The Brosnan era was actually more fun for Bond fans

1679111229

Comments

  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    GoldenEye was the only really decent film. Dire 'Nother Day was Bond for mouth breathers and made me embarrassed to be a fan. I almost left the cinema when the disgustingly crap CGI tsunami sequence appeared. I guess it was considerably lighter in weight. Does that equal more fun?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    Oh I feel they are on the same level acting skill wise. Craig is more stoic and does not show a wide variety of emotions in his acting. Craig is boosted by added makeup showing blood, his battle scars, tattered clothing, etc.

    Outside of that last fight with 006 the artists never had Brosnan have blood and such on him.

    Brosnan is on the same level as Craig at acting, my God you gave me a good laugh with that.

    I forgot being smarmy and cheesy was an acting quality.

    Skill wise you kill me, Brosnan was all surface, Craig acts Pierce off the screen.

    Not since Connery has there been an actor in the role so comfortable in his own skin from the get go.

    In terms of Bond performances, yes.

    But if we are speaking generally, Brosnan is a very capable actor and his resumé is filled with many extremely good performances in different genres.

    Craig does too. They're both good.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    That's always cited as a cold moment for Brosnan, but I never bought the idea that he's "cold" in it. Given how the emotions are heightened in the scene, especially with Brosnan's performance, it's more hot blooded than anything. He even goes to her corpse to mourn her looking regretful of what he had to do.

    I think Brosnan's coldest moment is in bits nobody seems to bring up, like him knocking out Xenia swiftly "sweet dreams". He's such a dick in that moment, it's wonderful. Also shooting Davidov and making a joke that's enough to make him grin "he was buried with work".

    Shooting an unarmed woman is cold regardless of the emotions running through the scene, I feel. She could have easily been incapacitated, but he chose to kill her.

    I do like that moment with Xenia you mentioned, though. A good example.

    Our Friends In The North negates anything Brosnan has done, it blows away any other actor who's played the role.

    Also I maintain that DC will have by far the most interesting and exciting career of anyone else who's played the role after NTTD.

    Not sure I agree with this. Connery still stands head and shoulders above anyone else who played Bond, and that includes Craig.

    Watch The Offence or The Hill, and you'll see a masterclass in acting. Connery's work after Bond is a difficult one to beat. Sure, he did some forgettable crap in the 70's and 80's, but The Man who would be King is a stone cold classic. The Untouchables also gave Connery his Oscar too. Craig still hasn't won one of them yet.

    Throw in The Rock, Hunt for Red October, The Name of the Rose, Robin and Marion, Indiana Jones, etc. and that is some body of work to beat.

    Even when Connery has a bit part like Highlander, A Bridge Too Far or Time Bandits, his performance shines through and ends up being the most memorable thing about that movie.

    +1

    Connery is the only movie star to transcend from the Bond franchise and have a pretty big career outside of Bond. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan have had respectable careers post-Bond , but certainly nothing on the same level as Connery.

    Craig may have a future with the KNIVES OUT franchise, with the first being a sleeper hit, so his work is already cut out for him in his first step towards post-Bond.

    Yep. Can't disagree with any of the above regarding Connery. The man was a machine (I only use the past tense because he's retired!).

    But the one thing that links all three? They're all terrible at accents!
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 11,425
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I have said this before on other topics, but seeing as this seems to have almost become a Brosnan Vs Craig thread, I shall put it here too.

    There era's (well Craig's so far) have a fair bit of symmetry to them. Both have a a fantastic film (GE+CR) which happen to be there debut's. Both have had a good solid film, that have at equal points either been overrated or underrated by fandom (TND+SF) and both have had two fair to crap efforts (TWINE, DAD, QOS, SP).

    Now, the symmetry doesn't end here. Both of their first films where some measure of a reboot, albeit GE was a softer one. And by far, both actors best efforts.

    Their second respective films both had huge script problems and writers strikes to deal with, and ended up being action heavy.

    Their third films, both tried to scale back and focus on the more introspective elements of the character.

    Both of their fourth efforts ended up tonally and creatively messy, as Pierce himself said 'neither fish, nor fowl'. Both with a villain who is essentially two people in one, and both with a personal embitterment with Bond from the past. Also, both films are largely reviled by most of the fan base.

