Now now people lol. I think a lot of us have been guilty of dismissing the views of others, thats just what happens when you mix conflicting opinions and forums like these.
In regard to which period was "the low point in the series" I personally think it was the early 70s. This wasn't so much to do with Moore, more the slightly stale nature of the films. DAF was a bit of a duff with a rather bored lead, LALD was entertaining but nothing really special and MWTGG was mediocre at best despite Moore and Lee. MWTGG also marked the end of the Brocolli/Saltzman partnership which, by 1974, was reaching breaking point.
I love the early 70's films, especially DAF and GG.
I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays films, or even in the films of the 90s.
DAF I think has aged well but LALD and GG seem to have suffered because they had a sort of "cheap" look to them since they were reflecting more low budget fare that was popular back then.
I love the early 70's films, especially DAF and GG.
I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays films, or even in the films of the 90s.
DAF I think has aged well but LALD and GG seem to have suffered because they had a sort of "cheap" look to them since they were reflecting more low budget fare that was popular back then.
In terms of films with a "cheap" look to them, you can't really get much "cheaper" than Las Vegas.
I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays films, or even in the films of the 90s.
DAF I think has aged well but LALD and GG seem to have suffered because they had a sort of "cheap" look to them since they were reflecting more low budget fare that was popular back then.
In terms of films with a "cheap" look to them, you can't really get much "cheaper" than Las Vegas.
I had no problem with Las Vegas in DAF and it looked anything but "cheap". They took advantage of the seedy and colourful nature of the town.
You don't really ahve to be a great actor to play James Bond (Roger Moore? Lazenby?) just competent, and Brosnan is more than competent.
I agree with everyone above who says he wasn't given great scripts, but he still managed to be quite affecting in TWINE.
Crucially, for me, he actually looks the part.
He wasn't a flabby, greying Bond, he wasn't disinterested, and he always looked comfortable in a suit (unlike TD who seemed to want to throw the tux off as soon as possible in LTK and looked hardly less comfy in the leather jackets).
He also understood the razzamatazz that surrounds a Bond movie and was always willing to promote it with interviews etc. He comes across as very likable and in that respect he injected so much more into the series than Moore (old fashioned) or Dalton (a bit grumpy). The Bond's of the '90s stand up very well against other thrillers and adventure flicks of the decade. I don't think commercially or artistically they are a low point. I still feel (sorry '80s fans) that the insipid period from 1983 - 89 is by far the least interesting time for 007, IMO.
I have disagree. They really do pale in comparison of what was making money at the box office. The Fugitive, In The Line of Fire, James Cameron films, Face Off, The Mask of Zorro, Clear and Present Danger, The Hunt For Red October, and probably some more I can't even remember right now.
Also, I felt that the Bond films of 70s especially were trying too hard to emulate what was popular at the time. The 90s in comparison were pretty mild IMO. When you look most of the films of that period, the similarities were obvious:
LALD - Blaxploitation ("names is for tomb-stones baby")
TMWTGG - Kung-fu, Bruce Lee films
MR - Star Wars
IMO the Bond films of the 70s suffer far more from an identity crisis than those of the 90s.
You don't really ahve to be a great actor to play James Bond (Roger Moore? Lazenby?) just competent, and Brosnan is more than competent.
I agree with everyone above who says he wasn't given great scripts, but he still managed to be quite affecting in TWINE.
Crucially, for me, he actually looks the part.
He wasn't a flabby, greying Bond, he wasn't disinterested, and he always looked comfortable in a suit (unlike TD who seemed to want to throw the tux off as soon as possible in LTK and looked hardly less comfy in the leather jackets).
He also understood the razzamatazz that surrounds a Bond movie and was always willing to promote it with interviews etc. He comes across as very likable and in that respect he injected so much more into the series than Moore (old fashioned) or Dalton (a bit grumpy). The Bond's of the '90s stand up very well against other thrillers and adventure flicks of the decade. I don't think commercially or artistically they are a low point. I still feel (sorry '80s fans) that the insipid period from 1983 - 89 is by far the least interesting time for 007, IMO.
