Rather sanctimonious of you to call someone "snide" and "catty" while passing judgment on the appropriateness of their post.
Right back atcha!
And no, not really- otherwise those words could never be used in the English language. What other circumstance would you use them in other than when you're describing something being 'snide' and 'catty'? I was passing moral judgement on someone's nasty and bitchy behaviour; I'm not sure what's wrong with that. If that's being sanctimonious then you're equally guilty.
I do apologise for seeming to have unintentionally upset you, not for what I wrote. I did not expect *that* sort of reaction for querying the critical reception of Seraphim Falls, or for objecting to your personal insults directed against a particular member. I just like to disagree agreeably and feel entitled to object to that lack of decorum; I have found out that can be rather difficult on the internet!
You have to clarify your apology? You guys are unbelievable. Yes, you did expect that because you purposely found a bad review to discredit what I was saying.
What kills me is this innocent act L880, blueman, and emtiem all portray when trying to get back at me for getting under your skin at some point on this board. Sir Hillary and Barry Nelson, the only gentleman on this thread, both called you all on it, in this thread alone. You three are tedious. And even Nightshooter who is half your ages, talked to me privately with more kindness, and maturity than the three of you combined.
I used to love AJB. It really is the best Bond site. But you three have turned posting into a joyless, acrimonious battlefield. Blueman and emtiem have literally ruined the tone, and chased away a few of my favorite posters here, and I have no desire to be around you guys anymore either. No one wants to read these combative posts with you guys. So, congratulations! You win! You chased yet another "old timer" away. You must be proud. So commence with the back slapping and self congratulations. You are making this place more like CBn every day.
Many thanks to Si, Barry, Loeff, Moonie, Alex, Hardy, WG, Lady R., Sir. H., superado, Rogue, and anyone else I'm forgetting! PM me if you ever want to talk.
Still didn't care for the whole surrogate-father thing I thought was happening between Bond and Elektra, it isn't rare for Bond to have doubts about the birds-with-wings-down he sometimes beds, but lumping that with a daddy complex (what's his name who holds hot rocks fulfilled the same thing for her, seemingly) was a bit too Oprah for my tastes. Would've like the Elektra character better if she was just doing her thing to do it without the drama queen back story, also think the scenes between her and Bond would've come off a whole lot better. Or maybe it's just the way it was written, I realize the point was for her character to be a question mark, but it came off too movie of the week IMHO. The whole Paris thing was very straight-forward in contrast, no pussyfooting around. Liked that better, seemed to fit the two actors better too. JMHO.
Fair enough blueman. I actually like the complexity of Elektra's character, and the background, although I do feel that aspect of The World Is Not Enough is well-written. I do understand the complaint of the Oprah-style histrionics, however I can only disagree. There was, of course, background to Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies; I actually find this more irritating. The scene is good overall, but I hate that bit when she says 'Did I get too close?' or something. If they are going to allude to a deep and meaningful past between the two characters I think it incumbent upon them to flesh it out a bit more. As it is the backstory is just a convient way to add a personal motive to the whole thing.
Although Brosnan does not appear in the scene, my favourite scene from the Brosnan era overall is with Elektra and Renard in Istanbul ('Remember. . . Pleasure). Poignant and disturbing; Carlyle and Marceau are excellent.
Well, viva le difference! And that scene with Renard was very good, but it also pointed up a big gripe of mine about that character: he comes across as pretty much useless. They set him up to be something his actions don't bear out, shame really because it is a wonderful setup. And Carlyle was suberb.
Sadly, it's one of the biggest contrasts between the Brosnan Bonds and CR/Craig, the quality of the scripts. 3 out of 4 Brosnans needed big rewrites to get their sprawling plots under control, and the fourth (TND) needed a better second half. Brosnan had his moments, but most of the time it seemed all he was required to do was show up, look dapper, smile a twinkly smile/look really tense. Not that all that wasn't effective, I liked his twinkly smile, but I'm very glad EON has moved on and up. Can't wait for Bond 22...although until it hits the screen and is as good as CR, I'll remain convinced that somehow, EON will screw it up royally. It's their overwhelming track record, CR notwithstanding. Just hoping that they see the difference, and know how to make the better Bond again. Who knows, maybe by the end of Craig's tenure, I'll be pining for those hallowed Brosnan Bond days...eh, not likely.