    Interesting but any of Craig's 4 outings so far trumps any of Brosnans.

    No comparison. Like Coke and supermarket own brand cola.
  • Posts: 3,275
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    Oh I feel they are on the same level acting skill wise. Craig is more stoic and does not show a wide variety of emotions in his acting. Craig is boosted by added makeup showing blood, his battle scars, tattered clothing, etc.

    Outside of that last fight with 006 the artists never had Brosnan have blood and such on him.

    Brosnan is on the same level as Craig at acting, my God you gave me a good laugh with that.

    I forgot being smarmy and cheesy was an acting quality.

    Skill wise you kill me, Brosnan was all surface, Craig acts Pierce off the screen.

    Not since Connery has there been an actor in the role so comfortable in his own skin from the get go.

    In terms of Bond performances, yes.

    But if we are speaking generally, Brosnan is a very capable actor and his resumé is filled with many extremely good performances in different genres.

    Craig does too. They're both good.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    That's always cited as a cold moment for Brosnan, but I never bought the idea that he's "cold" in it. Given how the emotions are heightened in the scene, especially with Brosnan's performance, it's more hot blooded than anything. He even goes to her corpse to mourn her looking regretful of what he had to do.

    I think Brosnan's coldest moment is in bits nobody seems to bring up, like him knocking out Xenia swiftly "sweet dreams". He's such a dick in that moment, it's wonderful. Also shooting Davidov and making a joke that's enough to make him grin "he was buried with work".

    Shooting an unarmed woman is cold regardless of the emotions running through the scene, I feel. She could have easily been incapacitated, but he chose to kill her.

    I do like that moment with Xenia you mentioned, though. A good example.

    Our Friends In The North negates anything Brosnan has done, it blows away any other actor who's played the role.

    Also I maintain that DC will have by far the most interesting and exciting career of anyone else who's played the role after NTTD.

    Not sure I agree with this. Connery still stands head and shoulders above anyone else who played Bond, and that includes Craig.

    Watch The Offence or The Hill, and you'll see a masterclass in acting. Connery's work after Bond is a difficult one to beat. Sure, he did some forgettable crap in the 70's and 80's, but The Man who would be King is a stone cold classic. The Untouchables also gave Connery his Oscar too. Craig still hasn't won one of them yet.

    Throw in The Rock, Hunt for Red October, The Name of the Rose, Robin and Marion, Indiana Jones, etc. and that is some body of work to beat.

    Even when Connery has a bit part like Highlander, A Bridge Too Far or Time Bandits, his performance shines through and ends up being the most memorable thing about that movie.

    +1

    Connery is the only movie star to transcend from the Bond franchise and have a pretty big career outside of Bond. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan have had respectable careers post-Bond , but certainly nothing on the same level as Connery.

    Craig may have a future with the KNIVES OUT franchise, with the first being a sleeper hit, so his work is already cut out for him in his first step towards post-Bond.

    I think Craig will have a career outside of Bond similar to what Brosnan and Moore had. Fairly respectable, decent, but will not reach the same legacy status as Connery.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I think Craig would ultimately be comfortable knowing he won’t headline blockbusters like Connery. Prior to Bond he was mainly known as a character actor, and he’ll probably just continue doing that post-Bond. Get an Oscar, maybe. But I don’t see him doing something like THE ROCK in his 60s.
  • Posts: 3,275
    I think Craig would ultimately be comfortable knowing he won’t headline blockbusters like Connery. Prior to Bond he was mainly known as a character actor, and he’ll probably just continue doing that post-Bond. Get an Oscar, maybe. But I don’t see him doing something like THE ROCK in his 60s.

    Yes I agree. He is very good in a supporting role, like Road to Perdition and Munich, before he became Bond.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    It was more fun in the Brosnan era as the films were in the vein of the past Bond films, and made regularly. Now we have Daniel Craig who has changed the tone of the series (a new rebooted story arc, taking it "seriously") and has made a film every six years.

    Zl1m7sg.gif
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited February 2020 Posts: 13,882
    It was more fun in the Brosnan era as the films were in the vein of the past Bond films, and made regularly. Now we have Daniel Craig who has changed the tone of the series (a new rebooted story arc, taking it "seriously") and has made a film every six years.