I have disagree. They really do pale in comparison of what was making money at the box office. The Fugitive, In The Line of Fire, James Cameron films, Face Off, The Mask of Zorro, Clear and Present Danger, The Hunt For Red October, and probably some more I can't even remember right now.
Also, I felt that the Bond films of 70s especially were trying too hard to emulate what was popular at the time. The 90s in comparison were pretty mild IMO. When you look most of the films of that period, the similarities were obvious:
LALD - Blaxploitation ("names is for tomb-stones baby")
TMWTGG - Kung-fu, Bruce Lee films
MR - Star Wars
IMO the Bond films of the 70s suffer far more from an identity crisis than those of the 90s.
I think the 90's films have the same problem. Goldeneye was definetly the biggest 90's times capsule of the three that came out that decade. Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough looked far less contemporary but some of the core elements felt like Tom Clancy films.
GE certainly was a "time capsule" film in that it was the first to come after the fall of the Berlin wall. It never pretended to hide that. However I don't think its tried to "copy" the other films of the period quite as much.
In the 70s the echo's of other films were very "in your face". Whilst there to an extent in the 90s, I never felt they "ruled the films" so to speak. (By 90s I mean GE, TND and TWINE btw).
In fact I never thought of the JP reference until you brought it up )
GE certainly was a "time capsule" film in that it was the first to come after the fall of the Berlin wall. It never pretended to hide that. However I don't think its tried to "copy" the other films of the period quite as much.
In the 70s the echo's of other films were very "in your face". Whilst there to an extent in the 90s, I never felt they "ruled the films" so to speak. (By 90s I mean GE, TND and TWINE btw).
In fact I never thought of the JP reference until you brought it up )
I thought it was pretty obvious IMO and understandbly so because the series had been dormant for so long so the needed to appeal to what was popular. I saw echoes of several 90's action films like True Lies, T2, Jurassic Park, etc. They probably were a bit more tactful than in the 70's but it was obvious they were trying to be hip with the times.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
In my opinion, OP and AVTAK were the creative and entertainment low point in the series...the sun began to rise again with Dalton, and continued to rise with Brozzer, despite the flaws in each.
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
In my opinion, OP and AVTAK were the creative and entertainment low point in the series...the sun began to rise again with Dalton, and continued to rise with Brozzer, despite the flaws in each.
I would second that, those two films are probably my least favorite Bond films.
GE certainly was a "time capsule" film in that it was the first to come after the fall of the Berlin wall. It never pretended to hide that. However I don't think its tried to "copy" the other films of the period quite as much.
In the 70s the echo's of other films were very "in your face". Whilst there to an extent in the 90s, I never felt they "ruled the films" so to speak. (By 90s I mean GE, TND and TWINE btw).
In fact I never thought of the JP reference until you brought it up )
I thought it was pretty obvious IMO and understandbly so because the series had been dormant for so long so the needed to appeal to what was popular. I saw echoes of several 90's action films like True Lies, T2, Jurassic Park, etc. They probably were a bit more tactful than in the 70's but it was obvious they were trying to be hip with the times.
I suppose I can see what you mean but I never felt the references stuck out in the same way as they did in the 70s. As I said before I love T2, JP and True Lies but - hand on heart - I never thought of them when watching GE.
Likewise when I've watched T2 True Lies or The Fugitive (each of which I've seen countless times and can practically quote the scripts) I've never thought of GE.
In my opinion, OP and AVTAK were the creative and entertainment low point in the series...the sun began to rise again with Dalton, and continued to rise with Brozzer, despite the flaws in each.
I would second that, those two films are probably my least favorite Bond films.
In my opinion, OP and AVTAK were the creative and entertainment low point in the series...the sun began to rise again with Dalton, and continued to rise with Brozzer, despite the flaws in each.
