Is Pierce Brosnan really all that bad ??

1568101161

Comments

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,042
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Ok Connery fine from DN up until TB. Laz fine. Moore fine up until TSWLM but then started to age. Got away with it until AVTAK when he looked pretty terrible. Dalton fine. Craig fine. Thats how I see it anyway :)
    Okay, thanks for nailing that down for me.
    Though TB is my favourite Connery, It's where I felt he did start to eat a bit more, in fact, I believe Connery was substancially heavier in TB, proportionally, than Brosnan was in DAD.
    :-O
  • Posts: 1,054
    chrisisall wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    Brosnan was fine, not great like a Bond actor should be,
    "Great like a Bond actor should be"?
    Curious, are you pretty young? Or possibly English is not your first language- in that case I understand completely.
    All of them were great in their own ways- to sell any one of them off as a qualified loss is nonsense IMO. Brosnan was awesome; even Lazenby was great. Please reconsider...

    There's no need to be insulting. I'm 38 and natural born citizen of the US. If you love Brosnan so much, fantastic. I'm happy for you. I don't hate him but a man that plays that role should wow me in every film. He doesn't. I've seen his four multiple times and I'll watch them forever but he was lacking.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Except neither actonsteve, nor anyone who has been noticing it, actually played Bond, or Bond after being 14 months in a North Korean jail.
    Two things are happening here- one is the issue that he looked too well fed to have been tortured for that long (unless North Korean torture facilities have excellent and ample cuisine available to prisoners in between torture bouts- unlikely), the other is that Pierce didn't look to be in Bond shape apart from that.
    Ludovico wrote:
    The more Brosnan was enjoying life, the least he was physically believable to be Bond. In the end, in DAD he was a middle aged man pushing buttons. When it happens, it is time to think about casting a new actor.
    See? Either he's too skinny to be Bond, or he's too heavy to be Bond.
    I thought from GE to DAD he looked fine physically, better than most in fact. But then, I don't hate him as Bond.
    :-?

    He did look too well fed for a North Korean jail! Keep in mind that their regular, brainwashed citizens who don't go to jail were told that eating grass and dirt was sufficient for them to survive their last famine. Many didn't. Imagine how they must treat their political prisoners.
  • Posts: 12,490
    chrisisall wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    Except neither actonsteve, nor anyone who has been noticing it, actually played Bond, or Bond after being 14 months in a North Korean jail.
    Two things are happening here- one is the issue that he looked too well fed to have been tortured for that long (unless North Korean torture facilities have excellent and ample cuisine available to prisoners in between torture bouts- unlikely), the other is that Pierce didn't look to be in Bond shape apart from that.
    Ludovico wrote:
    The more Brosnan was enjoying life, the least he was physically believable to be Bond. In the end, in DAD he was a middle aged man pushing buttons. When it happens, it is time to think about casting a new actor.
    See? Either he's too skinny to be Bond, or he's too heavy to be Bond.
    I thought from GE to DAD he looked fine physically, better than most in fact. But then, I don't hate him as Bond.
    :-?

    One can be successively too skinny or too fat for a specific role. I think Brosnan looked fine and believeable as Bond (i.e. an active MI6 operative) from GE to TWINE. In DAD, not so much. His age had started taking over. As a former prisoner, he was utterly unbelievable.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    I thought from GE to DAD he looked fine physically, better than most in fact. But then, I don't hate him as Bond.
    :-?

    I think you hit the nail on the head. You don't see many people whinging about Roger's physique. Don't get me wrong I love the bloke, but he wasn't exactly the most athletic. As for Brozzer, for me he's the closest physically to what I see as Bond, apart from Connery. But then again, I'm not one of those that fawns over the 'fitness first' Craig version. Brosnan is a great looking bloke. Still is.

    I think the problem with Moore was that, while he was quite commanding, he never seemed all that nimble or quick on his feet - particularly from TSWLM onwards when he often looked embarrassing in the action/fight scenes.

    For all of Brosnan's faults I do think he was more nimble than Rog.

