Craig. I don't love a single Brosnan movie. I like the tone Craig brings and he's probably a better actor anyway. Brosnan certainly looks the part though.
Depends on what part you are referring to. Certainly he does not resemble a tough, ruthless, blunt instrument of destruction. I guess he is a hit with the ladies and looks great in a tux however. ?:)
Depends on what part you are referring to. Certainly he does not resemble a tough, ruthless, blunt instrument of destruction. I guess he is a hit with the ladies and looks great in a tux however. ?:)
Craig looks the most like a killer. I guess I mean the part that has been played for the last 40 years.
Even though Brosnan has four Bond films under his belt compared to Craig's one, the choice is still an easy one for me to make . . .
Without a doubt, Craig is the superior Bond. Watch GE and then compare it to CR. In GE (which I love, by the way), Brosnan's portrayal of Bond comes across as cartoonish when compared to the dark intensity of Craig's portrayal. This is not entirely Brosnan's fault . . . CR had a superior script.
For me, it's Craig all the way. And, yes, I think he delivers the goods thus far better than Connery. When I watch CR, I see the Bond portrayed in Fleming's books!
Depends on what part you are referring to. Certainly he does not resemble a tough, ruthless, blunt instrument of destruction. I guess he is a hit with the ladies and looks great in a tux however. ?:)
The thing is, I don't think that the (cinematic) Bond should have to look like a 'tough, ruthless, blunt instrument of destruction.' I mean, Craig may look like it, but IMO he just looks like a thug. I think that Bond should look like someone who is, at the same time, both suave and gentlemanly but also capable of killing in cold blood. IMO Brosnan achieves this, while Craig does not. (Craig may achieve the whole looks like a 'tough ruthless etc...' part but IMO that doesn't automatically make him Bond, while Brosnan achieves both parts to my satisfaction.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited March 2007
Part of my decisive vote for Craig over Brozzer is based on faith, of course: faith that Craig will continue the 'arc' which was merely begun in CR...becoming a more fully formed, more easily recognizable James Bond, as he's been depicted on film---but retaining the crucial (IMO) tough brute beneath the suave, sophisticated veneer.
Of course, those who still believe that poor Danny is just 'too ugly' to be suave and sophisticated (or is simply incapable of portraying 007 that way) will be left to pound sand in frustration...but every Bond fan must endure a personal Bond 'Dark Age' at some point Best hope it doesn't last seven films...
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Lazenby did only one film, yet he was a great Bond, moreso than Moore or Dalton or Brosnan IMO. Even if Craig's Bond lessens in later films (ala Connery in YOLT and DAF), he'll still always have CR (as Connery has his earlier films).
Part of my decisive vote for Craig over Brozzer is based on faith, of course: faith that Craig will continue the 'arc' which was merely begun in CR...becoming a more fully formed, more easily recognizable James Bond, as he's been depicted on film---but retaining the crucial (IMO) tough brute beneath the suave, sophisticated veneer.
I hope what you say about the "arc" is true. As it is, I feel Craig's Bond sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the films. But that's not because of Craig, it's simply a matter of the way the character was written.
I didn't perceive Bond in the novel CR to be "unsuave" (apologies for the grammer) but more accurately, he was "vulnerable". I would like to see Craig portray a more refined Bond in the next film or two with the 'suave' element, but I certainly don't want to see him somehow magically transform into Brosnan.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Part of my decisive vote for Craig over Brozzer is based on faith, of course: faith that Craig will continue the 'arc' which was merely begun in CR...becoming a more fully formed, more easily recognizable James Bond, as he's been depicted on film---but retaining the crucial (IMO) tough brute beneath the suave, sophisticated veneer.
I hope what you say about the "arc" is true. As it is, I feel Craig's Bond sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the films. But that's not because of Craig, it's simply a matter of the way the character was written.
I really have confidence in this area. Craig will quickly become bored with Bond, I think, unless they keep it interesting for him---i.e., giving him room to grow and develop (admittedly a radical notion for a formula-driven franchise like this one).
I didn't perceive Bond in the novel CR to be "unsuave" (apologies for the grammer) but more accurately, he was "vulnerable". I would like to see Craig portray a more refined Bond in the next film or two with the 'suave' element, but I certainly don't want to see him somehow magically transform into Brosnan.
I don't know anyone (particularly the Brozzer die-hards) who see that as a possibility ) I predict Craig will be notably 'smoother' next time round---he'll have his 'armour back on,' paraphrasing Vesper---and will likely never again be quite as 'vulnerable' as we've just seen him.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
These are my favorite James Bond's films:
1. From Russia With Love
2. Casino Royale
3. The Living Daylight
4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5. Licence to Kill
So the answer to the question is elementary, Watson ...
