Brosnan. DAD was terrible, as was QOS. CR was brilliant. So it's up to Craig for Skyfall not to be a missed opportunity. I do find Craig a bit small and insignificant in some scenes. He has a great physique, but he isn't imposing on screen like Connery. And Brosnan is actually a pretty big guy. I saw him in California in a shop waiting in line and he's pretty tall and has great presence. Craig's a craggy faced ugly bugger really. )
Amazon #1 Bestselling Author. If you enjoy crime, espionage, action and fast-moving thrillers follow this link:
Well, GoldenEye is like a holdover Dalton film without Dalton but maybe that was the problem
It was indeed. It's a shame GoldenEye wasn't filmed earlier when it was meant to. Then we would've had Robert Brown as M, Timothy Dalton as Bond, and he wouldn't be driving a BMW. (In my view, Dalton is miles better than Brosnan). It had the potential to be a much, much better film than it was.
To answer the question, though, I prefer Craig over Brosnan. He may not look the part, but he can certainly play the part. I really enjoy the darker, gritter Bond that he plays. That's what Bond is meant to be.
Brosnan. Even though he started to take the role and himself a little too seriously by the end of his run and his later movies were uneven, Goldeneye was, given my tastes, one the most entertaining Bond movies of the last 30 years.
I'm sure that the qualities I like most about Brosnan are precisely why other people would dismiss him, but given what I like he looked the part and could be both tough and funny. While Craig has the physicality part down, he is a cold fish as far as chemistry with his leading ladies and his ability to deliver a quip or one-liner is woefully lacking. His films also just take themselves too seriously for my tastes. With his weathered and haggard looks and odd haircuts, he also looks nothing like my image of Bond. Different strokes for different folks but Craig and his movies leave me cold and indifferent.
Certainly before CR and even some time afterwards I probably would have said Pierce Brosnan but now I prefer Daniel Craig. Brosnan has often been referred to as a good all rounder and I tend to agree with this view. He covered all the bases but did not have the same physicality as Sean Connery's Bond or the same charm and suaveness of Roger Moore's Bond, for example.
Craig comes across to me as a bit cold and remote in terms of the romance in the same way as Connery and is not particularly charming or humourous (at least not to date) much as TonyDP stated. Despite this I prefer Craig overall, he's the better actor and his Bond has more of an aura about him.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Neither are my favourite or even my third preference as Bond, but I enjoy most of their other work, especially Daniel Craig.
I have to agree with Moore Than with Pierce being an 'all rounder', but I just found that he didn't really bring in anything new. He seemed to copy things off the actors before him. As said above, he wasn't as physical as Connery or Lazenby or as suave as Rog, and he certainly isn't isolated enough to be anything like Dalton. His films aren't the best, mostly because of the script, but the only ones I can watch of his are Goldeneye and on occasion TWINE.
And Craig could use even just a tad of humour, maybe some Connery Bond-esque humour. Or a bit more lovin' and warmth, because I think that's part of being Bond. You have to have those things. as well as being a 00 agent, licenced to kill and what not. So, I had problems with both. But don't really mind.
But as Bond I'd go Craig.
Sir_Hugo_DraxBeneath the Flat Stone Posts: 40MI6 Agent
Yeah I think I'd agree on a few of those points. I personally like both but after the end of his time as Bond I can't help but think that Brosnan is below Craig. That being said it's hard to say with Craig since all we've seen from him thus far is Bond falling in love and Bond getting revenge (just having one of those situations first up is rough - ask George...). But, IMHO, he pulled it off great. I think he was suave in CR and moments in QoS, charming, had some great banter and warmth with Vesper, flirtatiousness with Fields, ruthlessness in combat and few genuinely funny, Connery-esque lines woven in at joke-appropriate times which I feel can often get overlooked. I think people should wait to see how he handles Skyfall before really evaluating Craig as Bond as this will be his first "regular" outing - I guess would be the way of putting it. Even still, I'd say from what Craig has given so far he's better for the role. -{
Then he looked again at Bond and spoke very quietly, the red moustache lifting slowly from the splayed upper teeth.