Hey fish, agree about that last scene, never did understand where she was running to, ie up. Did she have a helicopter up there she could escape in? It was a pretty scene, running up the spiral staircase and all, but perhaps the dumbest of the series (did I just say that? By golly I did, guess I'll stick to it, it really was a brainless ending for a Bond villian, and after the great torture sequence too...pity).
Although I believe that Brosnan's chemistry with Hatcher was pretty good, I thought he was great with Marceau . . . until their last scenes together. I also suspect that Brosnan's confusion had something to do with Bond's state of mind in regard to Elektra.
I agree on the latter point Fish1941, although I think the only thing that ruined Bond's final scene with Elektra is the inclusion of M. I actually think it could have been a quite moving scene as Brosnan plays the regretful side very well indeed, and I do like the notion of him mourning Elektra (it makes sense here, unlike the look of regret in Die Another Day over Miranda Frost). However, I feel that the dramatic impact of the scene is lessened substantially with M's maternal look, and all the stuff after that scene on the submarine and so on is pretty poor. This sort of exemplifies my thoughts towards The World Is Not Enough nowadays: a great deal of potential but with problematic execution in places.
Well, viva le difference! And that scene with Renard was very good, but it also pointed up a big gripe of mine about that character: he comes across as pretty much useless. They set him up to be something his actions don't bear out, shame really because it is a wonderful setup. And Carlyle was suberb.
You see I really like Renard, and I like the way that he starts off as the villain but is really just another pawn of Elektra. He is a quite interesting character for that reason, and Carlyle conveys expertly the submissiveness towards Elektra on the one hand and the ruthlessness on the other. Frankly, I would have welcomed more of a focus on these aspects of The World Is Not Enough, and Bond's relationship with Elektra, and less of Denise Richards. Obviously Casino Royale has changed the ball game; in 1999 the producers still felt constrained by the formula. It is slightly frustrating though, as there is *so* much positive in that film that is sometimes lost in amongst the byzantine plot (inadequately explained) and all the Q / Moneypenny / Christmas Jones rubbish.
If I were pushed I would say that The World Is Not Enough is Brosnan's best performance, although there are bits I dislike. Overall, he and Marceau share some wonderful chemistry and some of their scenes together are fantastic with depth of character. The writing in these scenes is generally very good, albeit lacking at other times (primarily in the dialogue between Bond and Jones and some other characters). Despite the couple of instances of the performance I dislike, which are probably due to directorial decisions anyway, I do think Brosnan in his third outing is particularly good.
This sort of exemplifies my thoughts towards The World Is Not Enough nowadays: a great deal of potential but with problematic execution in places.
In a nutshell, the past couple of decades of Bond IMO. I want to like them, but they end up such a mess. Potential only gets you so far, gotta follow through. I'm secretly holding onto the hope that Babs is the reason for this sea change we've got now with CR, and that with her oversight it continues. Guess we'll see.
You see I really like Renard, and I like the way that he starts off as the villain but is really just another pawn of Elektra. He is a quite interesting character for that reason, and Carlyle conveys expertly the submissiveness towards Elektra on the one hand and the ruthlessness on the other. Frankly, I would have welcomed more of a focus on these aspects of The World Is Not Enough, and Bond's relationship with Elektra, and less of Denise Richards. Obviously Casino Royale has changed the ball game; in 1999 the producers still felt constrained by the formula. It is slightly frustrating though, as there is *so* much positive in that film that is sometimes lost in amongst the byzantine plot (inadequately explained) and all the Q / Moneypenny / Christmas Jones rubbish.
