB and MGW look like they are gonna continue on this Dench luvvie element which in turn brings out the luvvie in Craig....it is so not cool.
    Craig is very nearly an amazing Bond....lose Dench, have a little fun, for Gods sake don`t go renagade AGAIN.....

    Brosnan for me then....
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Put me down for Craig. Brosnan blew his chances after the decidedly average GE.
  • EllisEllis
    Posts: 224
    Brosnan. I'm optimistic though that Craig will close the gap between him and Pierce, for me, in Skyfall.
  • FireSkullFireSkull
    Posts: 135
    where's the poll?
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited May 2012 Posts: 13,356
    FireSkull wrote:
    where's the poll?

    Down the right hand side of the page.
  • lordofthejimmylordofthejimmy
    Posts: 32
    Well I pick Brosnan, but I grew up with him, so I guess I'm biased. GOLDENEYE is not only my favorite Bond movie (and the first one I ever saw), but one of my favorite films of all time. I also love TOMORROW NEVER DIES, and liked parts of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and the opening to DIE ANOTHER DAY sans Madonna (I felt like I was also being tortured having to sit through that).

    My reasoning is that Brosnan felt like he captured the role closest to Connery. He was able to deliver those suave funny lines just like Connery. "Backseat Driver" from TOMORROW NEVER DIES is one of my favorite one-liners from a Bond film. Even the way he silently wipes his forehead with the towel in GOLDENEYE after beating the guy on the yacht is very cool. Brosnan could also kick some ass when he needed to, but he was also vulnerable. I found him a good balanced Bond.

    I love Daniel Craig, he should have won an oscar for DEFIANCE, but don't like him as much as Bond. He's very robotic, a friend of mine compared him to The Terminator. Well he's not supposed to be The Terminator, he's a human agent. Certainly he kicks ass, but I don't feel he's delivering that fun suave side of Bond the way he should be. Even in SKYFALL, the way he said "Bond, James Bond," felt so uninspired. I felt he had some humanity in CASINO ROYALE, his best picture so far, but lost it in QUANTUM OF SOLACE and hasn't gotten it back.

    So Brosnan for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.