    Oh I think overall, for all his tenure Brosnan is better than Moore in the stunt department. Moore had the right physique, but he was a very limited stuntman. That said, in the end, Brosnan had started to spend too much time pushing the buttons of a vehicle.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,042
    The_Reaper wrote:
    There's no need to be insulting.
    You are quite right, I apologize.
    :\">
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Connery and Lazeby were both perfection for 7 films. Then Rog lowered the bar considerably.
    Alas, post Rog, I've also found the next 3 to be lacking for various reasons, differing from actor to actor.
    So in that sense Broz isn't all bad, because IMHO he's just one of 4 post 1971 Bond actors that I have issues with.
    Here's hoping for a strapping young Connery/Lazenby type for Bond #7.
    Cavill appears to have been a missed opportunity.

    As an aside, re actors looking too fat, or being too slow, or too old looking. There is a simple solution. Stop introducing actors to the role in their '40s. Hire young guys in their prime like Connery and Lazenby were, ages 31 and 29 respectively.
    At least with Craig, we got the introductory age down to 38. Small mercies.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,042
    timmer wrote:
    At least with Craig, we got the introductory age down to 38. Small mercies.

    Broz was only 41, just sayin'.... :-\"
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 6,932
    timmer wrote:
    Connery and Lazeby were both perfection for 7 films.

    Oh come on now. Mr. Connery was not perfection in DAF!
    timmer wrote:
    Hire young guys in their prime like Connery and Lazenby were, ages 31 and 29 respectively.

    Connery was the exception to the rule. Bond is supposed to be a character with some experience and maturity to him. Not some young punk in his 20's. Bond was 35 in Casino Royale wasn't he? So I'd say never hire anyone under the age of 35!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,042
    pachazo wrote:
    So I'd say never hire anyone under the age of 35!
    And make one movie per year!
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 4,622
    The authoritative age for Fleming's Bond according to learned Bondologists is November 1921, Armistice Day. The research is all detailed on wiki and published works. Bond would have been about 31 for the events of Casino Royale, by which time he was also already a seasoned agent.
    CR the book is not an origins story. It's rather just the first Bond 007 adventure novel.
    But anyway Bond is ideally of generic mid-thirties age, give or take. Fleming even artificially played with his age to keep him younger in the 1960s, and as we all know Fleming's mandatory double-0 retirement age was 45.
    So it only makes sense to hire new Bonds as young as possible to keep them in that 30s age range for their tenure, as established not only by Fleming but also by the two young Bond actors of the classic era.
    Connery was no exception. Nor was Lazenby. There will always be plenty of good actors in their late 20s, very early 30s who could do justice to Bond.
    Then then let them quit at 40 if they want to. Big deal.
    But if they are real good though, like Sean was, do beg them to stay through their '40s, BUT DON"T START THEM in their '40s or even late '30s. Craig is already an "old dog" after only 3 films.
    It's even more important now to hire young, what with the long gaps between films.
    And yes Sean was magnificent in DAF. It's my favourite of his 7 performances, although just by a smidge. I rank them all a perfect 10, even NSNA, which I would put at 7th, but still the original Bond was an awesome presence, even at age 52.
    Full disclosure: I am a Sean Connery purist. I will be commissioning a bust for my entrance hallway some day.
    I am forever in awe of the the greatness that is Sean Connery as James Bond.
    Nothing in the history of cinema compares. Nothing. It gives me goose bumps and chills, when he first appears as Bond in any of his 7 films. And he was hired at the perfect age. Actually he could also have played the part quite credibly 4 years earlier too.
    If I'm hiring Bond for the next round of films, I'm disqualifying anyone minus the classic look or over the age of 32. No exceptions. None.

    Now if Broz had been hired when he was first actually considered around 1986, roughly age 33, he would have looked even better. They might have had to beef him up a bit, get him in the gym, work a tougher look, but it's moviemaking. His pretty-boy look could have been evened out. And all men move better in their '30s than they do in their '40s when middle age begins to settle in and they should be considering retiring their double-0 license.
    But no Brozzer wasn't that bad, even if he was hired at far too advanced an age. He should have been finishing up round about when he was hired, or settling into his final swan song roles. You can push these guys into mid-forties if they are up to it and willing, but again don't start them in their 40s. Better that they are well settled into the role by that mature age.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    chrisisall wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Ok Connery fine from DN up until TB. Laz fine. Moore fine up until TSWLM but then started to age. Got away with it until AVTAK when he looked pretty terrible. Dalton fine. Craig fine. Thats how I see it anyway :)
    Okay, thanks for nailing that down for me.
    Though TB is my favourite Connery, It's where I felt he did start to eat a bit more, in fact, I believe Connery was substancially heavier in TB, proportionally, than Brosnan was in DAD.
    :-O