I'd agree- I remember coming out being quite surprised at the dramatic bits- Bond killing Electra was a lovely touch. In retrospect, I wish they'd concentrated on these more; there are some great moments in there and a very good plot trying to get out (which, when you think about, makes all the criticism of Purvis and Wade hard to handle- they do a good plot), but it's all a bit messy and I don't think it knows what tone it wants. You could say CR does the same in some ways as it's still trying to please fans of the crazy action Bonds, but it is simpler in tone than TWINE at least and more streamlined.
Plus of course it has much better action sequences than TWINE!
Overall: TWINE is an opportunity missed. As this thread is about Brosnan I do think he doesn't handle the dramatic bits too well (all the blinking back tears and thoughful lingering looks into the middle distance feel a bit mechanical) but he still he great charisma and holds the whole together. He's a great Bond star. I really wish he'd done a bit more in the way of silly Roger-style epics just playing it ultra-cool; that would have been playing to his strong points.
I have to go with Brosnan. Although I've been swayed by Craig's performance,to me he still hasn't got the character up to par. Appearance wise, he does not seem like the "Bond" I'm use to reading in the novels. I am a devoted Brosnan fan, but I got to give Craig a dumbs up for a good performance.
Fair cop, GG. I can see where Brosnan would get the nod, for looking more like the Bond of the books. And perhaps Craig will get more of what we know of the traditional character into the next one? Stepping into the role, Brosnan certainly did seem tailor-made for it. '08 should be fun, sucks they pushed it back to November but oh well.
I was thinking, more of the Craig Bond we see at Casino Royale: on a mission, babe in tow, dinner jacket definately on--unless of course he's using it to defend himself from a machete, lol. Just the dressed up Bond, which I thought he did grandly, he looked great--very Bond--all through that casino sequence, I could do fine with more of that and less running through the jungle. But jetpacks and rocket ski poles...no, thank you.
Seems to me, CR was one big build to the Bond we see at the end, makes sense for the filmmakers to use that guy in the new one. Bet they make a point of putting more suave and less rough-and-tumble in Bond 22, and if done as well as CR I won't mind a bit.
And perhaps Craig will get more of what we know of the traditional character into the next one?
I hope not. I don't mind if Craig's Bond develops as a character. But I don't want it to happen with him turning into the more traditional Bond. It's just doesn't seem like . . . Craig.
Yeah; I'd agree- I was always a little disappointed with the last scene in CR; it didn't seem quite right somehow, and -whisper it- even the Bond theme didn't seem quite right. Not because he wasn't Bond, but because Bond is now Craig, and I kinda like it that way.
That said, I think Craig's Bond could handle a little more charm and having a touch of smoothness applied, but not too much. Comb his hair for starters!
Yeah; I'd agree- I was always a little disappointed with the last scene in CR; it didn't seem quite right somehow, and -whisper it- even the Bond theme didn't seem quite right. Not because he wasn't Bond, but because Bond is now Craig, and I kinda like it that way.
That's interesting, as I wasn't thrilled with Craig's performance, and I didn't love the film, but I really loved that final scene. It literally stunned me. I really thought it was a magnificent scene, as perhaps for the first time in the film, I finally got a sense that this man was Bond.
"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
That's interesting, as I wasn't thrilled with Craig's performance, and I didn't love the film, but I really loved that final scene. It literally stunned me. I really thought it was a magnificent scene, as perhaps for the first time in the film, I finally got a sense that this man was Bond.
Well, he did tell you he was in the scene, so that probably helped!
But that's understandable- I can see why that would work for you; you've always struck me as looking for the Bond you knew of old from the film so were happy to find him, whereas I was a bit more interested in the different version of him we were getting up to then. Horses for courses, really.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited March 2007
I believe Craig is destined to become a bit more traditional in his remaining Bond outings, but---being Daniel Craig---he'll still manage to chart a unique course...and likely continue to alienate fans like my good friend Dan Same
I'm looking forward to it.
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
I believe Craig is destined to become a bit more traditional in his remaining Bond outings, but---being Daniel Craig---he'll still manage to chart a unique course...and likely continue to alienate fans like my good friend Dan Same
I'm looking forward to it.