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
Neither actor totally own the screen the way Connery did in his EON films, or Moore did in most of his Bonds. Brosnan cos he knows the material isn't up to much, Craig because I do think he's a hollow actor, he needs more people around him on screen, like Hugh Grant.
Daniel Craig for me. I thought Pierce was a fine Bond, but the scripts let him down for the most part. I thought there were moments in all of Brosnan's Bond films, but especially The World Is Not Enough, in which Pierce showed notable flashes of a more interesting, more realistic Bond that I found refreshing, but those flashes were undermined by too much posing and silliness (a la Roger Moore). But again, I think most of the blame falls on the writers, directors and producers who failed to find a consistent tone for Brosnan's movies. Craig, on the other hand, plays the somewhat uncertain, but tough-as-nails Bond to the hilt and I enjoy his take on 007. He was helped tremendously by having a good script and a solid Bond director his first time out, and Quantum of Solace was a bit of a letdown, but in my opinion Craig's portrayal held up. I am curious to see how he takes the character to the next level in Skyfall. And to me, that doesn't mean loading the movie with gadgets and quips. Rather, I'd like to see Bond a bit more comfortable in his role and more confident, with a few moments showing that he can lighten up every once in a while.
I used to think that Craig was close to Connery in his portrayal, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it's the films, not Craig that I like. I don't hate Daniel Craig as Bond but he's not as great as I first thought.
As has already been said, Brosnan was poorly served by the scripts, had the tone of Goldeneye followed throughout his tenure I think he would perhaps be my favourite.
For me, it's about even between them and I can't think of anything that pushed either into the lead.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Daniel Craig for me. I thought Pierce was a fine Bond, but the scripts let him down for the most part. I thought there were moments in all of Brosnan's Bond films, but especially The World Is Not Enough, in which Pierce showed notable flashes of a more interesting, more realistic Bond that I found refreshing, but those flashes were undermined by too much posing and silliness (a la Roger Moore). But again, I think most of the blame falls on the writers, directors and producers who failed to find a consistent tone for Brosnan's movies. Craig, on the other hand, plays the somewhat uncertain, but tough-as-nails Bond to the hilt and I enjoy his take on 007. He was helped tremendously by having a good script and a solid Bond director his first time out, and Quantum of Solace was a bit of a letdown, but in my opinion Craig's portrayal held up. I am curious to see how he takes the character to the next level in Skyfall. And to me, that doesn't mean loading the movie with gadgets and quips. Rather, I'd like to see Bond a bit more comfortable in his role and more confident, with a few moments showing that he can lighten up every once in a while.
I like to think Brozzer was the Bond after Dalton following intensive rehabilitation to get his 'Connery' back. Perhaps my choice is biased, since I first got fascinated through Goldeneye and had naively loved DAD... His Bond is just more complete, on the other hand, the 'new guy' is still being established. So it's like apples and oranges to me really.
I like to think Brozzer was the Bond after Dalton following intensive rehabilitation to get his 'Connery' back. Perhaps my choice is biased, since I first got fascinated through Goldeneye and had naively loved DAD... His Bond is just more complete, on the other hand, the 'new guy' is still being established. So it's like apples and oranges to me really.
It's funny when you think about it that we all still seem to see him as 'the new guy that is still being established." When you think about it, he has already been Bond for six years, that's longer then Connery was Bond!! (Not really counting that he came back in 1983)
But then again, I guess I would also go for Brosnan, I have to admit, I grew up with him as a Bond, that does add a little bit of sentimental value although Daniel Craig still has to chance to blow me away...
When you think about it, he has already been Bond for six years, that's longer then Connery was Bond!!
