The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

13468929

Comments

  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,279
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.

    Sorry but I cannot take this post seriously. Have you read the Fleming novels?

    If you had, then you would have seen the Fleming interpretation within Dalton's performance, particularly in LTK. That portrayal is the closest we have seen to Fleming Bond on screen.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2020 Posts: 3,497
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.

    Sorry but I cannot take this post seriously. Have you read the Fleming novels?

    I haven't read of all of them, "bruh".

  • Posts: 3,279
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.

    Sorry but I cannot take this post seriously. Have you read the Fleming novels?

    I haven't read of all of them, "bruh".

    I wasn't talking to you, `bruh'.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.

    Sorry but I cannot take this post seriously. Have you read the Fleming novels?

    I haven't read of all of them, "bruh".

    I wasn't talking to you, `bruh'.

    I know "brah", but just in case. He's not the only one. ;))
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,034
    I agree, Dalton's version is pretty much lifted off the page. Craig has his moments and he is certainly edgier and moodier but that's not what made Fleming's Bond, Fleming's Bond.
  • Posts: 3,279
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.

    Sorry but I cannot take this post seriously. Have you read the Fleming novels?

    I haven't read of all of them, "bruh".

    I wasn't talking to you, `bruh'.

    I know "brah", but just in case. He's not the only one. ;))

    Then I suggest you get cracking. Start with CR and go from there... ;)
  • Posts: 3,279
    I agree, Dalton's version is pretty much lifted off the page. Craig has his moments and he is certainly edgier and moodier but that's not what made Fleming's Bond, Fleming's Bond.

    +1

    Sanity prevails on here....
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Bruh did you seriously use the Fleming argument? Bond hasn't been like the Fleming character since the movies started because if he was then Bond wouldn't last more than 2 movies at best, changes were made to make it more suitable for an on screen presence a lot of fans got into Bond via the on screen character and not the literature counterpart. Not to mention the literature counterpart is quite literally a plank of wood in terms of character and Dalton certainly isn't that, Dalton took the seriousness of the novels sure but to say he's like the Fleming character is not true. Dalton was just like Moore and Connery but with more seriousness added and the wacky stuff removed.

    To say the films wouldn't of lasted is complete nonsense, IMO. Why do you think they went straight back to Fleming on rebooting the franchise with Craig? It's because audiences were wearing thin of a untouchable superman. Casino Royale along with all the other films in the franchise that are widely regarded as the best (DN, FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD) are all based on Fleming. Alternatively, the films that are widely regarded as the worst typically have little or no Fleming incorporated into them at all.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I agree, Dalton's version is pretty much lifted off the page. Craig has his moments and he is certainly edgier and moodier but that's not what made Fleming's Bond, Fleming's Bond.

    +1

    Sanity prevails on here....

    +2.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    I agree, Dalton's version is pretty much lifted off the page. Craig has his moments and he is certainly edgier and moodier but that's not what made Fleming's Bond, Fleming's Bond.

    I always said that Daniel Craig is more of a fusion of Fleming's cynicism and Connery's machismo. Dalton was certainly delivering Fleming Bond, but why most audiences didn't connect with that particular incarnation of Bond is because Fleming's Bond lacked the swagger that so many associated with cinematic Bond. And it wasn't an accident, that was a very conscious decision by Dalton. Maybe had he come back for a third film he would have re-calibrated his performance to be closer to what people expect of cinematic Bond, but we'll never know. I think the closest we'll see of what a cinematic Bond by Dalton would have been can be found in his performance in THE ROCKETEER.
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Meh, I think Brosnan was a Perfect choice in all honesty, he just screams Bond. I mean say what you want but when a lot of people hear the Name James Bond, Brosnan is who usually comes to mind if it's not Sean Connery. Brosnan was fine, yeah sure it was played Safe but as the famous saying goes "Don't fix what's not broken" if it works why make a radical change that's unlike what makes the series what it is? I mean as long as something is entertaining that's what counts right?

    I don't automatically think of Brosnan when I hear the name Bond.

    I think it's clear that those who feel that way about Brosnan were basically those that grew up with his incarnation as their first Bond. Every generation has that. I have a friend who grew up with Roger Moore as Bond during his childhood. He thinks Craig is the best Bond, but deep down he views Moore as his Bond. It's a special childhood imprint that can't be undone, so for those who viewed Brosnan that way, it's understandable that Craig would seem like a horrible miscasting.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Ironically, the very characteristics that Dalton was criticised for in the 80’s are the very same things that the Bond critics are praising Daniel Craig for.