Perhaps. ) Don't feel too sorry for me though; while I might have my complaints about CR, I did enjoy it. Afterall, I saw it twice.
"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
Though Craig is a good Bond (and I am sorry for the times I knocked him before CR) Brosnan is Fleming's bond the same as Dalton so definitely Brosnan 8/10 Craig 7/10 Dalton 10/10
Well, I had a few spare moments, so I'll chime in here.
Brosnan was terrific, for sure. I enjoyed all of his movies and all of his performances. His performance in GoldenEye is one of the very best in the franchise, and that film is one of my top-5. You will never find me doing a poo-poo job on Brosnan.
However, from the moment Craig assumed the role in the opening sequence, he became the definitive interpreter of Ian Fleming's James Bond for me. His performance is by far the closest to the spirit of Fleming's character of any of them. Dalton got the general picture right about it, but when I watch him, I get the sense that he was a bit too out of control at times when the literary Bond would be more collected, an error that Craig corrects with ease, IMO. Connery and Brosnan both hit on many things, and perhaps failed to be Fleming's Bond simply because of the tone of their films at points, but I feel as though both tried to make their Bonds too much of "the ideal man." In my view, while Bond should be handsome and have a certain regal, sophisticated arrogance characteristic of his privileged roots (and Craig nails both), he should, at the same time, be a very flawed and tormented human being. He's a guy who does some nasty things (whose soul descends with every one he does), who gets roughed up, a man who bleeds, who hurts, whose arrogance can get the best of him at times, and who, while he can be quite cold about sex (especially if it is related to his job), has a heart that is vulnerable to rommance. These certainly aren't characteristics of the image of the "ideal man," as Connery, Moore, and Brosnan portray him. Simply put, Craig does the absolute best job of portraying the human being that Bond is of any actor.
Now, I'm not saying that the Connery-Brosnan mold of Bond is bad at all: far from it. I enjoy that mold, and I am entertained by it. But the light of James Bond with which I truly identify is the darker, more human light, and, in my view at least, Craig's performance in CR is the definitive Bond in that mold.
One thing that even Craig's detractors have to admit: he's done a very effective job of re-imagining the film role of James Bond. This was a task that was absolutely formidible, considering the impact that Connery's portrayal has had in shaping that image and the longevity of that image over the years, but he pulled it off with great ability and fanfare. Most of the kids I know who are my age and younger who have seen CR view Craig as the best Bond. Additionally, he has brought in a ton of new fans who weren't really big Bond fans before: everyone I know who saw CR who aren't big Bond fans loved it and loved Craig. Sure, he's not the same guy as Connery or Brosnan, and for many, that's a problem. But for an entirely new generation, and for a multitude of new fans, he is James Bond. At least give him his due for the impact he has made in this respect. Who knows: you may even come to like his interpretation with more films.
In any event... can't we just love them both instead of championing one and trashing the other? I know I love them both.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited April 2007
Good to hear from you, Klaus {[]
I agree with you one hundred percent.
Craig may very well define Bond for a generation, but this certainly doesn't denigrate what any of the previous actors accomplished.
Cheers -{
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
Well we're at the crossover section now, comparisons are inevitable. I agree with Klaus, that Craig is a radical reinterpration of the role. Other actors would always be compared to the Moore or Connery blueprint, while Craig just breaks the mold. Not to say he's ideal (imo), but I guess like Moore at the time, you can't compare him to a previous one. Lazenby, for instance, was in the Connery physical mold, Brosnan in the Moore category.
Agree that the old Bond, as first realized by Connery, expanded upon by Moore, and embraced by Brosnan, can be a whole lot of fun. I know I go off on Moore and especially Brosnan, but they each had good runs and did bring something of value to the table. I've always thought there was more to Bond than what we've seen, especially lately, and that the early Connerys/OHMSS came closest to what Bond--IMHO--should be. Hyperbole can get the best of me in deriding the more recent missed opportunities, but what Craig has done (and what I hoped he'd do...) is such a significant departure from the established movie-Bond, for me it's a homecoming.