OP could have been really great if they trimmed some of the fat. The film just had too many characters ,several of them totally unmemorable, and India really was just a distraction from the core plot. The Cold War elements were great and General Orlov was a great villian. I actually loved the "ticking clock" at the end. I thought it was the only part of the film that had any genuine tension. As a matter of fact, I found it to be the most tense moment in any of Roger's films. AVTAK was definetly a tired film though, stupid plot, wasted villian, bland San Fransisco settings that further devolved the film into a cheap TV setting. I think it was the worst Bond film until DAD came out.
Likewise when I've watched T2 True Lies or The Fugitive (each of which I've seen countless times and can practically quote the scripts) I've never thought of GE.
No I never said The Fugitive. The other films though.
In my opinion, OP and AVTAK were the creative and entertainment low point in the series...the sun began to rise again with Dalton, and continued to rise with Brozzer, despite the flaws in each.
I liked that EON (finally!) cast Dalton in the role, but the good intentions didn't translate to good films IMO. Both Dalton and Brosnan seemed to struggle to find their respective Bonds, and Moore had aged out of the role from FYEO on... just a sad twenty years for Bond IMO.
Kinda amazing how EON's reinvented Bond - yeah, I admit some of both Dalton and Brosnan are in the reboot with Craig, but it's like they finally got it right instead of being halfway about things. For this fan at least.
I'm just going to say this: I liked OP and AVTAK and have done for ages. Yes, they certainly aren't "great" films and yes they are, at times, very silly but they have character and, on a more fundimental level, are actually fun to watch with some decent action sequences.
Now now people lol. I think a lot of us have been guilty of dismissing the views of others, thats just what happens when you mix conflicting opinions and forums like these.
In regard to which period was "the low point in the series" I personally think it was the early 70s. This wasn't so much to do with Moore, more the slightly stale nature of the films. DAF was a bit of a duff with a rather bored lead, LALD was entertaining but nothing really special and MWTGG was mediocre at best despite Moore and Lee. MWTGG also marked the end of the Brocolli/Saltzman partnership which, by 1974, was reaching breaking point.
I love the early 70's films, especially DAF and GG.
I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays Bond films, or even in the Bond films of the 90s.
In both films, Jack Wade wasn't all that far off at times as a kind of good ol' boy caricature, and the computer nerd by Alan Cumming as well as Dr. Kaufman were just about as campy and comicaaly as broad.
In my opinion, OP and AVTAK were the creative and entertainment low point in the series...the sun began to rise again with Dalton, and continued to rise with Brozzer, despite the flaws in each.
I liked that EON (finally!) cast Dalton in the role, but the good intentions didn't translate to good films IMO. Both Dalton and Brosnan seemed to struggle to find their respective Bonds, and Moore had aged out of the role from FYEO on... just a sad twenty years for Bond IMO.
Kinda amazing how EON's reinvented Bond - yeah, I admit some of both Dalton and Brosnan are in the reboot with Craig, but it's like they finally got it right instead of being halfway about things. For this fan at least.
I think Dalton changed the role…I think he made his own interpolation – very close to Flemmings… he did not copy Moore Connery of Lazenby…total different. Brosnan on the other hand was a hybrid Bond – not really nice – a mixture between Connery and Moore… I don’t think ever Brosnan made the role his own… just my two cents
Dalton said that he used the books as his inspiration, and I'm inclined to believe him.
Brosnan wasn't bad as Bond. But the problem for him was two-fold.
First, he essentially was the 90s mass market formula for the character rather than the character: GQ model looks, clothes horse, perfectly coiffed in every scene, always with a Bond quip, rarely in any real danger.
It was like the production people said, "Poll the audience for General Hospital or Monday Night Football, tell us what they think of when "James Bond" is mentioned, and then get us the actor that best fits the stereotype."