    It's not quite 6 years yet.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I never understood the complaints over the reboot "undoing" the previous timeline when it barely even was one in the first place. The first 20 entries were basically standalone films with no connective tissue. Any references to past films was an extreme rarity, like bringing up Tracy. So if Bond's past adventures were treated as inconsequential in the subsequent films in the first 20, why did it matter that CR reboot thus "undo" the past at all? It's not like the events of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER heavily informed the story of LICENCE TO KILL, and "erasing" those films meant CR lost something.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    It was more fun in the Brosnan era as the films were in the vein of the past Bond films, and made regularly. Now we have Daniel Craig who has changed the tone of the series (a new rebooted story arc, taking it "seriously") and has made a film every six years.

    Craig has been Bond for 30 years? Damn. I must have accidentally swallowed a bottle of Xanax after CR.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    It was more fun in the Brosnan era as the films were in the vein of the past Bond films, and made regularly. Now we have Daniel Craig who has changed the tone of the series (a new rebooted story arc, taking it "seriously") and has made a film every six years.

    Craig has been Bond for 30 years? Damn. I must have accidentally swallowed a bottle of Xanax after CR.

    Mine was valium. :-?
  • Posts: 6,727
    The Brossa Era was NEVER fun for me!!
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Getafix wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I have said this before on other topics, but seeing as this seems to have almost become a Brosnan Vs Craig thread, I shall put it here too.

    There era's (well Craig's so far) have a fair bit of symmetry to them. Both have a a fantastic film (GE+CR) which happen to be there debut's. Both have had a good solid film, that have at equal points either been overrated or underrated by fandom (TND+SF) and both have had two fair to crap efforts (TWINE, DAD, QOS, SP).

    Now, the symmetry doesn't end here. Both of their first films where some measure of a reboot, albeit GE was a softer one. And by far, both actors best efforts.

    Their second respective films both had huge script problems and writers strikes to deal with, and ended up being action heavy.

    Their third films, both tried to scale back and focus on the more introspective elements of the character.

    Both of their fourth efforts ended up tonally and creatively messy, as Pierce himself said 'neither fish, nor fowl'. Both with a villain who is essentially two people in one, and both with a personal embitterment with Bond from the past. Also, both films are largely reviled by most of the fan base.

    Interesting but any of Craig's 4 outings so far trumps any of Brosnans.

    No comparison. Like Coke and supermarket own brand cola.

    @Getafix I cant wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I think GE is better than three of Craig's films, maybe even on par with CR. And, for me at least, QOS is at least as disappointing as any of the weaker Brosnan films.

    There is no question that Craig's era has attracted a different calibre of people in front, and behind the camera's, but that hasn't always translated into enjoyment.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I have said this before on other topics, but seeing as this seems to have almost become a Brosnan Vs Craig thread, I shall put it here too.

    There era's (well Craig's so far) have a fair bit of symmetry to them. Both have a a fantastic film (GE+CR) which happen to be there debut's. Both have had a good solid film, that have at equal points either been overrated or underrated by fandom (TND+SF) and both have had two fair to crap efforts (TWINE, DAD, QOS, SP).

    Now, the symmetry doesn't end here. Both of their first films where some measure of a reboot, albeit GE was a softer one. And by far, both actors best efforts.

    Their second respective films both had huge script problems and writers strikes to deal with, and ended up being action heavy.

    Their third films, both tried to scale back and focus on the more introspective elements of the character.

    Both of their fourth efforts ended up tonally and creatively messy, as Pierce himself said 'neither fish, nor fowl'. Both with a villain who is essentially two people in one, and both with a personal embitterment with Bond from the past. Also, both films are largely reviled by most of the fan base.

    Interesting but any of Craig's 4 outings so far trumps any of Brosnans.

    No comparison. Like Coke and supermarket own brand cola.

    @Getafix I cant wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I think GE is better than three of Craig's films, maybe even on par with CR. And, for me at least, QOS is at least as disappointing as any of the weaker Brosnan films.

    There is no question that Craig's era has attracted a different calibre of people in front, and behind the camera's, but that hasn't always translated into enjoyment.