    I'm including TB in that. I agree he looked fine.
  • Posts: 12,490
    I don't know how realistically we can find an actor capable to play Bond in his early 30s, although it would be ideal, but I would certainly at least aim at casting an actor in his 30s.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,090
    Problem is, too many guys these days in their 30s still look like children. I always find it interesting when someone in their Kate 30s or 40s refer to someone in their early 30s as a 30sonething year old boy or 30 something year old girl. Granted, that's not the case for everyone obviously but for an established look for Bond to be found in someone in their early 30s isn't as easy as it was going back as say 25 years ago.
    Fassbender who I'm not advocating to be Bond here is one if the few actors who has that Connery factor where he looks older beyond his years.

    As for Brosnan, ripping on him becomes tedious and I for one am thankful that he was good and bankable enough to give us movies on a regular cycle and to refresh the minds of the global audience just how crucial Bond is as part of cinematic and popular culture.

    Regarding physiques, I think some people need to realise what century we're living in. This isn't the 50s or 60s where most men in general looked the same and had some standard body type. As a super spy and with all the crap that the movies expect us to buy into what Bond is able to accomplish physically, Craig's physique satisfies this convincingly. Someone that active would have to be at a certain level of fitness and would have a body that looks a certain way. That being said, getting a similar looking body to that if Craig's isn't that hard at all if one knows what they're doing. Eating right and working out as less as 1 hour a day can make your body at least look impressive. Some people act like Craig's body is Steve Reeves when it's clearly not.
  • Posts: 12,490
    To get back on topic, I think Brosnan was cast in a commercial move, more than an artistic one. He was at least partially responsible for the success of GE and the whole franchise becoming popular again in the 90s. But he did also illustrate its lack of creativity at that time.
  • Posts: 1,054
    doubleoego wrote:
    Problem is, too many guys these days in their 30s still look like children. I always find it interesting when someone in their Kate 30s or 40s refer to someone in their early 30s as a 30sonething year old boy or 30 something year old girl. Granted, that's not the case for everyone obviously but for an established look for Bond to be found in someone in their early 30s isn't as easy as it was going back as say 25 years ago.
    Fassbender who I'm not advocating to be Bond here is one if the few actors who has that Connery factor where he looks older beyond his years.

    As for Brosnan, ripping on him becomes tedious and I for one am thankful that he was good and bankable enough to give us movies on a regular cycle and to refresh the minds of the global audience just how crucial Bond is as part of cinematic and popular culture.

    Regarding physiques, I think some people need to realise what century we're living in. This isn't the 50s or 60s where most men in general looked the same and had some standard body type. As a super spy and with all the crap that the movies expect us to buy into what Bond is able to accomplish physically, Craig's physique satisfies this convincingly. Someone that active would have to be at a certain level of fitness and would have a body that looks a certain way. That being said, getting a similar looking body to that if Craig's isn't that hard at all if one knows what they're doing. Eating right and working out as less as 1 hour a day can make your body at least look impressive. Some people act like Craig's body is Steve Reeves when it's clearly not.

    Yes, indeed. It's not that complicated and don't forget about advancements in lighting and camera angels and "movie magic". Plus, there is the possibility of chemical enhancement as well. Not sure if Craig has used, probably not, but Dwayne Johnson and Hugh Jackman sure have for their recent roles. It's way more common than people think.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    edited July 2013 Posts: 6,932
    Ludovico wrote:
    To get back on topic, I think Brosnan was cast in a commercial move, more than an artistic one. He was at least partially responsible for the success of GE and the whole franchise becoming popular again in the 90s. But he did also illustrate its lack of creativity at that time.