Consequently, there was not much to discover in his characterization -- he was basically Pierce Brosnan, as you'd seen him in Remington Steele, with the occasional attempt at a hard edge that increasingly seems silly after watching Craig's incarnation -- nothing that really ever separated his interpretation from pretty much the expectation that came with his casting.
The second problem was the scripts. None of his Bonds is particularly memorable. At best, they have some scenes or moments that work well. The rest is an uneven production that sometimes delights but too often just seems like going throught the motions.
The overrated Goldeneye, for instance, has that excellent scene where 007 confronts Onatopp in the sauna, and it works great. He's utterly believable in that moment as Bond, and not as Bond cliche, if that makes sense. Tomorrow Never Dies comes the closest to me for feeling like a fully realized Bond film, mostly because of its pace and style, and Brosnan again has moments, but a tedious twerp of a villain and campy minor characters give the film a schizophrenic quality.
Had one of these two problems not existed, that likely would have compensated for the existing problem, and the films would have been much better. But put the two together, and Brosnan's Bonds seem rather cartoony and never "realized."
With Craig, there is the joy of discovering Bond again. Blonde and cold-eyed, he can't rely on being the cliche because he doesn't look like what people for the last 30 years have expected Bond to look like. Muscular and "old school" masculine, he's got more in common with Connery and Lazenby than Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. And while his two outings are not perfect, Casino Royale is easily the most "mature" Bond film we've had in decades. Even Quantum of Solace, for all its problems, attempted to stay away from devolving into simple formula.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I think that this reflection on the PB era (as well as those by the other Bonds) hits so many different factors and circumstances. A major one that comes to mind is the creative lifecycle of the producers, who've relied heavily on the formula for such a long run, even when there was a rebooting of sorts with Dalton, which was done with a very new kind of delivery, but with the same Bond elements. As with any smart provider of a product with a successful following, no one could really blame why they did this-it's business, just as copycats of all kinds of consumer goods will continue to reproduce their own versions of whatever has proved to be highly successful. Even after Michael Wilson and Barbara B. completely took over the reins, I'm sure it was frightful for them to color outside the lines established by Cubby, Harry and the earliest creative staff, which is why we received the kind of films from the PB era. It was only after Michael & Babs took a leap of faith w/CR did they manage to come up with something truly fresh.
I also think it's important to consider the "Bond getting older" factor, because to me seeing Bond not in his prime harder to swallow than the factors that cause others to consider the PB Bonds as the "low points." Therefore, individual movies like DAF, FYEO, OP, VTAK and DAD were worse, no matter how good the other film elements or how good a portrayal may have been.
Lastly, there's the character itself, and the legacy effect that snowballed from DN onwards, so much so that Lazenby and even DN Connery were delivering their renditions of GF Connery. Even with the effort to differentiate Moore's debut in the role, it was still the cinematic Bond staples that he aimed to portray, in his own easygoing and debonaire manner. Dalton broke off, as mentioned, but at times struggled when doing the Bondisms like the martini order, the one-liners and the "Bond, James Bond" line. When Brosnan took over, I think it was a combination of the producers' desperation to make up for lost time and to venture without Cubby, which caused us to see a greatest hits impersonation of the Bond character, and PB's own perception and valuation of the role akin to him thinking that "it ain't Shakespeare." As fantastic and revolutionary is DC's interpretation of Bond, all it is IMO is is a deftly and sincerly delivered version of the character's hallmark traits, e.g,, Bond doomed to be alone, rogue Bond, vulnerable Bond, etc.
"...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.....
Dalton said that he used the books as his inspiration, and I'm inclined to believe him.
Brosnan wasn't bad as Bond. But the problem for him was two-fold.
First, he essentially was the 90s mass market formula for the character rather than the character: GQ model looks, clothes horse, perfectly coiffed in every scene, always with a Bond quip, rarely in any real danger.