63-71 is 8 years, is it not? ?:)
Brosnan is a great Bond, Craig is a great actor doing Bond, IMO anyway. -{
Dr. No is even from '62 so that would even make it 9 years, if you look at that way.... But I actually kinda meant that he never played the role longer consecutively when you think about it.. he had the role from '62 up to '67, then Lazenby came in '69 .. Although yeah Connery returned to the role twice...
Dr. No is even from '62 so that would even make it 9 years, if you look at that way.... But I actually kinda meant that he never played the role longer consecutively when you think about it.. he had the role from '62 up to '67, then Lazenby came in '69 .. Although yeah Connery returned to the role twice...
Dr. No is even from '62 so that would even make it 9 years, if you look at that way.... But I actually kinda meant that he never played the role longer consecutively when you think about it.. he had the role from '62 up to '67, then Lazenby came in '69 .. Although yeah Connery returned to the role twice...
Brozzer had it for 7. -{
Yeah, Hell, Roger even had it for 12 years... But all I meant by it is that when Sean Connery consecutively played the role for 5 years I think you didn't still have to get used to him.. While Craig being Bond for six years now, we still look at him as 'the newcomer who still is being established...' (Although yeah, this far he only starred in two films...)
Not that I'm a good judge from a female perspective, but Pierce had a charm, as did Connery & Dalton, that Craig seems to lack.
Am I wrong?
Lexi, tell us! )
Not that I'm a good judge from a female perspective, but Pierce had a charm, as did Connery & Dalton, that Craig seems to lack.
Am I wrong?
Lexi, tell us! )
I think everybody would kind of agree on you there! I think generally speaking most women would find Pierce to have more charm then Craig has. I remember an ex-girlfriend always thought that Pierce was the best looking Bond, and she used to call Craig "Daniel Crap" or "James Blond" ... Then again, just like us, women also have different oppinions on that matter!
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I know two women of very similar nature who completely diverge on these men. One likes Pierce Brosnan because he's the professional, white-collar type always smartly attired. The other prefers Daniel Craig whom she perceives as the bit of rough bad boy. Fitting neither category I simply scratch my head in bemusement. And frustration! )
Pierce Brosnan certainly comes closer to the general perception of what James Bond should be. He has an easy wit & charm, handling himself well in action. To me he's basically a harder version of Roger Moore. I may have come close to slagging him off a bit in previous posts. Not entirely fair as I reckon he's probably better than the films he was in, though all are slick & entertaining in their own way. To my mind, his best performance is in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where he seems a bit more layered.
Daniel Craig is more difficult to pinpoint. He polarises people considerably. If you want a clean-cut dark-haired six-footer then he's obviously not for you. I still maintain his difference to Brosnan physically (& in acting style) is precisely what makes him memorable.
That said, with a bit of script adjustment, Brosnan could have done CASINO ROYALE & perhaps may have finally attained the artistic satisfaction in the role he seemed to crave. But at 53 he couldn't have gone on forever.
So, I do like Craig's bruiser approach. It fulfils my desire to see a tougher, more down-to-earth approach to spydom which Brosnan, for one reason or another, was simply never given the chance to do.
Well-said. And I agree with your points about both Craig and Brosnan (Brosnan as a "harder version of Roger Moore" is a particularly good description.)
I know two women of very similar nature who completely diverge on these men. One likes Pierce Brosnan because he's the professional, white-collar type always smartly attired. The other prefers Daniel Craig whom she perceives as the bit of rough bad boy. Fitting neither category I simply scratch my head in bemusement. And frustration! )
Pierce Brosnan certainly comes closer to the general perception of what James Bond should be. He has an easy wit & charm, handling himself well in action. To me he's basically a harder version of Roger Moore. I may have come close to slagging him off a bit in previous posts. Not entirely fair as I reckon he's probably better than the films he was in, though all are slick & entertaining in their own way. To my mind, his best performance is in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where he seems a bit more layered.