I finally saw Casino Royale, and I have to say, it is the best Bond movie since Dr. No. Craig, he's not the cliche, and that's good. It's nothing against the Moore and Brosnan Bonds, they're interesting enough, but it feels generic now, kind of the "TGIF" of action heroes. Craig makes Bond real again, the way Connery did. Yes, it is escapism, but that doesn't mean it's needs to be squeeky clean.
Lazenby did only one film, yet he was a great Bond, moreso than Moore or Dalton or Brosnan IMO. Even if Craig's Bond lessens in later films (ala Connery in YOLT and DAF), he'll still always have CR (as Connery has his earlier films).
You must be kidding, Lazenby was the most wooden, least humorous and worst Bond of all time.
But, back to Brosnan or Craig, I have a question I would like to ask the pro Craig crowd. Would DAD have been a better movie with Craig. No script changes, just Craig playing the same character Brosnan did. I think not, becaue DAD was saved by Brosnan's charisma and I don't think Craig has the charisma Brosnan does. Just my opinion.
All of them have engaged in some kind of thuggish behavior over the years.
Perhaps, but I was referring more to the way Craig looked and the way he acted.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Lazenby did only one film, yet he was a great Bond, moreso than Moore or Dalton or Brosnan IMO. Even if Craig's Bond lessens in later films (ala Connery in YOLT and DAF), he'll still always have CR (as Connery has his earlier films).
You must be kidding, Lazenby was the most wooden, least humorous and worst Bond of all time.
But, back to Brosnan or Craig, I have a question I would like to ask the pro Craig crowd. Would DAD have been a better movie with Craig. No script changes, just Craig playing the same character Brosnan did. I think not, becaue DAD was saved by Brosnan's charisma and I don't think Craig has the charisma Brosnan does. Just my opinion.
Honest, Lazenby made a much better Bond than Brosnan IMHO.
As to your DAD question...that's like asking, would Craig standing in a lump of dog doody be more appealing tham Brosnan standing in a lump of dog doody. I think the dog doody renders all other considerations moot, lol. I think Craig's a much, much better actor than Brosnan, how's that? JMHO and all that, I know you like the Brosnan Bonds but other than TND I can hardly think of them as Bond films, and that one just barely. Brosnan had his moments, they all did, but he never put it together for an entire film the way Lazenby comes across in OHMSS. Different strokes.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Lazenby did only one film, yet he was a great Bond, moreso than Moore or Dalton or Brosnan IMO. Even if Craig's Bond lessens in later films (ala Connery in YOLT and DAF), he'll still always have CR (as Connery has his earlier films).
You must be kidding, Lazenby was the most wooden, least humorous and worst Bond of all time.
But, back to Brosnan or Craig, I have a question I would like to ask the pro Craig crowd. Would DAD have been a better movie with Craig. No script changes, just Craig playing the same character Brosnan did. I think not, becaue DAD was saved by Brosnan's charisma and I don't think Craig has the charisma Brosnan does. Just my opinion.
Truthfully, Craig wouldn't have taken the role with DAD's script. He kept saying when he was chosen that he expected a crap script and to throw it in the trash and say "I'm not doing this." So truly, he wouldn't have accepted DAD's awful script.
I agree with Barry on this. I think that the screenplay for DAD was absolutely terrible, but I think that Brosnan did a terrific job despite it. I don't think that Craig would have done a good job in the slightest, which is just one reason why I think that Brosnan was a vastly superior Bond to Craig.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
How can you use that line of reasoning? Yes, Brosnan did a great job with a crap script. But how does that make him better than Craig? Because he can turn crap into not as crap?
How can you use that line of reasoning? Yes, Brosnan did a great job with a crap script. But how does that make him better than Craig? Because he can turn crap into not as crap?
Well, keep in mind that it's just one reason why I consider Brosan to be superior to Craig. However, I think that one mark of a great actor (or great Bond) is someone who can go beyond their material. It's relatively easy to deliver a great performance if one has a terrific screenplay, but if an actor is able to deliver a great performance despite a bad screenplay, then I think they did a fantastic job.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
But that isn't really fair for Craig- he hasn't gotten a bad Bond script yet.
But that isn't really fair for Craig- he hasn't gotten a bad Bond script yet.
I would disagree with that. (I'm not suggesting that CR's screenplay is as bad as DAD's, but I don't think it's so impressive.)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
So Blue, you do agree with me that CR's screenplay wasn't so great then? I ask because you referred to a post above, and that was my post.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Nope, I was just making an observation about where the Q&A was going, about what if Craig never gets a bad script. And you sorta answered that, you wacky camper you.