Looking forward to Craig's next Bond, whatever he happens to do with it. Should be interesting, to say the least.
Agree that the old Bond, as first realized by Connery, expanded upon by Moore, and embraced by Brosnan, can be a whole lot of fun. I know I go off on Moore and especially Brosnan, but they each had good runs and did bring something of value to the table. I've always thought there was more to Bond than what we've seen, especially lately, and that the early Connerys/OHMSS came closest to what Bond--IMHO--should be. Hyperbole can get the best of me in deriding the more recent missed opportunities, but what Craig has done (and what I hoped he'd do...) is such a significant departure from the established movie-Bond, for me it's a homecoming.
Looking forward to Craig's next Bond, whatever he happens to do with it. Should be interesting, to say the least.
Well, it's good to see you acknowledging Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan as more than just forgeries who were holding the fort until Daniel Craig arrived. Indeed, they did bring something of value to the table.
As for Daniel Craig. I am impressed, but I am not getting carried away, not yet. I wan't to see how he develops in the next two films. Should be interesting, indeed.
Well there's the movie Bond EON created, and there's the Bond more closely attuned to what Fleming wrote. The former can certainly come across as a forgery of the latter, IMO. Doesn't mean they don't go well with popcorn, just that they ain't Bond, at least the Bond I always hope to see.
For those who like EON's more traditional creation, I can see where their new version rankles. It's a heckuva lot closer to the source material IMO, and by definition that makes it less of the old movie Bond. I like the new version and parts of the old movie Bond, the highlights IMO, as it were, lol. The lowlights I wish hadn't been made.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited April 2007
I pretty much agree with you, blue, although I don't dislike some of the Bonds (and their films) as much as you do.
It's occasionally been quite a challenge for Flemingists---the poor fellow really gets short shrift a great deal of the time; an increasingly large portion of the Bond filmgoing audience (sadly) has no idea about the books...and couldn't care less.
Therefore, it's quite nice when the franchise swerves back into 'Fleming territory' from time to time---it's exhilarating for us, like a cold drink or a brisk swim on a hot summer day: not merely an acknowledgement from the producers that there actually was a Bond before Doctor No came out in 1962...they actually show a bit of reverence for the source material (!).
Truth be told, this is much more the hook for me with CR than the actor involved---though it certainly helps that I happen to like his interpretation quite a lot.
Cheers to all of the Bond actors, and their fans---especially the ones who've become permanently annoyed with my (relative) lack of appreciation for the 'nudge nudge, wink wink, isn't this funny??' flavour {[]
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
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I pretty much agree with you, blue, although I don't dislike some of the Bonds (and their films) as much as you do.
It's occasionally been quite a challenge for Flemingists---the poor fellow really gets short shrift a great deal of the time; an increasingly large portion of the Bond filmgoing audience (sadly) has no idea about the books...and couldn't care less.
Therefore, it's quite nice when the franchise swerves back into 'Fleming territory' from time to time---it's exhilarating for us, like a cold drink or a brisk swim on a hot summer day: not merely an acknowledgement from the producers that there actually was a Bond before Doctor No came out in 1962...they actually show a bit of reverence for the source material (!).
Truth be told, this is much more the hook for me with CR than the actor involved---though it certainly helps that I happen to like his interpretation quite a lot.
Cheers to all of the Bond actors, and their fans---especially the ones who've become permanently annoyed with my (relative) lack of appreciation for the 'nudge nudge, wink wink, isn't this funny??' flavour {[]
Great post, Loeffs, ...to Fleming! {[]
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited April 2007
Obviously Bond can---and has been---portrayed any number of ways. Being only human, some of us prefer some ways over others! But that doesn't mean we don't enjoy them all...to varying degrees {[]
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
I've always thought there was more to Bond than what we've seen, especially lately, and that the early Connerys/OHMSS came closest to what Bond--IMHO--should be.
I wonder why some fans seem to think that the James Bond character can only be portrayed in a certain way. After being portrayed by eight actors (including Nelson and Niven), wouldn't one believe that Bond could be portrayed in any form, as long as the individual actor portray the character as it suits him?