    There have been "very serious" Bondmovies before Craig's run.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Roadphill wrote: »
    I have said this before on other topics, but seeing as this seems to have almost become a Brosnan Vs Craig thread, I shall put it here too.

    There era's (well Craig's so far) have a fair bit of symmetry to them. Both have a a fantastic film (GE+CR) which happen to be there debut's. Both have had a good solid film, that have at equal points either been overrated or underrated by fandom (TND+SF) and both have had two fair to crap efforts (TWINE, DAD, QOS, SP).

    Now, the symmetry doesn't end here. Both of their first films where some measure of a reboot, albeit GE was a softer one. And by far, both actors best efforts.

    Their second respective films both had huge script problems and writers strikes to deal with, and ended up being action heavy.

    Their third films, both tried to scale back and focus on the more introspective elements of the character.

    Both of their fourth efforts ended up tonally and creatively messy, as Pierce himself said 'neither fish, nor fowl'. Both with a villain who is essentially two people in one, and both with a personal embitterment with Bond from the past. Also, both films are largely reviled by most of the fan base.

    Interesting but any of Craig's 4 outings so far trumps any of Brosnans.

    No comparison. Like Coke and supermarket own brand cola.

    @Getafix I cant wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I think GE is better than three of Craig's films, maybe even on par with CR. And, for me at least, QOS is at least as disappointing as any of the weaker Brosnan films.

    There is no question that Craig's era has attracted a different calibre of people in front, and behind the camera's, but that hasn't always translated into enjoyment.

    There have been "very serious" Bondmovies before Craig's run.

    Of course, and some of them are excellent. FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO and LTK are all 'vey serious' Bond movies, and excellent ones at that. That wasn't really what I was getting at, though. I was talking the era as a whole, rather than a film by film basis.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    Oh I feel they are on the same level acting skill wise. Craig is more stoic and does not show a wide variety of emotions in his acting. Craig is boosted by added makeup showing blood, his battle scars, tattered clothing, etc.

    Outside of that last fight with 006 the artists never had Brosnan have blood and such on him.

    Brosnan is on the same level as Craig at acting, my God you gave me a good laugh with that.

    I forgot being smarmy and cheesy was an acting quality.

    Skill wise you kill me, Brosnan was all surface, Craig acts Pierce off the screen.

    Not since Connery has there been an actor in the role so comfortable in his own skin from the get go.

    In terms of Bond performances, yes.

    But if we are speaking generally, Brosnan is a very capable actor and his resumé is filled with many extremely good performances in different genres.

    Craig does too. They're both good.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    That's always cited as a cold moment for Brosnan, but I never bought the idea that he's "cold" in it. Given how the emotions are heightened in the scene, especially with Brosnan's performance, it's more hot blooded than anything. He even goes to her corpse to mourn her looking regretful of what he had to do.

    I think Brosnan's coldest moment is in bits nobody seems to bring up, like him knocking out Xenia swiftly "sweet dreams". He's such a dick in that moment, it's wonderful. Also shooting Davidov and making a joke that's enough to make him grin "he was buried with work".

    Shooting an unarmed woman is cold regardless of the emotions running through the scene, I feel. She could have easily been incapacitated, but he chose to kill her.

    I do like that moment with Xenia you mentioned, though. A good example.

    Our Friends In The North negates anything Brosnan has done, it blows away any other actor who's played the role.

    Also I maintain that DC will have by far the most interesting and exciting career of anyone else who's played the role after NTTD.

    Not sure I agree with this. Connery still stands head and shoulders above anyone else who played Bond, and that includes Craig.

    Watch The Offence or The Hill, and you'll see a masterclass in acting. Connery's work after Bond is a difficult one to beat. Sure, he did some forgettable crap in the 70's and 80's, but The Man who would be King is a stone cold classic. The Untouchables also gave Connery his Oscar too. Craig still hasn't won one of them yet.

    Throw in The Rock, Hunt for Red October, The Name of the Rose, Robin and Marion, Indiana Jones, etc. and that is some body of work to beat.

    Even when Connery has a bit part like Highlander, A Bridge Too Far or Time Bandits, his performance shines through and ends up being the most memorable thing about that movie.