Daniel Craig is more difficult to pinpoint. He polarises people considerably. If you want a clean-cut dark-haired six-footer then he's obviously not for you. I still maintain his difference to Brosnan physically (& in acting style) is precisely what makes him memorable.
That said, with a bit of script adjustment, Brosnan could have done CASINO ROYALE & perhaps may have finally attained the artistic satisfaction in the role he seemed to crave. But at 53 he couldn't have gone on forever.
So, I do like Craig's bruiser approach. It fulfils my desire to see a tougher, more down-to-earth approach to spydom which Brosnan, for one reason or another, was simply never given the chance to do.
I know two women of very similar nature who completely diverge on these men. One likes Pierce Brosnan because he's the professional, white-collar type always smartly attired. The other prefers Daniel Craig whom she perceives as the bit of rough bad boy. Fitting neither category I simply scratch my head in bemusement. And frustration! )
Pierce Brosnan certainly comes closer to the general perception of what James Bond should be. He has an easy wit & charm, handling himself well in action. To me he's basically a harder version of Roger Moore. I may have come close to slagging him off a bit in previous posts. Not entirely fair as I reckon he's probably better than the films he was in, though all are slick & entertaining in their own way. To my mind, his best performance is in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where he seems a bit more layered.
Daniel Craig is more difficult to pinpoint. He polarises people considerably. If you want a clean-cut dark-haired six-footer then he's obviously not for you. I still maintain his difference to Brosnan physically (& in acting style) is precisely what makes him memorable.
That said, with a bit of script adjustment, Brosnan could have done CASINO ROYALE & perhaps may have finally attained the artistic satisfaction in the role he seemed to crave. But at 53 he couldn't have gone on forever.
So, I do like Craig's bruiser approach. It fulfils my desire to see a tougher, more down-to-earth approach to spydom which Brosnan, for one reason or another, was simply never given the chance to do.
In my own small and in no way scientific poll of females on the subject DC plays very well with the ladies. Mrs Zaphod thinks he lacks the class combined with toughness that Bond needs and thinks he looks like a small but vicious Bouncer. That said she thinks he is attractive, just 'not Bond' in her view. Overall though he seems to score very well with a number of ladies I have asked mimed going all weak at the knees.
I think it may be to some extent an age thing as younger Women seem to approve.
Being 6'3'' and dark haired myself I'm glad my girlfriend likes the 'traditional' Bonds better than Daniel Craig. :007)
Most women I've asked liked CR as a movie, but had to get used to Craig as Bond. I think Craig (as Bond) is very polarizing, you hate him or you love him.
Comments
http://apbateman.com
It was indeed. It's a shame GoldenEye wasn't filmed earlier when it was meant to. Then we would've had Robert Brown as M, Timothy Dalton as Bond, and he wouldn't be driving a BMW. (In my view, Dalton is miles better than Brosnan). It had the potential to be a much, much better film than it was.
To answer the question, though, I prefer Craig over Brosnan. He may not look the part, but he can certainly play the part. I really enjoy the darker, gritter Bond that he plays. That's what Bond is meant to be.
I'm sure that the qualities I like most about Brosnan are precisely why other people would dismiss him, but given what I like he looked the part and could be both tough and funny. While Craig has the physicality part down, he is a cold fish as far as chemistry with his leading ladies and his ability to deliver a quip or one-liner is woefully lacking. His films also just take themselves too seriously for my tastes. With his weathered and haggard looks and odd haircuts, he also looks nothing like my image of Bond. Different strokes for different folks but Craig and his movies leave me cold and indifferent.
Craig comes across to me as a bit cold and remote in terms of the romance in the same way as Connery and is not particularly charming or humourous (at least not to date) much as TonyDP stated. Despite this I prefer Craig overall, he's the better actor and his Bond has more of an aura about him.