Indeed. I thought jeremy Brett was as close to the published Holmes as we're ever likely to get; but that doesn't mean that I want every new version of Holmes onscreen to copy him. I want new and interesting versions; bring on Rupert Everett etc. I don't see the point in watching the same thing over and over again- the point of an adaptation is to adapt it; add to it. That's why the film version of Goldfinger has a better plot than the original novel, and that's why I want to see the characters added to and seen in a fresh light. Brosnan wasn't Fleming's exact Bond and neither is Craig, but both bring fresh interest to the whole thing whilst still being clearly playing Fleming's character.
Comments
Right back atcha!
And no, not really- otherwise those words could never be used in the English language. What other circumstance would you use them in other than when you're describing something being 'snide' and 'catty'? I was passing moral judgement on someone's nasty and bitchy behaviour; I'm not sure what's wrong with that. If that's being sanctimonious then you're equally guilty.
You have to clarify your apology? You guys are unbelievable. Yes, you did expect that because you purposely found a bad review to discredit what I was saying.
What kills me is this innocent act L880, blueman, and emtiem all portray when trying to get back at me for getting under your skin at some point on this board. Sir Hillary and Barry Nelson, the only gentleman on this thread, both called you all on it, in this thread alone. You three are tedious. And even Nightshooter who is half your ages, talked to me privately with more kindness, and maturity than the three of you combined.
I used to love AJB. It really is the best Bond site. But you three have turned posting into a joyless, acrimonious battlefield. Blueman and emtiem have literally ruined the tone, and chased away a few of my favorite posters here, and I have no desire to be around you guys anymore either. No one wants to read these combative posts with you guys. So, congratulations! You win! You chased yet another "old timer" away. You must be proud. So commence with the back slapping and self congratulations. You are making this place more like CBn every day.
Many thanks to Si, Barry, Loeff, Moonie, Alex, Hardy, WG, Lady R., Sir. H., superado, Rogue, and anyone else I'm forgetting! PM me if you ever want to talk.
Well, viva le difference! And that scene with Renard was very good, but it also pointed up a big gripe of mine about that character: he comes across as pretty much useless. They set him up to be something his actions don't bear out, shame really because it is a wonderful setup. And Carlyle was suberb.
Sadly, it's one of the biggest contrasts between the Brosnan Bonds and CR/Craig, the quality of the scripts. 3 out of 4 Brosnans needed big rewrites to get their sprawling plots under control, and the fourth (TND) needed a better second half. Brosnan had his moments, but most of the time it seemed all he was required to do was show up, look dapper, smile a twinkly smile/look really tense. Not that all that wasn't effective, I liked his twinkly smile, but I'm very glad EON has moved on and up. Can't wait for Bond 22...although until it hits the screen and is as good as CR, I'll remain convinced that somehow, EON will screw it up royally. It's their overwhelming track record, CR notwithstanding. Just hoping that they see the difference, and know how to make the better Bond again. Who knows, maybe by the end of Craig's tenure, I'll be pining for those hallowed Brosnan Bond days...eh, not likely.
Hey fish, agree about that last scene, never did understand where she was running to, ie up. Did she have a helicopter up there she could escape in? It was a pretty scene, running up the spiral staircase and all, but perhaps the dumbest of the series (did I just say that? By golly I did, guess I'll stick to it, it really was a brainless ending for a Bond villian, and after the great torture sequence too...pity).
You see I really like Renard, and I like the way that he starts off as the villain but is really just another pawn of Elektra. He is a quite interesting character for that reason, and Carlyle conveys expertly the submissiveness towards Elektra on the one hand and the ruthlessness on the other. Frankly, I would have welcomed more of a focus on these aspects of The World Is Not Enough, and Bond's relationship with Elektra, and less of Denise Richards. Obviously Casino Royale has changed the ball game; in 1999 the producers still felt constrained by the formula. It is slightly frustrating though, as there is *so* much positive in that film that is sometimes lost in amongst the byzantine plot (inadequately explained) and all the Q / Moneypenny / Christmas Jones rubbish.
