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
Newspapers, TV and radio along with web and internet media. They can control
Public opinion by twisting a story to their own ends, or even control governments
So for Me, Carver was a believable contemporary villain. :)
I work for Tesco's and I'd love to see a Bond film where the CEO plans to blow up rival companies (I wouldn't put it past them ;) ).
If the henchman did enough shopping they could save points off fuel that they could then use for their evil deeds.
He took a part in a movie that could very easily have fallen into hokiness. Even with his limited experience, he was able to give us an acting performance that did not fall into sentimentality or emotionality. It was quite a measured, vulnerable performance in this respect from him. I felt that I was watching a battle hardened agent get broken down by a woman. However, I did not think that the man was going to burst into tears at any point during the film.
On this respect alone, I think he deserves an A. It's a very difficult thing to pull off. Brosnan would not have been able to do this, based on his performance in TWINE. He would most likely have overacted sentimentally, as is his approach.
Only Craig has been able to surpass this in CR, and Craig is an exceptional actor. So that says something for Laz.
There is a crucial scene onboard a jet where he is confronted and he is left wanting
I can't remember the specific scene you're referring to (I know there was an outburst of sorts), but I thought Brozz was very good in that film generally. He really fit that role well.
I've been meaning to watch it again so may take it in this weekend.
I like Polanski generally so I am a bit biased. I dislike Blair too so again I enjoyed this film due to the parallels.
Really? Funny how you're picking up on Brosnan not being good in The Ghost, and here I am defending him.
The tables are turned my friend!
Brosnan's looks are both a blessing and a curse. They mean he has often been cast in heroic leading man roles, when that's not actually really his strength.
This is why I always felt he was miscast as Bond - or at least he should have played Bond very differently from how he did it. He should have been nastier, harder and more morally ambiguous.
I disagree on Bond though. I don't think he's really suited to Bond based on the 4 films he made. Even if he played it harder, nastier & in a morally ambigous way, I think he would have had to put out too much of himself - it would have been excessive. I think he was very good in the November Man for instance and the aforementioned ToP, but that is not James Bond. There is more of a subtlety to Bond....a knowing experience....that Brosnan never captured, for me at least.
As an example, when Connery tells MP in YOLT that he had a double first in languages from Cambridge - just look at the way he delivers that line. The subtle knowing arrogance. Compare that to the way Brozza delivers to Oxford line (in Russian) to Denise in TWINE. Big difference.
I don't see any difference here whatsoever.
Well, that could be part of why we may have a difference of opinion on this matter perhaps.
For me, one is assured. The other is strained. Forced. The shoe fits on one and not on the other. That's my perception though.
At the end of the day, to sum it up, I did not find him believable as 'hard Bond'. I believed him more as 'soft Bond', which is what he was in TWINE with Electra, and that 'soft emotional Bond' is not a Bond I like.
I was trying to be nice to Brosnan - going along with the line that he could have been good if he'd had better material and tweaked his performance. But essentially I agree with you - he was fundamentally miscast and had he played Bond to his strengths, the role would have been completely redefined.
I actually think that's the route he should have gone down. EON would probably never have allowed it, but that whole idea of Tarrantino directing Brosnan as this sleazy, corrupt, over the hill Bond is really tantalising. Perhaps it wouldn't have been Bond, but it would have been interesting. Did Brosnan ever suggest directors to EON like Dan does? May be he did and they weren't interested or EON said no, but I just sense a lack of engagement with the character and the whole process.
I also wonder whether Brosnan just lacked courage. EON is accused of a lot, but I think they give their actors more leeway than the Brosnan defenders make out. If they're so controlling, how come Dalton's portrayal supposedly shocked audiences. When DAD came out, who imagined the next Bond film would see a performance like the one that Craig gave? The fact that the Brosnan era is bookcased by two of the hardest hitting entries in the entire series kind of undermines this idea that it was EON who forced Brosnan to give this bland 'greatest hits' performance.
Agree again on the Tarrantino redefinition of Bond. I think Brosnan wanted that (he was pushing for it) because he probably knew it would play to his strengths. Sort of an alternative universe Bond if you will.
Of course, EON would never have gone for that and it was quite obvious to me when they cast Craig that they knew that they had to prioritize inherent masculinity first as well as acting prowess going forward.
Any actor who gets Bond from now on has to be first and foremost a superior actor, and also have some inherent on-screen virility - at least while Babs is in charge.
I think you're right. Casting Brosnan was Cubby's last big decision and arguably (from a creative sense) one of his worst. We know that Babs was more than a little bit of a Dalton fan. ;) I generally trust Bab's judgement when it comes to casting Bond, although not necessarily some of her other decisions. I think Craig was inspired. He's not my favourite Bond at all, but I respect his take on the role, and he was just what the series needed after Brosnan. I have no doubt that Craig's replacement will be a solid actor as well. I actually hope he'll be an improvement, although he'll struggle to match Craig's commercial success I think.
But really, where next? In a way you could argue Craig has radically redefined the character more than any one else - more than Dalton even. His take is a sort of thuggish bruiser. All the enjoyment of the finer things in life has gone out the window. Bond is a ruthless professional killer, entirely focused on the job all of the time. The fun, fine wine and the women have largely been put to one side for bone-crunching fights and a brooding surliness.
I just wonder if Craig can redefine Bond so much, then why not let Brosnan do that parallel universe Bond that he apparently wanted? I think it could have been really interesting. Although I understand that EON don't want to damage the image of Bond.