    On and on, they have said they want Bond to be closer to the original Ian Fleming character. They want him to be grittier, darker and less jokey. What they really want, it seems, is to have Dalton back!!!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ironically, the very characteristics that Dalton was criticised for in the 80’s are the very same things that the Bond critics are praising Daniel Craig for.

    On and on, they have said they want Bond to be closer to the original Ian Fleming character. They want him to be grittier, darker and less jokey. What they really want, it seems, is to have Dalton back!!!

    I disagree. The difference was that while Craig went darker and grittier, he retained the cinematic swagger. I think that's what really struck me the most during the scenes set in the Bahamas with Craig outsmarting security, charming the receptionist, playing cards, and then seducing Solange for information. That's why I said Craig fused Fleming's cynicism with Connery's machismo. Dalton was closest to Fleming, but Fleming's Bond didn't have the swagger people expect in a Bond film. That's why Dalton didn't connect with audiences.
  • Posts: 11,425
    shamanimal wrote: »
    We've never been able to look back at two even four-movie Bond film eras before.

    Brosnan four-film era - 1995 to 2002
    Craig four-film era - 2006 to 2015

    It's almost universally accepted that the Craig films are better movies. But if I had to go through them again, I think Brozza wins on the fun side.

    007 reasons why the Brosnan era was actually better for Bond fans.

    001. A new Bond adventure every couple of years. Lots more to discuss, enjoy, and moan about. Four movies in seven years. Loads of Bond!
    002. Bond on proper missions. No family baggage. Those were the days!
    003. Everything in the right place. Pre-credit, gun barrel, Moneypenny and M (mostly) in the office.
    004. Bad villains with proper plans, (what was Greene going to do again?)
    005. All the films had novelizations. Why did that stop? When a film came out, you got the full package. The movie at the cinema, the soundtrack, the book, (and later, the Widescreen VHS videocassette!) What bliss!
    006. Gadgets were still cool back then.
    007. James Bond will Return.

    I do love the Craig movies, but it was more fun back then.

    "Fun" is the last word I'd use to describe the Brosnan era. An interminable slog through some of the most appalling film making in recent cinematic history, more like.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Getafix wrote: »
    "Fun" is the last word I'd use to describe the Brosnan era. An interminable slog through some of the most appalling film making in recent cinematic history, more like.

    As someone that has three Brosnan films listed in the bottom five in my Bond ranking, I think that's a bit over the top.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Ultimately, what truly sullied GoldenEye and Pierce Brosnan's legacy as James Bond were the three films that followed. Brosnan's Bond returned in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies, 1999's The World Is Not Enough, and 2002's Die Another Day, and that parade of movies arguably got worse as they continued. The problems with Brosnan's Bond movies - the embarrassing dialogue and the nonsensical plots - were only exacerbated. Further, the films engaged in stunt casting the Bond Girl roles in each film.
  • Posts: 3,279
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Ironically, the very characteristics that Dalton was criticised for in the 80’s are the very same things that the Bond critics are praising Daniel Craig for.

    On and on, they have said they want Bond to be closer to the original Ian Fleming character. They want him to be grittier, darker and less jokey. What they really want, it seems, is to have Dalton back!!!

    I disagree. The difference was that while Craig went darker and grittier, he retained the cinematic swagger. I think that's what really struck me the most during the scenes set in the Bahamas with Craig outsmarting security, charming the receptionist, playing cards, and then seducing Solange for information. That's why I said Craig fused Fleming's cynicism with Connery's machismo. Dalton was closest to Fleming, but Fleming's Bond didn't have the swagger people expect in a Bond film. That's why Dalton didn't connect with audiences.

    Yes I agree with this. Craig brought some charisma and swagger which lacked in Dalton's performance.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 11,425
    For my money GE is garbage. A cheap, poorly written little 90s actioner. Have never been able to fathom its popularity.

    The first half of TND is Brosnan's finest hour. Half decent PTS and some nice production design. And Jonathan price is an okay old school pantomime villain. I even think Michelle Yeoh adds a bit of class and Brosnan seems to like her - there's a sense of camaraderie if not a believable romance. The second half degenerates really badly but for me that was the closest they got to the right formula for Brosnan.