If I were pushed I would say that The World Is Not Enough is Brosnan's best performance, although there are bits I dislike. Overall, he and Marceau share some wonderful chemistry and some of their scenes together are fantastic with depth of character. The writing in these scenes is generally very good, albeit lacking at other times (primarily in the dialogue between Bond and Jones and some other characters). Despite the couple of instances of the performance I dislike, which are probably due to directorial decisions anyway, I do think Brosnan in his third outing is particularly good.
In a nutshell, the past couple of decades of Bond IMO. I want to like them, but they end up such a mess. Potential only gets you so far, gotta follow through. I'm secretly holding onto the hope that Babs is the reason for this sea change we've got now with CR, and that with her oversight it continues. Guess we'll see.
I'd agree- I remember coming out being quite surprised at the dramatic bits- Bond killing Electra was a lovely touch. In retrospect, I wish they'd concentrated on these more; there are some great moments in there and a very good plot trying to get out (which, when you think about, makes all the criticism of Purvis and Wade hard to handle- they do a good plot), but it's all a bit messy and I don't think it knows what tone it wants. You could say CR does the same in some ways as it's still trying to please fans of the crazy action Bonds, but it is simpler in tone than TWINE at least and more streamlined.
Plus of course it has much better action sequences than TWINE!
Overall: TWINE is an opportunity missed. As this thread is about Brosnan I do think he doesn't handle the dramatic bits too well (all the blinking back tears and thoughful lingering looks into the middle distance feel a bit mechanical) but he still he great charisma and holds the whole together. He's a great Bond star. I really wish he'd done a bit more in the way of silly Roger-style epics just playing it ultra-cool; that would have been playing to his strong points.
LONG LIVE CRAIG
Seems to me, CR was one big build to the Bond we see at the end, makes sense for the filmmakers to use that guy in the new one. Bet they make a point of putting more suave and less rough-and-tumble in Bond 22, and if done as well as CR I won't mind a bit.
Yeah; I'd agree- I was always a little disappointed with the last scene in CR; it didn't seem quite right somehow, and -whisper it- even the Bond theme didn't seem quite right. Not because he wasn't Bond, but because Bond is now Craig, and I kinda like it that way.
That said, I think Craig's Bond could handle a little more charm and having a touch of smoothness applied, but not too much. Comb his hair for starters!
Well, he did tell you he was in the scene, so that probably helped!
But that's understandable- I can see why that would work for you; you've always struck me as looking for the Bond you knew of old from the film so were happy to find him, whereas I was a bit more interested in the different version of him we were getting up to then. Horses for courses, really.
I'm looking forward to it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Brosnan was terrific, for sure. I enjoyed all of his movies and all of his performances. His performance in GoldenEye is one of the very best in the franchise, and that film is one of my top-5. You will never find me doing a poo-poo job on Brosnan.
However, from the moment Craig assumed the role in the opening sequence, he became the definitive interpreter of Ian Fleming's James Bond for me. His performance is by far the closest to the spirit of Fleming's character of any of them. Dalton got the general picture right about it, but when I watch him, I get the sense that he was a bit too out of control at times when the literary Bond would be more collected, an error that Craig corrects with ease, IMO. Connery and Brosnan both hit on many things, and perhaps failed to be Fleming's Bond simply because of the tone of their films at points, but I feel as though both tried to make their Bonds too much of "the ideal man." In my view, while Bond should be handsome and have a certain regal, sophisticated arrogance characteristic of his privileged roots (and Craig nails both), he should, at the same time, be a very flawed and tormented human being. He's a guy who does some nasty things (whose soul descends with every one he does), who gets roughed up, a man who bleeds, who hurts, whose arrogance can get the best of him at times, and who, while he can be quite cold about sex (especially if it is related to his job), has a heart that is vulnerable to rommance. These certainly aren't characteristics of the image of the "ideal man," as Connery, Moore, and Brosnan portray him. Simply put, Craig does the absolute best job of portraying the human being that Bond is of any actor.