It was like the production people said, "Poll the audience for General Hospital or Monday Night Football, tell us what they think of when "James Bond" is mentioned, and then get us the actor that best fits the stereotype."
Consequently, there was not much to discover in his characterization -- he was basically Pierce Brosnan, as you'd seen him in Remington Steele, with the occasional attempt at a hard edge that increasingly seems silly after watching Craig's incarnation -- nothing that really ever separated his interpretation from pretty much the expectation that came with his casting.
The second problem was the scripts. None of his Bonds is particularly memorable. At best, they have some scenes or moments that work well. The rest is an uneven production that sometimes delights but too often just seems like going throught the motions.
The overrated Goldeneye, for instance, has that excellent scene where 007 confronts Onatopp in the sauna, and it works great. He's utterly believable in that moment as Bond, and not as Bond cliche, if that makes sense. Tomorrow Never Dies comes the closest to me for feeling like a fully realized Bond film, mostly because of its pace and style, and Brosnan again has moments, but a tedious twerp of a villain and campy minor characters give the film a schizophrenic quality.
Had one of these two problems not existed, that likely would have compensated for the existing problem, and the films would have been much better. But put the two together, and Brosnan's Bonds seem rather cartoony and never "realized."
With Craig, there is the joy of discovering Bond again. Blonde and cold-eyed, he can't rely on being the cliche because he doesn't look like what people for the last 30 years have expected Bond to look like. Muscular and "old school" masculine, he's got more in common with Connery and Lazenby than Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. And while his two outings are not perfect, Casino Royale is easily the most "mature" Bond film we've had in decades. Even Quantum of Solace, for all its problems, attempted to stay away from devolving into simple formula.
True most of his films weren't classics but I think, as you said, they all had some great standout moments.
I think, if anything, Craig has starred in one of the most forgettable entries in the series. A lot of people go on about the "formula" Bond but QoS proved that if you go too far away from the "formula", things won't work.
To quote Martin Campbell, director of GE and CR:
"The secret to Bond is to remember it’s Bond. It’s been successful for 22 incarnations. There are a lot of elements that work, so don’t **** with them."
I love the early 70's films, especially DAF and GG.
I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays Bond films, or even in the Bond films of the 90s.
In both films, Jack Wade wasn't all that far off at times as a kind of good ol' boy caricature, and the computer nerd by Alan Cumming as well as Dr. Kaufman were just about as campy and comicaaly as broad.
None of those characters IMO were as "cartoony" as someone like Pepper.
I think you have made some very interesting points. But I am puzzled by your comment that that "Lazenby and even DN Connery were delivering their renditions of GF Connery." If by "DN Connery" you mean "Dr. No Connery" then your comment doesn't make sense because Dr. No was made before Goldfinger. Am I missing something?
I think that this reflection on the PB era (as well as those by the other Bonds) hits so many different factors and circumstances. A major one that comes to mind is the creative lifecycle of the producers, who've relied heavily on the formula for such a long run, even when there was a rebooting of sorts with Dalton, which was done with a very new kind of delivery, but with the same Bond elements. As with any smart provider of a product with a successful following, no one could really blame why they did this-it's business, just as copycats of all kinds of consumer goods will continue to reproduce their own versions of whatever has proved to be highly successful. Even after Michael Wilson and Barbara B. completely took over the reins, I'm sure it was frightful for them to color outside the lines established by Cubby, Harry and the earliest creative staff, which is why we received the kind of films from the PB era. It was only after Michael & Babs took a leap of faith w/CR did they manage to come up with something truly fresh.
I also think it's important to consider the "Bond getting older" factor, because to me seeing Bond not in his prime harder to swallow than the factors that cause others to consider the PB Bonds as the "low points." Therefore, individual movies like DAF, FYEO, OP, VTAK and DAD were worse, no matter how good the other film elements or how good a portrayal may have been.