    TWINE is hands down the worst film in the series for me. Just unwatchable.

    DAD has a crazed energy, like Tamahori was trying to end the franchise by totally wrecking its reputation. As a result it is actually more entertaining to watch than TWINE and has a car-crash, through your fingers watchability.

    I have nothing against Brosnan the man. He always strikes me as thoroughly charming and decent. And I think he could have been a much better Bond with decent writing and some stronger direction.

    Having said this, he has to take some of the blame for the fact he never seemed to get a grip on the character. Who is Brosnan's Bond? I don't know and I am not sure Pierce had much idea either. Just a generic international playboy.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 2,896
    I think the most fun era for Bond fans is right now, because every Bond film and novel is almost instantly available. And there are more books, studies, and documentaries about Bond than ever before--all of which be discussed online with fans across the world in places like this. I would not define the Brosnan era as great--I was never into video games and I regard getting a mediocre film every two years as a triumph of quantity over quality.

    As for the most exciting era to be a Bond fan, no doubt the early 1960s. Imagine the excitement of being a Bond fan in an era when Fleming was still alive and interest was building in the upcoming adaptations of his books. Now imagine seeing Dr. No in the theater and being blown away by Sean Connery and the very first Bond film and wanting more. Now imagine seeing FRWL build upon and surpass its predecessor and make waves, followed by GF and TB setting the world on fire and creating a Bondmania that has never been equaled, an era when the entire planet was crazy for Bond, when the series was something new and tremendously exciting. Next to this era, when Bond became a supernova, everything that followed almost seems like an anticlimax.
  • Agent_47Agent_47 Canada
    Posts: 330
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Agent_47 wrote: »
    His tenure was a blast; A shot of nostalgia with some extra fire power and a dash of crude humor.

    It was (for me that is) a golden era of Bond. Every two years another movie, music videos for every film, tie in novels, continuation novels, constant news and updates, and let us not forget the video games, special edition DVD's and so on. It was the perfect time to introduce new fans to the series.

    I miss those days.

    Pierce Brosnan's revelation that he doesn't rate his own performances as Bond, ought to be shocking stuff. Here is an actor who throughout his seven-year run as the suave British sleuth was regularly voted the public's second-favourite 007 after Sean Connery. Occasionally, he even came out ahead.

    But it is not just Craig's portrayal of the secret agent that has cast 1990s Bond into shadow. Rewatching the films now, Brosnan's performance is flat and lackadaisical to the point of blandness. What once appeared to be insouciant cool now comes across as sheer laziness.

    Even in GoldenEye, generally considered to be the best of Brosnan's films, his 007 is smug and smarmy in a way Connery and Roger Moore never were. The movie is only saved by a decent storyline, strong direction from Martin Campbell (later to take the reins for Casino Royale) and a decent villain in Sean Bean's multi-layered Alec Trevelyan.

    Worse still, in an era where adult themes had re-permeated mainstream Hollywood to the greatest extent since the 1970s, the Brosnan Bond carries little or no physical threat. Even early Roger Moore was steely and cold-blooded enough to threaten Gloria Hendry's double-crossing Rosie Carver with her life in the underrated Live and Let Die. Brosnan 007 is a purring pussycat by comparison.

    By the time 2002's Die Another Day had rolled around, with its ridiculous invisible car, video-game style special effects and terrible Madonna cameo, Bond had lost all credibility. Other crimes of the Brosnan era include The World Is Not Enough's Christmas Jones, Denise Richards' crop-topped nuclear physicist, or the not-so terrifying threat in 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies: a media baron (played by Jonathan Pryce) who mounts a cunning scheme to provoke world war three using the power of newspapers and GPS. Even Donald Pleasance in You Only Live Twice had a better plan than that.

    The sad thing is that Brosnan has proven himself a more than capable actor over the years, turning in a Cary Grant-esque performance as a gentlemanly art thief in the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair and a bravura turn as a Blair-like former British PM in Roman Polanski's The Ghost in 2010. As he himself partially admits, maybe he struggled to work out why anyone was still making Bond movies long, long after the initial thrill of the series' 1960s success had dissipated.

