|
Post by Stockslivevan on Nov 7, 2008 23:08:43 GMT -5
So why is Brosnan the worst Bond ?. Because I say so. Real reasons why I say so: 1. He never formed a clear characterization like the other actors, hence the inconsistentcy. 2. Only one of his four films is remotely good. 3. He lacks the steely toughness that James Bond should have. 4. He's boring. I can understand why some like him. I can understand why my generation seems to think he's the best Bond ever. They grew up with him, just like how most of the Moore fans grew up with Moore's interpretation. Pierce Brosnan was my first Bond too, however he didn't strike me as a convincing tough action hero, but maybe that's because I grew up watching Indiana Jones. Brosnan is just too soft, he looks like someone you'd see on a Calvin Klien ad. When I finally saw Sean Connery as Bond later on, it didn't take long for me to see what an awesome Bond he was. He just oozed cool while at the same time was convincingly tough. Now THAT'S James Bond! That's the guy I want to be!
|
|
|
Post by adam on Nov 8, 2008 4:29:01 GMT -5
I'd like to be like Connery was in his 30's & Brosnan in his 40's & 50's. Need to go and get myself an 'Omega Seamaster' first. Actually bought some 'Church's' shoes recently. (Fancied a change from 'Barker'). Find the Church shoes quite heavy and uncomfortable. Not sure how Bond can be so agile and athletic in them, then again his shoes will be made to measure.
Thought Brosnan's films were solid, but it's true there was no stand out classics like Goldfinger or TSWLM. By the 90's the Americans were making big budget action films so Brosnan's films don't look as impressive to the public, however they still did great business. If he had made a couple more I would have put him alongside Connery & Moore. Now I put him just below.
|
|
Kadov
Commander
Posts: 171
|
Post by Kadov on Nov 8, 2008 17:03:58 GMT -5
Roger Moore was a fine Bond. His so-called humorous approach was received well by the public-at-large. Emerging in the 70s as Bond, Moore connected with audiences who were seeking some form of escapism, especially after the darkness of Vietnam and Watergate. But despite his trademark humor, Moore certainly had great skill at pulling off even the silliest of scenes; and there were some interesting characterizations that he conveyed to the discerning viewer. One of his best moments is in Moonraker, just after his torture in the centrifuge machine. He stumbles out, quietly refusing any help from Dr. Goodhead. Moore doesn't rely on any dialogue to convey that he's hurt and that he's suspicious of the Doctor. We expect the usual one-liner from Moore in that scene but instead he resorts to a good dramatic moment. In addition, Moore had the international popularity to be an audience draw. Throughout the 70s and early 80s, Moore's Bond remained popular despite tough competition from Star Wars and the new generation of sci-fi characters as well as the onslaught of action heroes like Rambo and the like.
As for Brosnan, he's already established as one of the great Bonds. In fact, M.G. Wilson remarked during an interview for GE that Brosnan would be one of the great Bonds (you can find his comment in an interview for Cinescape, Nov. 1995 issue). And he was right. What makes Brosnan's Bond so unique is that he's the only one who displays the inner turmoil of Fleming's Bond. The literary Bond didn't like killing, he was disturbed about the confusion of good and evil and didn't see a clear image of himself as the hero and he struggled with the coldness required of his profession and the emotions that make him human. At the center of all that danger and coldness, there was some humanity within him that struggled to get out. The scene on the beach in GE, where Bond contemplates killing Trevelyan, signals how Brosnan takes the character back to Fleming's Bond and it would become the consistent characterization that Brosnan would convey in the rest of his films. "He was your friend," says Natalya," and now he's your enemy." Brosnan's Bond is staring at the sea, in deep thought and he hardens himself to her other comment about why he can be so cold. He suddenly puts up that wall of coldenss around him and tells her, "That's what keeps me alive." But the other side within him, that side that longs for warmth and humanity can't be concealed and he embraces her and kisses her. That's Fleming's Bond--the guy who, in the short story "The Living Daylights," manages to fall in love with a cellist in the distance while he's staking out a sniper. A spy who seeks some warmth and humanity in his cold world. And in Brosnan's films we see, for example, that spy again in TND, in the scene where he sits in his hotel room, somewhat drunk, waiting for somebody. He's heartbroken over Paris Carver, and on the table next to him, there's a bottle of vodka and the Walther. When the door opens, his hand goes over the table but Bond doesn't know whether to reach for the vodka or the gun. It all depends on who walks through the door. Again, that inner turmoil of Fleming's Bond is at work. The Bond producers actually had a lot of flexibility with Brosnan but the actor was hampered by the constant action emphasized in his scripts.
Which takes us to the problem with Craig. After seeing QOS a few days ago, I'm resigned whole-heartedly to say that Craig is the worst Bond. He's too one-dimensional as a robotic killing machine, which is one of the main reasons why the critics have been dismissing this film so vehemently. Craig’s forte as an actor, so we've been told, is to play a grittier Bond; but this actually has taken the series down a more narrow path. The well-rounded character of Bond--a lethal spy balanced with the familiar cinematic sophistication, humor, snobbery, and sensuality of the character--is competely lost and what we've got is a bland characterization. Barbara Broccoli and M.G. Wilson will obviously never admit it (even to themselves), so instead they're forced to play the hand they dealt themselves and have been attempting to convince us that it's a winner. The result? Well, just look at the ads for QOS. You never really see a blurb like "Daniel Craig is James Bond 007." All we get is the title and the 007 logo. The film itself tries desperately to distance itself from traditional Bondian elements and, even worse, it truly is a whored-out version of the Bourne series. This movie was painful to watch. The producers had never felt they needed to copy another series so blatantly with the previous actors. But with Craig, they're forced to do it because he is such an uninspiring, uncharismatic actor, and the most unconvincing Bond.
|
|
|
Post by JackBurton on Nov 9, 2008 10:23:00 GMT -5
I get along ok with all the Bonds...except for Daniel Craig. It isn't making it much fun to be a fan at the moment.
|
|