    Well said @ Ludovico. Isn't that what is at the heart of the matter here? Say what you will about Brosnan as an actor but the producers should ultimately take the blame for the failings of this era. Chalk it up to growing pains. For all the experience that MGW had going into this he was not Cubby Broccoli. Who could be?
    Edit : I know that Cubby casted Pierce but I'm not sure how much involvement he had in GE beyond that.
  • timmer wrote:
    The authoritative age for Fleming's Bond according to learned Bondologists is November 1921, Armistice Day. The research is all detailed on wiki and published works. Bond would have been about 31 for the events of Casino Royale, by which time he was also already a seasoned agent.
    CR the book is not an origins story. It's rather just the first Bond 007 adventure novel.
    But anyway Bond is ideally of generic mid-thirties age, give or take. Fleming even artificially played with his age to keep him younger in the 1960s, and as we all know Fleming's mandatory double-0 retirement age was 45.

    Not sure about him being 31 in CR @timmer. MR is set less than a year after the events of MR and Fleming specifically mentions that Bond is 37 years old (as he's 8 years away from the mandatory retirement age of 45 that you mention.)

  • 002002
    edited July 2013 Posts: 581
    Idiotic? Skyfall has gone stratospheric. The first billion dollar Bond. I'd say the best decision Babs ever made was ditching Remington Bond.

    Even his most fervent love boys must admit he was too old for rookie Bond in CR. He didn't even have that louche quality that Connery/Moore had at the end. Craig was inspired casting and paid off handsomely.

    [/quote]

    Maybe Skyfall did so well because it was better than QOS...despite that it suffers from alot of plotholes and stupid decisions...its basically a rehash of The World is Not Enough...

    Craig and Handsome dont go together...
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    002 wrote:
    Idiotic? Skyfall has gone stratospheric. The first billion dollar Bond. I'd say the best decision Babs ever made was ditching Remington Bond.

    Even his most fervent love boys must admit he was too old for rookie Bond in CR. He didn't even have that louche quality that Connery/Moore had at the end. Craig was inspired casting and paid off handsomely.

    Maybe Skyfall did so well because it was better than QOS...despite that it suffers from alot of plotholes and stupid decisions...its basically a rehash of The World is Not Enough...

    Craig and Handsome dont go together...[/quote]


    Skyfall had its plotholes and inconsistancies but it was a better executed film than TWINE overall. The performances were a lot stronger
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,042
    Ludovico wrote:
    To get back on topic, I think Brosnan was cast in a commercial move, more than an artistic one. He was at least partially responsible for the success of GE and the whole franchise becoming popular again in the 90s. But he did also illustrate its lack of creativity at that time.
    They had just (well, sort of just) come off doing two pictures that were IMO radical stabs at creativity, or at least attempts at relatively uncharted territory (TLD & LTK), and they felt they needed bankability, formula was their path and Pierce was their insurance. Given that, I still love Brosnan's run for the most part. I'd take his four over Moore's seven any day of the week. B-)
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 12,490
    chrisisall wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    To get back on topic, I think Brosnan was cast in a commercial move, more than an artistic one. He was at least partially responsible for the success of GE and the whole franchise becoming popular again in the 90s. But he did also illustrate its lack of creativity at that time.
    They had just (well, sort of just) come off doing two pictures that were IMO radical stabs at creativity, or at least attempts at relatively uncharted territory (TLD & LTK), and they felt they needed bankability, formula was their path and Pierce was their insurance. Given that, I still love Brosnan's run for the most part. I'd take his four over Moore's seven any day of the week. B-)

    Of course Brosnan's "safe road" tenure was in part a reaction to the risks of the previous movie, which didn't pay off (although I would argue that LTK was taking a safe road too, the one of 80s action movies). But it had at some point a negative impact.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited July 2013 Posts: 11,090
    Wait what? LTK was playing it safe??