I don't like getting into these Brosnan vs Craig arguments....however I'll stick my two cents in anyway. IMO Brosnan pulled off DAD because he was
a prototypical cinematic Bond who had been fully established as the accepted Bond persona in his previous films. PB is also a more than decent actor ( I can't wait to see Seraphim Falls) but most importantly, a good old fashioned "movie star" with great charisma. I actually believe that Brosnan as he ages is becoming a much better actor with greater range as his "movie star" looks begin to fade and are less of a hinderance to a good performance. I always have believed that Brosnan could have done a great swansong performance as an older, gone to seed, past his prime Bond, ravaged by the excesses of his life given one more mission to redeem himself. I can't even imagine Craig (who I think could be the best Bond since Connery)in DAD. It would have been a disaster for him (no matter how good a performance he might have given) as his first Bond film. Craig is a fine actor, but not quite the "movie star" type. What Craig does have as Bond is an incredible screen "presence"
and raw animal magnetism and unpredictability as Bond. I liked PB very much as Bond, but with the scripts he was given, you just knew he would gadget or charm his way out of even the most dangerous situations. The way Craig's Bond was written and performed you never knew how he would react....he could be slick and cunning one moment and go off like a stick of dynamite the next.
Lazenby did only one film, yet he was a great Bond, moreso than Moore or Dalton or Brosnan IMO. Even if Craig's Bond lessens in later films (ala Connery in YOLT and DAF), he'll still always have CR (as Connery has his earlier films).
You must be kidding, Lazenby was the most wooden, least humorous and worst Bond of all time.
But, back to Brosnan or Craig, I have a question I would like to ask the pro Craig crowd. Would DAD have been a better movie with Craig. No script changes, just Craig playing the same character Brosnan did. I think not, becaue DAD was saved by Brosnan's charisma and I don't think Craig has the charisma Brosnan does. Just my opinion.
Honest, Lazenby made a much better Bond than Brosnan IMHO.
You know, I agree. Lazenby gets unfairly maligned for being a bad Bond when he's perfectly fine physically -- it's his delivery of some lines (most of those lines overdubbed) where he comes across as flat. By comparison, Brosnan, like Moore, comes across as the cliche of what Bond is, from his mannequin looks to his runway model walk to his sometimes smug delivery of lines. It's not that I don't like him, but he's eminently predictable, formulaic. With Connery, Lazenby, and Craig (and even Dalton), there's an element of individuality that Brosnan doesn't quite have. Until now, I couldn't quite figure out fully why Brosnan's portrayals didn't really stay with me the way the others do.
Why does everyone go on about Connery like he is some sort of God????
IMO he wasn't all that hot as James Bond. Yes he was entertaining but none of his made it into my top 5 Bond films: OHMSS, CR, FYEO, TLD, GE.
Daniel Craig is excellent as the new, re-imagined Bond. I can't imagine anyone else being able to pull it off. Brozzer is too smooth to kill people in public toilets or get blood on his shirt.
Lazenby was very good, his acting inexperience helped his portrayal of Bond came across as an arrogant, young MI6 agent who sometimes rubbed people up the wrong way.
Dalton was pure Fleming - shame about the insipid Bond girl.
Anyway, the earlier quote I gave was actually from Lethal Weapon 4 about them not being better, just different, but I concede it could have come from YOLT.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Craig did a commendable job in the role for his first outing and I'm awaiting the follow-up along with most of you but I'm not turning my back on Brosnan because he did turn out three and a half awesome films during his run...
The second half of DAD was unbearable to watch for me. Sorry.
That being said, I'm still in Brozzy's corner. B-)
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Just a note on your picture Rouge Agent - Batman is better than Superman
You must be referring to the comic because Superman The Movie is still the best super hero movie.
To fish. I wouldnt take it that seriously. I love all things Bond so do most of the fans. I do have strong feelings in regard to how he is portrayed. Slap stick has no place in the movies. The farther the film franchise moves away from the Bond character which Fleming created the moore I get upset.
Comments
Craig looks the most like a killer. I guess I mean the part that has been played for the last 40 years.
Without a doubt, Craig is the superior Bond. Watch GE and then compare it to CR. In GE (which I love, by the way), Brosnan's portrayal of Bond comes across as cartoonish when compared to the dark intensity of Craig's portrayal. This is not entirely Brosnan's fault . . . CR had a superior script.