    Rewatching the films, even Brosnan fans must surely accept that he was never the new Connery, but rather a sort-of strangely flat Roger Moore – without even the charm, screen presence and natural gift for comedy that old raised eyebrow delivered in spades.

    I do not share much of the criticism directed at the Brosnan era.
    I most certainly disagree with more than a few points made in this thread; But let's be honest, nobody is going to change anybody's opinion here.
    I'm not here to argue the validity of his era; But to express my joy for it.
  • Posts: 11,425
    @suavejmf don't forget The Taylor of Panama. Brosnan is excellent in that. Helps having a strong director at the helm. I remember seeing it when it came out and wondering why EON weren't able to channel some of that acting ability more effectively into Bond.

    I actually think Pierce was reacting way too much against Dalton and his response to strip away any character depth and just go for the surface. A real shame. Brosnan has got an edge and nastiness that should have been used more for Bond.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Revelator wrote: »
    I think the most fun era for Bond fans is right now, because every Bond film and novel is almost instantly available. And there are more books, studies, and documentaries about Bond than ever before--all of which be discussed online with fans across the world in places like this. I would not define the Brosnan era as great--I was never into video games and I regard getting a mediocre film every two years as a triumph of quantity over quality.

    As for the most exciting era to be a Bond fan in, no doubt the early 1960s. Imagine the excitement of being a Bond fan in an era when Fleming was still alive and interest was building in the upcoming adaptations of his books. Now imagine seeing Dr. No in the theater and being blown away by the very first Bond and wanting more. Now imagine seeing FRWL build upon and surpass its predecessor and make waves, followed by GF and TB setting the world on fire and creating a Bondmania that has never been equaled, an era when the entire planet was crazy for Bond, when the series as something new and tremendously exciting. Next to this era, when Bond became a supernova, everything that followed almost seems like an anticlimax.

    Excellent point. In a sense, we're very much spoiled with what we have available out there as Bond fans.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,014
    Revelator wrote: »
    I think the most fun era for Bond fans is right now, because every Bond film and novel is almost instantly available. And there are more books, studies, and documentaries about Bond than ever before--all of which be discussed online with fans across the world in places like this.
    Oh, heck yeah, @Revelator.
    As for the most exciting era to be a Bond fan, no doubt the early 1960s. Imagine the excitement of being a Bond fan in an era when Fleming was still alive and interest was building in the upcoming adaptations of his books. Now imagine seeing Dr. No in the theater and being blown away by Sean Connery and the very first Bond film and wanting more. Now imagine seeing FRWL build upon and surpass its predecessor and make waves, followed by GF and TB setting the world on fire and creating a Bondmania that has never been equaled, an era when the entire planet was crazy for Bond, when the series was something new and tremendously exciting. Next to this era, when Bond became a supernova, everything that followed almost seems like an anticlimax.
    Oh, HAY-yull yeah!

  • Posts: 1,883
    I think what we may agree on is Dalton did something different with the role and Craig perfected what he set out with and in light of this, Dalton's portrayal is getting a reevaluation, similar to how Lazenby and OHMSS were.

    Dalton did actually connect with me. Craig connected with me. Brosnan didn't so much. His Bond and that era were like being told what you have to like rather than finding what you like.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    Craig has Charisma? HAHAHAHAHAHHA that's the funniest joke I've heard today. Anyway I missed lots of replies so I'll quickly delve into em. Jetsetwilly: I have tried to read Casino Royale the Novel and it was the most boring and uninteresting book I've read in my life and I couldn't finish it, same with any other one I've tried to read, they're a borefest at best, sure times were different but I'd say they're as exciting as a root canal in today's time. Also Dalton very much had charisma in his performance as Bond, No Bond really lacked Charisma besides Craig and Lazenby even though Lazenby does try.

    Octopussy: If you're trying to imply that they rebooted Bond because people were tired of Brosnan's Bond isn't exactly correct, in fact I'm pretty sure DAD was the highest grossing Bond film when it released and it's reviews from the time weren't overly negative as they are now.

    Getafix: didn't you say you haven't seen GE in full since it came out on VHS? Not to be rude but how does your 20 year old opinion hold up if you haven't revisited the film to think your thoughts again? Maybe I'm wrong about that but I'm quite certain you've said that a number of times. Also TWINE is unwatchable? Bruh no Bond film is unwatchable, as much as I may despise Skyfall even Skyfall isn't unwatchable, it's totally watchable and I'll even watch it to see if my opinion changes as much as I don't enjoy it, where as you can't even watch one film? Yeah I find that hard to believe, I think you're just grasping for straws to come up with complaints broski.

