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 agree that Craig has been let down by poor writing and direction. For me the approach Mendes took with SF was a massive disappointment. I think Craig is a very good actor but not a great actor, as some people clAim. Once he's finished with Bond I think his career will take a very different, low key trajectory - he has not had much success outside of Bond tbh.
I agree @DoctorNo. People are really harsh on Mendes' two Bond films. I mean, putting these films in the Bottom 3 of a ranking, to me sounds like a prime example of a complete outlier in personal taste :-).
By the way, I do think Daniel Craig could return for a 5th film:
http://www.chattsportsnet.com/entertainment/movies/new-james-bond-movie-theo-james-franchise-not-giving-daniel-craig/7916/
But I don't like that link above. He never announced his departure. That's untrue. And none of the actors listed as his "replacement" have ever been official.
Brosnan is very fine, at his best in TND. I love his Bond in this, throughout the whole film.
Thanks @Birdleson. I think we fully agree.
It's funny how can many see something as a weakness others see it as a strength and for me that amalgam of his predecessors turned him in the whole bond package.
He was so great to me because he had everything James Bond needs plus id say his great looks got the woman who never cared for the franchise or the action genre into Bond at least for a while (1996-2002).
I do firmly believe the franchise needs another Brosnan Looks and performance wise. bond needs the women audience: the girlfriends and wives of all the Bond fans hehe.
I draggggg Daniel Craig by his blond hairs to the EON office in Piccadilly. Because I DEMAND him to return for a 5th time.
IMHO you get this via scripts that have great character and drama (which both genders appreciate). SF did this and it can be done again (with any actor) its so much more than getting "a looker" to play Bond.
Hence why the Bond character as played by Daniel Craig was way more complex, multilayered and emotionally realistic, as opposed to the people who wrote Brosnan's version of 007.
Very bold statement. Just start with 'painface' and work from there and this statement is quickly exposed as the fallacy it clearly is.
Indeed.
For two of Brosnan's films it was the same writers and at least half of Dan's tenure has been very badly written so its difficult to pinpoint exactly who is responsible for what and where.
Is Brosnan to blame for his pastiche take on the character? Or is it the writers and directors? Campbell was the guy who introduced us to Brozza's greatest hits package take on Bond but also the guy who gave us the most Flemingesque Bond film since OHMSS.
Was it EON saying to Broz 'After the dourness of Dalton we just want bums on seats so play it safe and go for a Sean/Rog composite'?
Even if it's easy to criticise Brozza (the straightening the tie underwater was his idea and everyone loved it because it showed how much he 'got' the character) he was very badly served with scripts and directors. Its debatable if even Rog at his peak could have made DAD watchable.
Craig has reaped the benefit of the mistakes of the Brozza era by being given more serious scripts and a definite uplift in talent behind the camera (writing aside).
I've got a lot of time Broz because he was what the series needed at the time and he delivered. He often said he would have liked to have been given a crack at a proper serious Bond story with dramatic heft a la OHMSS/CR but like Craig it was EON that let him down with appalling script and director choices.
He did his best and it gave it a good shot but his era still feels like pastiche and while this cant be levelled 100% at his door he does have to take his share of the blame.
The franchise is doing quite well globally from a box office perspective, so I'm reasonably sure it's appealing to both sexes.
Imho, the next actor must have a few qualities: He must be self assured. He must be masculine enough without necessarily being a beefcake or gym rat. He must imbue his Bond characterization with a natural confidence. He must have a strong voice with an appealing English accent. He must be a decent (but not necessarily a phenomenal) actor. He must be naturally convincing when seducing the ladies on film. Finally (my personal strong preference), he must be at least 6ft 1 or thereabouts.
I can't stand any of the Brosnan films but have always maintained that he could have done a decent Bond film. I've enjoyed him in other roles, but rarely as Bond - with the exception perhaps of a few early scenes in TND.
The problem IMO is that he never developed a take on the character that played to his strengths and his directors seem not to have much cared what he did. He has shown that when he has very good direction - Boorman, Polanski - that he can be a perfectly decent screen actor.
Brosnan directed by Tarantino as Bond would have been interesting.
Brosnan's Bond needed a darker, slightly twisted side. Brosnan is at his best playing people whose moral compass is not entirely set on the right course. His Bond should have been meaner, and less predictable. He played it too much like a bland action hero.
James Bond in the movies is a far more difficult character to play than people assume. The actor must embody the character. The acting must be subtle. In Brosnan's case, for him to really shine, the acting is more overt, as in the case of Osnard. Brosnan in a Tarantino exaggerated Bond universe could have worked very well for this very reason imho.
He is also excellent playing the smooth operator, like in The Thomas Crown Affair, and I argue that it is this side of him which he channeled for his James Bond characterization. From my perspective however, this approach was a little too smarmy & corporate for Bond.
That's why I still like GE best. It's because the supporting cast were solid enough, and the premise interesting enough, to allow Brosnan to coast through it as a 'template amalgam' Bond.
Just my view of course. I know he has his fans.
In DAD when he and Berry spout the godawful dialogue on first meeting and they both adopt the exact same mannerism of pushing their tongue out slightly to emphasise certain words. Irritating. A good director would've sorted that out (Even Rosmaund Pike does it at one point).
I don't mind his Bond at all, but he was having too much fun at times to concentrate on the character.
Great - The Matador, The Fourth Protocol, The Tailor of Panama, The Ghost
Terrible - early pre-Bond movies/TV Movies like Death Train, Nightwatch; The November Man
Yes both CR and SF are in my top ten. SP definitely not. In fact SP is the only Craig film I didn't like. My point was the era to this point has not been what it could have been ..at least at this point.