    I'm talking about acting, the ability to be a chameleon, inhabit different types of roles, sorry Connery really can't do this, he coasts on his charisma and star quality, there are exceptions but Connery has never done anything to equal the performance Craig puts in for Our Friends In The North.

    Isn't it enough he is regarded as the bonafide Bond, the blueprint that all have to be compared to who inhabit the role?

    Connery is more like what Pacino became someone who is a lot of the time playing an extension of their own personality, hugely enjoyable to watch when on form but they aren't fooling us they are stepping out of their own skin and becoming something totally different.

    He isn't a character actor supreme, Craig has shown this countless times, also as much as I like Malone in Untouchables, please that was one of those we need to give him one now moments.

    No one is denying the star quality that Connery exudes but trying to defend he is a better actor across the board than Craig, sorry I can't buy that.

    It is like when Moore fans try to make out he's a subtle actor and he is much more varied than he appears. Again Rog is adept at playing his Bond and does it effortlessly.

    Also he proves that this isn't something that anyone can do, we only need to look at Brosnan to see that. Though making him out to be some kind of subtle performer that is overlooked is like me trying to say that Craig is the most charming and light footed Bond of the series.

    There is plenty of proof out there to show that Craig is the most versatile performer who has inhabited the role and also he is the most assured and confident actor in a varied amount of roles since Connery.

    Benoit Blanc shows what Craig is capable of, now we know he can do comic timing, not take himself too seriously, Bond is just one element to this very talented actor.

    I also don't imagine we'll see Craig clinging onto the Bond style roles like Connery, Moore and Brosnan are all guilty of.

    Trying to be the tough guy with a gun, turning up in roles that remind you of them in Bond. I can pretty much say Craig will definitely be avoiding them.

    Craig's previous output already showed he was capable of variety roles, the actors previous with maybe the exception of Dalton just hadn't displayed any of that.

    Connery is king of Bond no doubt and very very unlikely to be unseated but a better actor than Craig which my original point was making, sorry no, star quality and acting prowess are 2 different things.

    I'm certainly not saying Craig exudes charisma and the level of star quality that Connery he does but acting that is a totally different story.

    He certainly knows how to act but a craftsman a subtle and varied performer sorry no.

    He has given us all endless amounts of entertainment playing the character that is Sean Connery.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    It was more fun in the Brosnan era as the films were in the vein of the past Bond films, and made regularly. Now we have Daniel Craig who has changed the tone of the series (a new rebooted story arc, taking it "seriously") and has made a film every six years.

    Craig has been Bond for 30 years? Damn. I must have accidentally swallowed a bottle of Xanax after CR.

    Mine was valium. :-?

    Either way, the time seems to have gone by quickly.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    It was more fun in the Brosnan era as the films were in the vein of the past Bond films, and made regularly. Now we have Daniel Craig who has changed the tone of the series (a new rebooted story arc, taking it "seriously") and has made a film every six years.

    Craig has been Bond for 30 years? Damn. I must have accidentally swallowed a bottle of Xanax after CR.

    Mine was valium. :-?

    Either way, the time seems to have gone by quickly.

    Quite so. :-?
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.
  • Posts: 3,275
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    Oh I feel they are on the same level acting skill wise. Craig is more stoic and does not show a wide variety of emotions in his acting. Craig is boosted by added makeup showing blood, his battle scars, tattered clothing, etc.

    Outside of that last fight with 006 the artists never had Brosnan have blood and such on him.

    Brosnan is on the same level as Craig at acting, my God you gave me a good laugh with that.

    I forgot being smarmy and cheesy was an acting quality.

    Skill wise you kill me, Brosnan was all surface, Craig acts Pierce off the screen.

    Not since Connery has there been an actor in the role so comfortable in his own skin from the get go.

    In terms of Bond performances, yes.

    But if we are speaking generally, Brosnan is a very capable actor and his resumé is filled with many extremely good performances in different genres.

    Craig does too. They're both good.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    That's always cited as a cold moment for Brosnan, but I never bought the idea that he's "cold" in it. Given how the emotions are heightened in the scene, especially with Brosnan's performance, it's more hot blooded than anything. He even goes to her corpse to mourn her looking regretful of what he had to do.

    I think Brosnan's coldest moment is in bits nobody seems to bring up, like him knocking out Xenia swiftly "sweet dreams". He's such a dick in that moment, it's wonderful. Also shooting Davidov and making a joke that's enough to make him grin "he was buried with work".