Lastly, there's the character itself, and the legacy effect that snowballed from DN onwards, so much so that Lazenby and even DN Connery were delivering their renditions of GF Connery. Even with the effort to differentiate Moore's debut in the role, it was still the cinematic Bond staples that he aimed to portray, in his own easygoing and debonaire manner. Dalton broke off, as mentioned, but at times struggled when doing the Bondisms like the martini order, the one-liners and the "Bond, James Bond" line. When Brosnan took over, I think it was a combination of the producers' desperation to make up for lost time and to venture without Cubby, which caused us to see a greatest hits impersonation of the Bond character, and PB's own perception and valuation of the role akin to him thinking that "it ain't Shakespeare." As fantastic and revolutionary is DC's interpretation of Bond, all it is IMO is is a deftly and sincerly delivered version of the character's hallmark traits, e.g,, Bond doomed to be alone, rogue Bond, vulnerable Bond, etc.
I just don't think they have aged very well in relation to many of the others. For instance you couldn't picture a character like Sheriff Pepper in todays Bond films, or even in the Bond films of the 90s.
In both films, Jack Wade wasn't all that far off at times as a kind of good ol' boy caricature, and the computer nerd by Alan Cumming as well as Dr. Kaufman were just about as campy and comicaaly as broad.
None of those characters IMO were as "cartoony" as someone like Pepper.
Comments
DAF I think has aged well but LALD and GG seem to have suffered because they had a sort of "cheap" look to them since they were reflecting more low budget fare that was popular back then.
In terms of films with a "cheap" look to them, you can't really get much "cheaper" than Las Vegas.
I had no problem with Las Vegas in DAF and it looked anything but "cheap". They took advantage of the seedy and colourful nature of the town.
Well there is a huge difference between the Las Vegas of 40 years ago and now. I think the Las Vegas depicted in DAF looked pretty good IMO.
Back to the topic, I just thought the film was too tongue in cheek, esp after what happened in OHMSS.
I think the 90's films have the same problem. Goldeneye was definetly the biggest 90's times capsule of the three that came out that decade. Tomorrow Never Dies and The World is Not Enough looked far less contemporary but some of the core elements felt like Tom Clancy films.
In the 70s the echo's of other films were very "in your face". Whilst there to an extent in the 90s, I never felt they "ruled the films" so to speak. (By 90s I mean GE, TND and TWINE btw).
In fact I never thought of the JP reference until you brought it up
I thought it was pretty obvious IMO and understandbly so because the series had been dormant for so long so the needed to appeal to what was popular. I saw echoes of several 90's action films like True Lies, T2, Jurassic Park, etc. They probably were a bit more tactful than in the 70's but it was obvious they were trying to be hip with the times.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I would second that, those two films are probably my least favorite Bond films.
I suppose I can see what you mean but I never felt the references stuck out in the same way as they did in the 70s. As I said before I love T2, JP and True Lies but - hand on heart - I never thought of them when watching GE.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsMBVEBIYDk&feature=related
OP could have been really great if they trimmed some of the fat. The film just had too many characters ,several of them totally unmemorable, and India really was just a distraction from the core plot. The Cold War elements were great and General Orlov was a great villian. I actually loved the "ticking clock" at the end. I thought it was the only part of the film that had any genuine tension. As a matter of fact, I found it to be the most tense moment in any of Roger's films. AVTAK was definetly a tired film though, stupid plot, wasted villian, bland San Fransisco settings that further devolved the film into a cheap TV setting. I think it was the worst Bond film until DAD came out.
No I never said The Fugitive. The other films though.
Yes, the films I thought that were better than the 90's Bonds.
Kinda amazing how EON's reinvented Bond - yeah, I admit some of both Dalton and Brosnan are in the reboot with Craig, but it's like they finally got it right instead of being halfway about things. For this fan at least.