    Looking at things after casting a wider net, gonna play devil's advocate here somewhat; the general public love(d) Brosnan and his movies. He was popular and his movies did well but it seems to me, I think, that the majority of Brosnan's detractors come from the ardent Bond fan community. If Brosnan was too safe and his movies too creatively stifled, technically one can argue it's the fault of the general public for rejecting the brilliance and creatively superior Dalton movies, so in essense the producers churned out subpar movies to satisfy the general subpar tastes of audiences largely at the time. In short, audiences weren't ready for a deeper take on the character as they failed to embrace it prior. So, instead if getting a top if the range BMX mountain bike, we got fisher price go-go bikes complete with tricycles instead. All we needed was an extreme political disaster for the world to wake up and get serious. That being said, Brosnan could have been better as well as his movies but they sufficed. If any one's to blame, it's the GA.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 11,169
    doubleoego wrote:
    Wait what? LTK was playing it safe??

    I like LTK but in many ways it was - even though it had a darker more violent tone. The "he's mad so he's going to get even" story was something that had been done before in other films (Death Wish) and was a relitively familiar plot. From what I've read the film deliberately intended to appeal to American audiences (and as we know didn't succeed). It has the conventional Q scene which in reality would not happen in such a situation (in both TLD and LTK Q even says "pay attention 007" loud and clearly for the audiences benifit).

    Bond suffers little consequences for his actions at the end of the film and things are wrapped up nicely.

    I enjoy LTK but I think it is somewhat overrated by the hardcore fanbase. Its more "80s American thriller" than a Bond movie and even the man who starred in it wasn't completely satisfied with the final result.

    That said I do think its better than 3/4 of Brosnan's films.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited July 2013 Posts: 16,042
    BAIN123 wrote:
    That said I do think its better than 3/4 of Brosnan's films.

    Cannot argue there! (Bet you didn't see that one coming)
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 4,622
    timmer wrote:
    The authoritative age for Fleming's Bond according to learned Bondologists is November 1921, Armistice Day. The research is all detailed on wiki and published works. Bond would have been about 31 for the events of Casino Royale, by which time he was also already a seasoned agent.
    CR the book is not an origins story. It's rather just the first Bond 007 adventure novel.
    But anyway Bond is ideally of generic mid-thirties age, give or take. Fleming even artificially played with his age to keep him younger in the 1960s, and as we all know Fleming's mandatory double-0 retirement age was 45.

    Not sure about him being 31 in CR @timmer. MR is set less than a year after the events of MR and Fleming specifically mentions that Bond is 37 years old (as he's 8 years away from the mandatory retirement age of 45 that you mention.)
    Yes there is no doubt as to the MR reference, however the learned Bond scholars, John Griswold( most notably I think) and Harry Chancellor, having exhaustively researched the Fleming data, concluded Bond to have been born in 1921, Armistice Day, taking into account all of the info provided by Fleming.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_James_Bond_novels_and_short_stories#Fictional_chronologies
    Pearson had made the same study and concluded Armistice Day 1920 for his authorized biography. They corrected Pearson by a year.
    The confusion arises of course because Fleming contradicted himself so much, that it was left to the learned Bond scholars to suss out the consensus.
    Both Griswold and Chancellor set the events of CR in 1951, although Griswold says it could also be 1952. Griswold pinpoints the monthly interval as between May and July. Chancellor isn't as specific, thus I tend to defer to Griswold, when the pair can't quite reach consensus. Thus Bond is actually 29 or 30 at Royale based on his birthdate.
    However Fleming I think did yes intend him to be 35ish - that generic mid-thirties Bond age, where Bond ideally should permanently reside. This also jives with Fleming's MR age, published two years later. And even the Bond scholars, set MR in 1953, two years after Royale, so it all fits.
    But you can make the case that Bond was 29 approaching age 30 at Royale, based on the birthdate which is extrapolated and distilled by Griswold and Chancellor, from Fleming's broader dispersal of info provided throughout the books.
    To make sense of the whole chronology, 29 at Royale, is a good place to start I think, as we can then move forward through the books and comfortably say goodbye to Bond in TMWTGG,Feb 64(Griswold) at the age of 43, with Bond still below mandatory 00 retirement age.
    Suffice to say though, IMO, Bond's age actually resides in a permanent literary limbo of mid-thirties. That's where Fleming I think ideally wanted to keep Bond, even if he did seem to reluctantly acknowedge early '40s towards the end
    So ideally I think the films should aspire likewise, which is actually what they started off doing, by casting a 31 year old Connery initially, followed by a 29-30 year old Lazenby.