    Shooting an unarmed woman is cold regardless of the emotions running through the scene, I feel. She could have easily been incapacitated, but he chose to kill her.

    I do like that moment with Xenia you mentioned, though. A good example.

    Our Friends In The North negates anything Brosnan has done, it blows away any other actor who's played the role.

    Also I maintain that DC will have by far the most interesting and exciting career of anyone else who's played the role after NTTD.

    Not sure I agree with this. Connery still stands head and shoulders above anyone else who played Bond, and that includes Craig.

    Watch The Offence or The Hill, and you'll see a masterclass in acting. Connery's work after Bond is a difficult one to beat. Sure, he did some forgettable crap in the 70's and 80's, but The Man who would be King is a stone cold classic. The Untouchables also gave Connery his Oscar too. Craig still hasn't won one of them yet.

    Throw in The Rock, Hunt for Red October, The Name of the Rose, Robin and Marion, Indiana Jones, etc. and that is some body of work to beat.

    Even when Connery has a bit part like Highlander, A Bridge Too Far or Time Bandits, his performance shines through and ends up being the most memorable thing about that movie.


    I'm talking about acting, the ability to be a chameleon, inhabit different types of roles, sorry Connery really can't do this, he coasts on his charisma and star quality, there are exceptions but Connery has never done anything to equal the performance Craig puts in for Our Friends In The North.

    Isn't it enough he is regarded as the bonafide Bond, the blueprint that all have to be compared to who inhabit the role?

    Connery is more like what Pacino became someone who is a lot of the time playing an extension of their own personality, hugely enjoyable to watch when on form but they aren't fooling us they are stepping out of their own skin and becoming something totally different.

    He isn't a character actor supreme, Craig has shown this countless times, also as much as I like Malone in Untouchables, please that was one of those we need to give him one now moments.

    No one is denying the star quality that Connery exudes but trying to defend he is a better actor across the board than Craig, sorry I can't buy that.

    It is like when Moore fans try to make out he's a subtle actor and he is much more varied than he appears. Again Rog is adept at playing his Bond and does it effortlessly.

    Also he proves that this isn't something that anyone can do, we only need to look at Brosnan to see that. Though making him out to be some kind of subtle performer that is overlooked is like me trying to say that Craig is the most charming and light footed Bond of the series.

    There is plenty of proof out there to show that Craig is the most versatile performer who has inhabited the role and also he is the most assured and confident actor in a varied amount of roles since Connery.

    Benoit Blanc shows what Craig is capable of, now we know he can do comic timing, not take himself too seriously, Bond is just one element to this very talented actor.

    I also don't imagine we'll see Craig clinging onto the Bond style roles like Connery, Moore and Brosnan are all guilty of.

    Trying to be the tough guy with a gun, turning up in roles that remind you of them in Bond. I can pretty much say Craig will definitely be avoiding them.

    Craig's previous output already showed he was capable of variety roles, the actors previous with maybe the exception of Dalton just hadn't displayed any of that.

    Connery is king of Bond no doubt and very very unlikely to be unseated but a better actor than Craig which my original point was making, sorry no, star quality and acting prowess are 2 different things.

    I'm certainly not saying Craig exudes charisma and the level of star quality that Connery he does but acting that is a totally different story.

    He certainly knows how to act but a craftsman a subtle and varied performer sorry no.

    He has given us all endless amounts of entertainment playing the character that is Sean Connery.

    Again, I'll ask. Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?
  • Posts: 3,275
    peter wrote: »
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.

    Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    peter wrote: »
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.

    Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?

    ;))
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,255
    peter wrote: »
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.

    Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?

    Of course I have-- and I love Connery in these films, and I do think that he was trying something new , especially in The Offence (Lumet's always been one of my favourite directors, right up to his death).

    But that type of film was a blip and he went back to playing Connery for the rest of his career (it's the same thing with Stallone: did you see Rocky and Cop Land-- he was genuinely playing something outside of his archetype, but then went back to playing Stallone The Movie Star again).

