I guess everyone is gonna have their favourite Bond. To me When Brosnan first came on the scene I felt he combined some of what made both Sean and Roger great Bonds and added a little something to the role himself. Roger had his trademark arching of the eye brows, Brosnan had the loosening of the tie. They gave the role their personal touches, touches which are, now associated with Bond.
What makes a great Bond movie are memorable moments that stand the test of time. Sean's, Roger's and Pierce's Bond movies have them in spades. Movies like Golden eye,Spy who loved me,You only live twice have iconic moments that we will remember decades from there release. From little Nelly, The submarine Lotus, to the bungee jump scene intro or the tank chase. Those movies are classics.
The new Bond movies are action packed but nothing stands out to me thus far, from the last 3 films as iconic nor can I see them in the next 10/20 years from now in the greatest Bond moments montages.
As this is about who people consider to be a better Bond out of Craig and Brosnan I would have to say, for me it's Brosnan all the way. I grew watching Roger Moore who was my favourite, Brosnan always reminded me of a cross between Sean and Roger and was perfectly cast for the role. When Craig was cast they wanted to take Bond in a new direction, a re-imagining if you will, which means Craig does not have the traditional Bond look. He has been revamped to attract a new audience, made to be more physical, etc. I think Craig is a good action star but I don't like him in the role of Bond. I don't see the sophistication or class in his portrayal of Bond that is associated with the name. I see little difference in Craig's role as Bond than I do in his role in Layer Cake or Cowboys and Aliens. Craig has a rough thuggish look that wouldn't seem out of place in a Guy Richie east London based movie.
I say this to say that I don't see Craig as being synonymous with Bond but whenever I see Roger, Sean and Pierce I see Bond in them because they exude class and the ingredients of a classic Bond even when they are off set. They don't have to act or try to be Bond that is why they were a perfect fit for the role. Brosnan has been in around 50 movies and he only made 4 Bond movies yet he is mostly associated with that role, even when seen in movies that came out much sooner. When I see Craig I don't say it's Bond I say it's Craig and he's done 3 movies just one less than Brosnan. I saw Brosnan and Bond as being synonymous by his third movie.
Last edited by dee23 on Mar 19th, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Some say Craig brings a more realistic hard hitting element to the franchise but Bond movies were always fantastical, that is how the Bourne franchise was distinguishable since it offered a more gritty realistic take on espionage. Now Bond is more like Bourne, courtesy of Mr Craig.
I like my Bond movies to be Bond movies and my Bourne movies to be Bourne movies. I think Bond should be more like Brosnan’s portrayal than Craig’s. Craig could have been just as easily cast as a Bond villain’s henchman. I still think he is too rough to be Bond. He isn’t much different in Layer Cake and that was about London’s east end gangsters.
Brosnan is up there with Connery and Moore and in my opinion Brosnan portrayed elements of both, making him, in my view the quintessential Bond.
I've just been watching all the Bond movies in a row with my kids, and to ben honest I was surprised how well Connery still holds up. He has that interesting combination of being both charming AND a complete bastard. A good combo for the Bond character.
Moore was all charm and ONLY charm, he was hardly a menacing character at all (and to be frank I find most of the Moore movies quite boring (exception: For Your Eyes Only), nothing really happens and it's never really dangerous.
For me the problem with Brosnan (although I do like him a lot better than Moore) is that he IS a combination of Connery and Moore. And it makes me wonder what he is then? Good performances all around, but undetermined. Even the filmmakers seem at loss what these movies are: upgraded movies from the 70s or 80s? Trying to be something new or not, trying to keep all the elements that made all the previous Bonds successful?
Even the titles reflect that non-descriptive nature of the Brosnan movies. Goldeneye was okay but after that: Tomorrow never dies, The World is not Enough, Die Another day???? What does that mean? I mean, the title doesn't help at all to remember what they were about.
For me with Craig entered a new era of Bond, fit to the times in which they are made and yes, he brought back the bastard that Connery once put in his Bond. Something I had missed for a long time, something Brosnan was not able or allowed to put in it. He was suave, not very dangerous... Craig is mean and a very credible character, one that gets damaged and not just walks out with a few hairs out of place. And I like that.
My fav for sure: Casino Royale, beats Skyfall if you ask me. Simply because the film makers made it very hard on themselves with that long poker game and came out triumphantly.
So my favs are both Connery and Craig, followed by Brosnan.
__________________
Last edited by queeq on Apr 18th, 2013 at 07:15 AM
KMC Community Forums
Sep 22nd, 2010 07:41 AM