    So Brozzer, I think would have fared much better if he had been cast younger. He wouldn't have been forced to have to establish himself in his less-than-limbre 40s, the age ideally where he should have been already established and settling into his final mature Bond swan-song roles, much like the arc Fleming's Bond achieved as did Connery's Bond, who bowed out at age 40. Although as I said earlier, nothing wrong with pushing these guys into mid-40s, to mandatory 00 retirement age.
    Ideally Craig should be done now, as he's already 45 and looking every bit of it.

    ==another point raised earlier regarding the contemporary 30-year old male. Yes, men do retain a more youngish look and style well into their 30's than they did in Flemings time. This probably has a lot to do with later generations growing up post '60s cultural revolution, post rock n' roll etc. Middle age doesn't start at 30 anymore.
    But still we are talking acting here. Even a 30-something young actor that dresses, acts and might even still look 24, via the magic of cinema and his performance skills, could easily effect a mature 30-something demeanour for the purpose of playing Bond.
    Lazenby is a perfect example. He was a product of the '60s cultural upheaval. Bond was not his natural look. Post OHMSS he worked the long-haired beatnik look, like he wanted to work with Peter Fonda in Easy Rider or something, rather than continue to play Connery's mature Bond.
    This btw, I think is one of the reasons Laz balked at continuing - not wanting to play a dated product of the '50s and '60 like Bond, but rather embrace the hip long-haired generation of the '70s.
    How wrong he was though. Bond is a timeless look. The '70s was merely a faddish decade.



  • Posts: 12,490
    BAIN123 wrote:
    doubleoego wrote:
    Wait what? LTK was playing it safe??

    I like LTK but in many ways it was - even though it had a darker more violent tone. The "he's mad so he's going to get even" story was something that had been done before in other films (Death Wish) and was a relitively familiar plot. From what I've read the film deliberately intended to appeal to American audiences (and as we know didn't succeed). It has the conventional Q scene which in reality would not happen in such a situation (in both TLD and LTK Q even says "pay attention 007" loud and clearly for the audiences benifit).

    Bond suffers little consequences for his actions at the end of the film and things are wrapped up nicely.

    I enjoy LTK but I think it is somewhat overrated by the hardcore fanbase. Its more "80s American thriller" than a Bond movie and even the man who starred in it wasn't completely satisfied with the final result.

    That said I do think its better than 3/4 of Brosnan's films.

    I was about to reply, but cannot add anything to this. And neat way to go back on topic.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 16,042
    Pierce Brosnan was:

    *The Best looking Bond.
    *The smoothest Bond.
    *The most vulnerable Bond.
    *The Bond with the best do.
    *The best Bond with a machine gun.
    *The Bond with the highest number of double entendres per movie.
    *The Bond with the most confirmed kills.
    *The Bond most likely to bite his sexual conquests.
    *The only Bond to straighten his tie even under water.

    *Opinions stated on this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies as a whole of the MI6 site, who bear no responsibility or liability for the content.


  • Posts: 6,432
    Brosnan had it in him to be better as Bond, just think his era was a weak one. He showed a more ruthless edge that he was capable of in none bond movies, Fourth protocol comes to mind. Though when i think of Brosnan i inevitably compare him to the other Bond actors and Brosnan to me in any case is that he was the weakest.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 15,967
    chrisisall wrote:
    Pierce Brosnan was:

    *The Best looking Bond.
    *The smoothest Bond.
    *The most vulnerable Bond.
    *The Bond with the best do.
    *The best Bond with a machine gun.
    *The Bond with the highest number of double entendres per movie.
    *The Bond with the most confirmed kills.
    *The Bond most likely to bite his sexual conquests.
    *The only Bond to straighten his tie even under water.

    *Opinions stated on this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies as a whole of the MI6 site, who bear no responsibility or liability for the content.


    I too share these opinions. ;)
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 32,869
    @Murdock, me, three. The man is perfection.

    Speaking of him, have you seen shots from his upcoming thriller 'November Man?' He's looking young and slick in the suit he's wearing from the picture I saw last night. Saw another shot of him driving and firing a gun out the window. Beautiful.
Sign In or Register to comment.