Now, I'm not saying that the Connery-Brosnan mold of Bond is bad at all: far from it. I enjoy that mold, and I am entertained by it. But the light of James Bond with which I truly identify is the darker, more human light, and, in my view at least, Craig's performance in CR is the definitive Bond in that mold.
One thing that even Craig's detractors have to admit: he's done a very effective job of re-imagining the film role of James Bond. This was a task that was absolutely formidible, considering the impact that Connery's portrayal has had in shaping that image and the longevity of that image over the years, but he pulled it off with great ability and fanfare. Most of the kids I know who are my age and younger who have seen CR view Craig as the best Bond. Additionally, he has brought in a ton of new fans who weren't really big Bond fans before: everyone I know who saw CR who aren't big Bond fans loved it and loved Craig. Sure, he's not the same guy as Connery or Brosnan, and for many, that's a problem. But for an entirely new generation, and for a multitude of new fans, he is James Bond. At least give him his due for the impact he has made in this respect. Who knows: you may even come to like his interpretation with more films.
In any event... can't we just love them both instead of championing one and trashing the other? I know I love them both.
I agree with you one hundred percent.
Craig may very well define Bond for a generation, but this certainly doesn't denigrate what any of the previous actors accomplished.
Cheers -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Agree that the old Bond, as first realized by Connery, expanded upon by Moore, and embraced by Brosnan, can be a whole lot of fun. I know I go off on Moore and especially Brosnan, but they each had good runs and did bring something of value to the table. I've always thought there was more to Bond than what we've seen, especially lately, and that the early Connerys/OHMSS came closest to what Bond--IMHO--should be. Hyperbole can get the best of me in deriding the more recent missed opportunities, but what Craig has done (and what I hoped he'd do...) is such a significant departure from the established movie-Bond, for me it's a homecoming.
Looking forward to Craig's next Bond, whatever he happens to do with it. Should be interesting, to say the least.
Well, it's good to see you acknowledging Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan as more than just forgeries who were holding the fort until Daniel Craig arrived. Indeed, they did bring something of value to the table.
As for Daniel Craig. I am impressed, but I am not getting carried away, not yet. I wan't to see how he develops in the next two films. Should be interesting, indeed.
For those who like EON's more traditional creation, I can see where their new version rankles. It's a heckuva lot closer to the source material IMO, and by definition that makes it less of the old movie Bond. I like the new version and parts of the old movie Bond, the highlights IMO, as it were, lol. The lowlights I wish hadn't been made.
It's occasionally been quite a challenge for Flemingists---the poor fellow really gets short shrift a great deal of the time; an increasingly large portion of the Bond filmgoing audience (sadly) has no idea about the books...and couldn't care less.
Therefore, it's quite nice when the franchise swerves back into 'Fleming territory' from time to time---it's exhilarating for us, like a cold drink or a brisk swim on a hot summer day: not merely an acknowledgement from the producers that there actually was a Bond before Doctor No came out in 1962...they actually show a bit of reverence for the source material (!).
Truth be told, this is much more the hook for me with CR than the actor involved---though it certainly helps that I happen to like his interpretation quite a lot.
Cheers to all of the Bond actors, and their fans---especially the ones who've become permanently annoyed with my (relative) lack of appreciation for the 'nudge nudge, wink wink, isn't this funny??' flavour {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Great post, Loeffs, ...to Fleming! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Indeed. I thought jeremy Brett was as close to the published Holmes as we're ever likely to get; but that doesn't mean that I want every new version of Holmes onscreen to copy him. I want new and interesting versions; bring on Rupert Everett etc. I don't see the point in watching the same thing over and over again- the point of an adaptation is to adapt it; add to it. That's why the film version of Goldfinger has a better plot than the original novel, and that's why I want to see the characters added to and seen in a fresh light. Brosnan wasn't Fleming's exact Bond and neither is Craig, but both bring fresh interest to the whole thing whilst still being clearly playing Fleming's character.