It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
In TND and TWINE I thought he was finding his feet. He was more of the GE type character in the earlier half of TND, but once he hits Vietnam/Thailand, something changes, and not for the better. I can't put my finger on it. I think you know my opinion of his work in TWINE (not good).
I agree that they shouldn't have given him those dramatic scenes in his films. Not only was he not able to carry them (a tendency to overact imho), but they came across somewhat cheesy. If those sap scenes weren't in his films, I'd look on his overall tenure more positively, even though it was somewhat predictable and pastiche.
One of the reasons I like GE so much is because Brosnan underplays it, which for his tenure was very unusual. That's how Bond should be played imho. If he had been a little more confident/assertive I would easily rate it as a top 10 Bond performance.
Brosnan is best as an actor in my view when he can let his hair down (like in the Tailor of Panama or November Man). The problem with Bond is one must operate within a sort of straightjacket. The acting must be subtle. I'm not quite certain Brosnan could have done that, but he did show a lot of promise in DAD, which is why it's somewhat unfortunate that his tenure was cut short.
Campbell really needs to be brought back, even as an advisor, when they cast the next Bond actor. He really knew how to bring the natural best out of both Craig and Brosnan within the confines/straightjacket of the character that is 'film' James Bond.
It's an interesting idea... But I don't know if I agree.
Do you feel like that about acting in general? If you do, then... really - you feel actors can only really succeed when they play roles in which they can play extensions of their personalities? I mean, actors are supposed to be acting, anyway, not "play themselves" - even if it's "extension" and not exactly themselves. Isn't it about acting talent and suitability for a role? (No actor is great at everything and suitable for any role.)
And if not, then... really - why is Bond so different from any other role? I just can't believe it somehow is.
These are strong male personas. Heroes. Rebels in way as well. So the key attribute that must shine through in the performance (in these instances) is confidence. It must be natural. The other key attribute is authenticity. It cannot be forced, because heroes by their nature are genuine.
So in order to succeed in an interpretation, I think it is preferable if an actor can play up a part of their own inherent persona, because the authenticity of that aspect will then allow other aspects of the performance to also be more credible. A sort of 'halo' effect, if you will, which will carry through.
Generally though, no, I don't think that of acting in general. Just when considering long running franchise heroes that have well defined characteristics (confidence and strength) in the public's mind. Especially when those roles have been played by many actors in the past.
Cruise in my opinion is a 'great' because he has that star quality but has also shown that he can morph into more serious roles where he gets lost in the character.
Agreed with both of you. Denzel is an acting beast. Some of his performances are beyond captivating and @bondjames was spot on with crimson tide. He and Hackman going at it was a masterclass showing. Then we have performances in American gangster, Training Day, John Q, Malcolm X, Glory, Man on fire, devil in a blue dress and the hurricane. He has that natural effortless it factor. A real smooth mutha and can flip out in a rage while still being cool. What a guy.
I don't think Bond should look or act like a breezy playboy.
I've heard a lot of people on here use it, but I've never liked the word 'thug' to describe Bond. The opening chapter of GF suggests...
'It was part of his profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix—the licence to kill in the Secret Service—it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened.
That, to me, does nothing to suggest Bond is what I'd define as a 'thug'. I've always been of the opinion that Bond can be reckless when up against it, but is otherwise professional and pretty calculating. Not thuggish.
And i think both types of actors are needed. It all depends on what the movie calls for
I do think the actors who can change accents and make a real transformation like Daniel Day Lewis are in general better actors as a whole but the actors who bring their personality and charisma tend to be more entretaining to watch.
About what @BondJames and. @DaltonCraig said about Pierce i disagree on some parts.
Yes Pierce did great the more suave and cool Bond and agree thst Time helped in hos confidence but i disagree of him not being good in the dramatic scenes or better said emotional scenes.
I think he did great in the scenes where he finds Paris death, killing Dr Kaufman and waiting for someone from Carver get to his hotel room that's just in Tomorrow never dies.
In the world is not enough i think he did great in his first confrontation with Renard, when he comes back from that buncker and uses a very different tone towards elektra.
Actually that scene with elektra reminds me a bitt to From Russia with love when Bond interrogates Tania after Karim dies.