For me, it's Craig all the way. And, yes, I think he delivers the goods thus far better than Connery. When I watch CR, I see the Bond portrayed in Fleming's books!
Of course, those who still believe that poor Danny is just 'too ugly' to be suave and sophisticated (or is simply incapable of portraying 007 that way) will be left to pound sand in frustration...but every Bond fan must endure a personal Bond 'Dark Age' at some point
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I hope what you say about the "arc" is true. As it is, I feel Craig's Bond sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the films. But that's not because of Craig, it's simply a matter of the way the character was written.
I didn't perceive Bond in the novel CR to be "unsuave" (apologies for the grammer) but more accurately, he was "vulnerable". I would like to see Craig portray a more refined Bond in the next film or two with the 'suave' element, but I certainly don't want to see him somehow magically transform into Brosnan.
I really have confidence in this area. Craig will quickly become bored with Bond, I think, unless they keep it interesting for him---i.e., giving him room to grow and develop (admittedly a radical notion for a formula-driven franchise like this one).
I don't know anyone (particularly the Brozzer die-hards) who see that as a possibility
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
1. From Russia With Love
2. Casino Royale
3. The Living Daylight
4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
5. Licence to Kill
So the answer to the question is elementary, Watson ...
You must be kidding, Lazenby was the most wooden, least humorous and worst Bond of all time.
But, back to Brosnan or Craig, I have a question I would like to ask the pro Craig crowd. Would DAD have been a better movie with Craig. No script changes, just Craig playing the same character Brosnan did. I think not, becaue DAD was saved by Brosnan's charisma and I don't think Craig has the charisma Brosnan does. Just my opinion.
Perhaps, but I was referring more to the way Craig looked and the way he acted.
Honest, Lazenby made a much better Bond than Brosnan IMHO.
As to your DAD question...that's like asking, would Craig standing in a lump of dog doody be more appealing tham Brosnan standing in a lump of dog doody. I think the dog doody renders all other considerations moot, lol. I think Craig's a much, much better actor than Brosnan, how's that? JMHO and all that, I know you like the Brosnan Bonds but other than TND I can hardly think of them as Bond films, and that one just barely. Brosnan had his moments, they all did, but he never put it together for an entire film the way Lazenby comes across in OHMSS. Different strokes.
Truthfully, Craig wouldn't have taken the role with DAD's script. He kept saying when he was chosen that he expected a crap script and to throw it in the trash and say "I'm not doing this." So truly, he wouldn't have accepted DAD's awful script.
a prototypical cinematic Bond who had been fully established as the accepted Bond persona in his previous films. PB is also a more than decent actor ( I can't wait to see Seraphim Falls) but most importantly, a good old fashioned "movie star" with great charisma. I actually believe that Brosnan as he ages is becoming a much better actor with greater range as his "movie star" looks begin to fade and are less of a hinderance to a good performance. I always have believed that Brosnan could have done a great swansong performance as an older, gone to seed, past his prime Bond, ravaged by the excesses of his life given one more mission to redeem himself. I can't even imagine Craig (who I think could be the best Bond since Connery)in DAD. It would have been a disaster for him (no matter how good a performance he might have given) as his first Bond film. Craig is a fine actor, but not quite the "movie star" type. What Craig does have as Bond is an incredible screen "presence"
and raw animal magnetism and unpredictability as Bond. I liked PB very much as Bond, but with the scripts he was given, you just knew he would gadget or charm his way out of even the most dangerous situations. The way Craig's Bond was written and performed you never knew how he would react....he could be slick and cunning one moment and go off like a stick of dynamite the next.
IMO he wasn't all that hot as James Bond. Yes he was entertaining but none of his made it into my top 5 Bond films: OHMSS, CR, FYEO, TLD, GE.
Daniel Craig is excellent as the new, re-imagined Bond. I can't imagine anyone else being able to pull it off. Brozzer is too smooth to kill people in public toilets or get blood on his shirt.
Lazenby was very good, his acting inexperience helped his portrayal of Bond came across as an arrogant, young MI6 agent who sometimes rubbed people up the wrong way.
Dalton was pure Fleming - shame about the insipid Bond girl.
Anyway, the earlier quote I gave was actually from Lethal Weapon 4 about them not being better, just different, but I concede it could have come from YOLT.
The second half of DAD was unbearable to watch for me. Sorry.
That being said, I'm still in Brozzy's corner. B-)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
To fish. I wouldnt take it that seriously. I love all things Bond so do most of the fans. I do have strong feelings in regard to how he is portrayed. Slap stick has no place in the movies. The farther the film franchise moves away from the Bond character which Fleming created the moore I get upset.