I have to agree with Moore Than with Pierce being an 'all rounder', but I just found that he didn't really bring in anything new. He seemed to copy things off the actors before him. As said above, he wasn't as physical as Connery or Lazenby or as suave as Rog, and he certainly isn't isolated enough to be anything like Dalton. His films aren't the best, mostly because of the script, but the only ones I can watch of his are Goldeneye and on occasion TWINE.
And Craig could use even just a tad of humour, maybe some Connery Bond-esque humour. Or a bit more lovin' and warmth, because I think that's part of being Bond. You have to have those things. as well as being a 00 agent, licenced to kill and what not. So, I had problems with both. But don't really mind.
But as Bond I'd go Craig.
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
James Bond- Licence To Kill
The only two Bonds I don't rate are Evelyn Tremble and Jimmy Bond!
I like Evelyn Tremble
That would be your opinion, to me he is the same dour, surly character in every role.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
^^^^ sums up my thoughts perfectly! -{
As has already been said, Brosnan was poorly served by the scripts, had the tone of Goldeneye followed throughout his tenure I think he would perhaps be my favourite.
For me, it's about even between them and I can't think of anything that pushed either into the lead.
It's funny when you think about it that we all still seem to see him as 'the new guy that is still being established." When you think about it, he has already been Bond for six years, that's longer then Connery was Bond!! (Not really counting that he came back in 1983)
But then again, I guess I would also go for Brosnan, I have to admit, I grew up with him as a Bond, that does add a little bit of sentimental value although Daniel Craig still has to chance to blow me away...
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Brosnan is a great Bond, Craig is a great actor doing Bond, IMO anyway. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Dr. No is even from '62 so that would even make it 9 years, if you look at that way.... But I actually kinda meant that he never played the role longer consecutively when you think about it.. he had the role from '62 up to '67, then Lazenby came in '69 .. Although yeah Connery returned to the role twice...
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yeah, Hell, Roger even had it for 12 years... But all I meant by it is that when Sean Connery consecutively played the role for 5 years I think you didn't still have to get used to him.. While Craig being Bond for six years now, we still look at him as 'the newcomer who still is being established...' (Although yeah, this far he only starred in two films...)
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Am I wrong?
Lexi, tell us!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I think everybody would kind of agree on you there! I think generally speaking most women would find Pierce to have more charm then Craig has. I remember an ex-girlfriend always thought that Pierce was the best looking Bond, and she used to call Craig "Daniel Crap" or "James Blond" ... Then again, just like us, women also have different oppinions on that matter!
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Pierce Brosnan certainly comes closer to the general perception of what James Bond should be. He has an easy wit & charm, handling himself well in action. To me he's basically a harder version of Roger Moore. I may have come close to slagging him off a bit in previous posts. Not entirely fair as I reckon he's probably better than the films he was in, though all are slick & entertaining in their own way. To my mind, his best performance is in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH where he seems a bit more layered.
Daniel Craig is more difficult to pinpoint. He polarises people considerably. If you want a clean-cut dark-haired six-footer then he's obviously not for you. I still maintain his difference to Brosnan physically (& in acting style) is precisely what makes him memorable.
That said, with a bit of script adjustment, Brosnan could have done CASINO ROYALE & perhaps may have finally attained the artistic satisfaction in the role he seemed to crave. But at 53 he couldn't have gone on forever.
So, I do like Craig's bruiser approach. It fulfils my desire to see a tougher, more down-to-earth approach to spydom which Brosnan, for one reason or another, was simply never given the chance to do.
In my own small and in no way scientific poll of females on the subject DC plays very well with the ladies. Mrs Zaphod thinks he lacks the class combined with toughness that Bond needs and thinks he looks like a small but vicious Bouncer. That said she thinks he is attractive, just 'not Bond' in her view. Overall though he seems to score very well with a number of ladies I have asked mimed going all weak at the knees.
I think it may be to some extent an age thing as younger Women seem to approve.
Most women I've asked liked CR as a movie, but had to get used to Craig as Bond. I think Craig (as Bond) is very polarizing, you hate him or you love him.