So i think Pierce was equally good with serious and more fun material, he did have that it factor to play Bond
He's done a big showy spread in Interview magazine where Bond was a hot topic:
He's also recently partnered with Gucci for a campaign. He gives me serious Peter O'Toole vibes. Just a little bit of a beta-male to be Bond.
The appointment of the next Bond is really dependent on the direction the series is taking. For instance, I doubt they'd have cast Hiddles in 2006 as they wanted someone more gruff, thuggish and iconoclastic.
However, after 10 years of Craig scowling, maybe it's time for the series to embrace the "fun". Hiddles would certainly suggest a more Roger Moore-ish tone.....
The fact of the matter is...we know he's on EON's radar and that he's met with Broccoli and was in talks at some point (Source: BirthsMoviesDeath blog is rarely wrong). Personally, I think EON are in a holding pattern:
Craig is yet to commit (maybe he's reading possible story treatments and meeting with prospective directors), but I think Hiddleston has been told he's 'the man' if Craig does bow out.
Is this the face of the next James Bond.....
I personally hope not.
(I've actually quite come around on the idea of Jamie Dornan as Bond....)
I thought Dornan had potential during The Fall, but I'm afraid he may have blown in with that chic flick series.
Post of the year. @Pierce2Daniel "cutting through the ambient noise" yet again, well done sir! =D>
Not too hip on the Village people photo but the O'Toole look is ok.
Don't really see Hiddleston as lighter or more comedic similar to Moore ....that's my take at least.
Hmm. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying. You were talking about extension of their personalities, which I understand as them being somehow similar to their characters. Now you talk about confidence, which is far more vague. Of course characters like that should appear confident, but if extension of one's personality comes down to just being confident or not, then why not just talk about that. Being simply confident is not much of a description of one's personality. And I don't know what you mean by authenticity here.
Yes. Both types of actors can be very good. I've always liked James Stewart, but he was not exactly versatile. And yes, you're always gonna get the similar Tom Hanks with every Tom Hanks role. (I don't find him an interesting actor, but he's good at what he does.) I'm more fascinated by chamelons, because I think it's more interesting not knowing in advance what you're gonna get with them, but I understand there's some comfort in familiarity, and I appreciate movie stars, too, some of them very much. Nowadays they are becoming quite rare, though.
Let's use Craig as an example. When I see him talking outside of the Bond role (in interviews etc.) I see a relatively tough bloke (not just in looks, but in demeanour). I also see a cynical person (even his jokes suggest a weariness.....'slash wrists with bottle' etc.). Someone who doesn't give a 'f'.
It's perhaps coincidence (but then again, perhaps not) that I tend to prefer Craig's performances when he plays to those attributes, such as QoS (toughness) and SF (cynical and jaded). I find it authentic and it seems natural. Real. I feel like he's drawing from something within him. From his life experiences and his own character. Something he feels viscerally and therefore can emote properly and in a natural way.
I did not see that in his SP performance, which seemed contrived (to me). Like he was trying to play an 'amalgam' Bond at times. I didn't think that light heartedness suited him as well as the other portrayals. That's not to say he was bad mind you. Just not as good.
I have had the same criticism of Brosnan on many occasions, because I didn't think he found his authentic voice for the part, although as said earlier, I think he got very close in DAD. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a hardness to Brosnan's portrayal in parts of DAD which mirrors his best non-Bond action work, including Tailor of Panama. Not cynical like Craig, but tougher than the girly man (imho) that he portrayed in TWINE. Is that an extension of Brosnan's natural persona or his personal life experiences? I wonder.
I think when one is bringing a part of oneself to the role, then one tends to be more confident, and viewers can pick up on that.
Yep.
Its just no matter how hard he tries he doesn't have the movie star look.with or without Bond Pierce if he wouldn't have starred in Bond i bet he would have found another way to hsve big breakout role.
Pierce rejected Batman. That means he has the movie star quality just like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Sean Connery and so many others.
Hidleston gives me the vibe he wants to play Bond more for the fame that comes with the role than loving the franchise itself.
But who can blame him after Pierce calls it the gift thst keeps giving? With this quote everyone wants to be Bond and maybe ive been judging him too harsh.
This thought just came to my mind maybe he should get the part if he wants it so badly maybe having an actor who really wants the part would be the best since he would give his all to deliver a great Bond.
Who doesn't want to play Bond?
Daniel Craig :P..............I'm joking......we do not know that for sure.