I think Dalton changed the role…I think he made his own interpolation – very close to Flemmings… he did not copy Moore Connery of Lazenby…total different. Brosnan on the other hand was a hybrid Bond – not really nice – a mixture between Connery and Moore… I don’t think ever Brosnan made the role his own… just my two cents
www.007jamesbond.dk
http://thedangermen.com/
Brosnan wasn't bad as Bond. But the problem for him was two-fold.
First, he essentially was the 90s mass market formula for the character rather than the character: GQ model looks, clothes horse, perfectly coiffed in every scene, always with a Bond quip, rarely in any real danger.
It was like the production people said, "Poll the audience for General Hospital or Monday Night Football, tell us what they think of when "James Bond" is mentioned, and then get us the actor that best fits the stereotype."
Consequently, there was not much to discover in his characterization -- he was basically Pierce Brosnan, as you'd seen him in Remington Steele, with the occasional attempt at a hard edge that increasingly seems silly after watching Craig's incarnation -- nothing that really ever separated his interpretation from pretty much the expectation that came with his casting.
The second problem was the scripts. None of his Bonds is particularly memorable. At best, they have some scenes or moments that work well. The rest is an uneven production that sometimes delights but too often just seems like going throught the motions.
The overrated Goldeneye, for instance, has that excellent scene where 007 confronts Onatopp in the sauna, and it works great. He's utterly believable in that moment as Bond, and not as Bond cliche, if that makes sense. Tomorrow Never Dies comes the closest to me for feeling like a fully realized Bond film, mostly because of its pace and style, and Brosnan again has moments, but a tedious twerp of a villain and campy minor characters give the film a schizophrenic quality.
Had one of these two problems not existed, that likely would have compensated for the existing problem, and the films would have been much better. But put the two together, and Brosnan's Bonds seem rather cartoony and never "realized."
With Craig, there is the joy of discovering Bond again. Blonde and cold-eyed, he can't rely on being the cliche because he doesn't look like what people for the last 30 years have expected Bond to look like. Muscular and "old school" masculine, he's got more in common with Connery and Lazenby than Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. And while his two outings are not perfect, Casino Royale is easily the most "mature" Bond film we've had in decades. Even Quantum of Solace, for all its problems, attempted to stay away from devolving into simple formula.
I also think it's important to consider the "Bond getting older" factor, because to me seeing Bond not in his prime harder to swallow than the factors that cause others to consider the PB Bonds as the "low points." Therefore, individual movies like DAF, FYEO, OP, VTAK and DAD were worse, no matter how good the other film elements or how good a portrayal may have been.
Lastly, there's the character itself, and the legacy effect that snowballed from DN onwards, so much so that Lazenby and even DN Connery were delivering their renditions of GF Connery. Even with the effort to differentiate Moore's debut in the role, it was still the cinematic Bond staples that he aimed to portray, in his own easygoing and debonaire manner. Dalton broke off, as mentioned, but at times struggled when doing the Bondisms like the martini order, the one-liners and the "Bond, James Bond" line. When Brosnan took over, I think it was a combination of the producers' desperation to make up for lost time and to venture without Cubby, which caused us to see a greatest hits impersonation of the Bond character, and PB's own perception and valuation of the role akin to him thinking that "it ain't Shakespeare." As fantastic and revolutionary is DC's interpretation of Bond, all it is IMO is is a deftly and sincerly delivered version of the character's hallmark traits, e.g,, Bond doomed to be alone, rogue Bond, vulnerable Bond, etc.
True most of his films weren't classics but I think, as you said, they all had some great standout moments.
I think, if anything, Craig has starred in one of the most forgettable entries in the series. A lot of people go on about the "formula" Bond but QoS proved that if you go too far away from the "formula", things won't work.
To quote Martin Campbell, director of GE and CR:
"The secret to Bond is to remember it’s Bond. It’s been successful for 22 incarnations. There are a lot of elements that work, so don’t **** with them."
None of those characters IMO were as "cartoony" as someone like Pepper.
"Thank you indeed!"
Roger Moore 1927-2017