    Revelator: yes I agree with this, you're absolutely right that the best era would really be now since everything is available to us at the current moment and surely everyone can find a Bond movie or Bond actor that suits their taste with so many options.
  • Posts: 1,883
    Daniel316 wrote: »
    Craig has Charisma? HAHAHAHAHAHHA that's the funniest joke I've heard today. Anyway I missed lots of replies so I'll quickly delve into em. Jetsetwilly: I have tried to read Casino Royale the Novel and it was the most boring and uninteresting book I've read in my life and I couldn't finish it, same with any other one I've tried to read, they're a borefest at best, sure times were different but I'd say they're as exciting as a root canal in today's time. Also Dalton very much had charisma in his performance as Bond, No Bond really lacked Charisma besides Craig and Lazenby even though Lazenby does try. Octopussy: If you're trying to imply that they rebooted Bond because people were tired of Brosnan's Bond isn't exactly correct, in fact I'm pretty sure DAD was the highest grossing Bond film when it released and it's reviews from the time weren't overly negative as they are now. Getafix: didn't you say you haven't seen GE in full since it came out on VHS? Not to be rude but how does your 20 year old opinion hold up if you haven't revisited the film to think your thoughts again? Maybe I'm wrong about that but I'm quite certain you've said that a number of times. Also TWINE is unwatchable? Bruh no Bond film is unwatchable, as much as I may despise Skyfall even Skyfall isn't unwatchable, it's totally watchable and I'll even watch it to see if my opinion changes as much as I don't enjoy it, where as you can't even watch one film? Yeah I find that hard to believe, I think you're just grasping for straws to come up with complaints broski. Revelator: yes I agree with this, you're absolutely right that the best era would really be now since everything is available to us at the current moment and surely everyone can find a Bond movie or Bond actor that suits their taste with so many options.

    Why not use a few paragraphs? It'd make your replies a lot easier to digest.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    edited February 2020 Posts: 210
    Great suggestion, BT3366. Edited it to break it up into paragraphs
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
    Craig has loads of charisma, he just doesn’t play up the surface level suave like Brosnan did.
  • Daniel316Daniel316 United States
    Posts: 210
    Where does he show this if I may ask? I honestly didn't see it when I last watched the films, Casino Royale was maybe the closest he had any but even then I can't recall many scenes where he had any. Thing with Craig is: outside of Bond he's great, chrismatic and Humorous. I loved him in Cowboys and Aliens, Defiance, and other movies he's appeared in. Not to mention his appearance on SNL and that one Heinken commerical where he was oozing with charisma and personality. Tbh I think he'd be great as Bond and is capable, it's just I don't get why they don't let him be himself and work to his strengths and work around his weaknesses.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,025
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 3,279
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Craig has Charisma? HAHAHAHAHAHHA that's the funniest joke I've heard today. Anyway I missed lots of replies so I'll quickly delve into em. Jetsetwilly: I have tried to read Casino Royale the Novel and it was the most boring and uninteresting book I've read in my life and I couldn't finish it, same with any other one I've tried to read, they're a borefest at best, sure times were different but I'd say they're as exciting as a root canal in today's time. Also Dalton very much had charisma in his performance as Bond, No Bond really lacked Charisma besides Craig and Lazenby even though Lazenby does try. Octopussy: If you're trying to imply that they rebooted Bond because people were tired of Brosnan's Bond isn't exactly correct, in fact I'm pretty sure DAD was the highest grossing Bond film when it released and it's reviews from the time weren't overly negative as they are now.


    Ok bruh...

    Shame you don't like the novels. I think they are better than the films. It's a bit hard for you to know what `Fleming Bond' is, if you haven't read the books.

    Charisma for Craig? Debatable sure. Maybe swagger is a better phrase. I think he had more swagger than Dalton (even though I still prefer Dalton over Craig).

    DAD did receive a lot of bad criticism at the time, and I think EON realised they went to far. Babs had her own Moonraker moment and decided to reboot. The Bourne films and 9/11 also pushed that decision too.
Sign In or Register to comment.