    Connery was a charismatic movie star, and the bulk of his career represents this trait (larger than life, he could play an Irish cop or a Russian sub captain and breeze across the screen not embodying a character (or an accent), but extending and projecting his personality (which in itself was larger than life)).

    Craig's method is far different and he tries to dig into a character and build something from there. My 18 year old son noted after Knives out that Craig even moved differently as Benoit Blanc, and it was a performance that's a far cry from his physicality as James Bond.

    I have to agree.

    Connery is like Tom Cruise (although Connery was far more charming, sophisticated, intelligent and charismatic in every way), in that they play themselves in a multitude of different films. Sean was always Sean. Tom is always Tom. Which is good enough for me, and like I said, I happily plunked down my $$$ to see Connery in anything he did (Tom Cruise on the other hand... not so much).

    Daniel Craig is the definition of a character actor.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    peter wrote: »
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.

    Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?

    I've seen the Offence ( a few years back the last time) and The Hill a long time ago and yes Connery does come out of his normal box in these. I believe it was part of his deal for coming back for DAF to do this and with Lumet again, they obviously liked working together as we also have Murder On The Orient Express, all quality work from Sean. The Anderson Tapes and Family business not really in the same league.

    Connery wasn't stretching himself in those other 2 like he did with the other 3, especially The Hill and The Offence.

    Sidney Lumet was one of the masters, so I can imagine Connery loved working with him. Although unfortunately as he got older he accepted his fate and the likes of Rising Sun, The Rock and Entrapment became his bread and butter.

    Trying to rip off Dead Poets Society with Finding Forrester was ill advised, Connery is no Robin Williams.

    I'm not denying that Connery can't be compelling but varied and a chameleon, these are 2 roles in his whole CV, Craig was doing varied work years before he became Bond.

    Craig has had the advantage of being an actor of acclaim before he became Bond, he had an impressive CV.

    Look I don't go through Craig's career and say there is 2 moments he was displayed as much star quality as Connery, these are 2 films.

    Can't it be enough that he is who he is, Connery will never be one of the all time great actors, I'm not saying that Craig is or will be, though his skill and varied roles show that he definitely is a better all round actor than Connery.

    I do think sometimes think that because he is the first Bond and regularly voted the best that he can't do no wrong is some fans eyes and they make him out to be something more than he is.



  • Posts: 3,333
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    Oh I feel they are on the same level acting skill wise. Craig is more stoic and does not show a wide variety of emotions in his acting. Craig is boosted by added makeup showing blood, his battle scars, tattered clothing, etc.

    Outside of that last fight with 006 the artists never had Brosnan have blood and such on him.

    Brosnan is on the same level as Craig at acting, my God you gave me a good laugh with that.

    I forgot being smarmy and cheesy was an acting quality.

    Skill wise you kill me, Brosnan was all surface, Craig acts Pierce off the screen.

    Not since Connery has there been an actor in the role so comfortable in his own skin from the get go.

    In terms of Bond performances, yes.

    But if we are speaking generally, Brosnan is a very capable actor and his resumé is filled with many extremely good performances in different genres.

    Craig does too. They're both good.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    That's always cited as a cold moment for Brosnan, but I never bought the idea that he's "cold" in it. Given how the emotions are heightened in the scene, especially with Brosnan's performance, it's more hot blooded than anything. He even goes to her corpse to mourn her looking regretful of what he had to do.

    I think Brosnan's coldest moment is in bits nobody seems to bring up, like him knocking out Xenia swiftly "sweet dreams". He's such a dick in that moment, it's wonderful. Also shooting Davidov and making a joke that's enough to make him grin "he was buried with work".

    Shooting an unarmed woman is cold regardless of the emotions running through the scene, I feel. She could have easily been incapacitated, but he chose to kill her.

    I do like that moment with Xenia you mentioned, though. A good example.

    Our Friends In The North negates anything Brosnan has done, it blows away any other actor who's played the role.

    Also I maintain that DC will have by far the most interesting and exciting career of anyone else who's played the role after NTTD.

    Not sure I agree with this. Connery still stands head and shoulders above anyone else who played Bond, and that includes Craig.

    Watch The Offence or The Hill, and you'll see a masterclass in acting. Connery's work after Bond is a difficult one to beat. Sure, he did some forgettable crap in the 70's and 80's, but The Man who would be King is a stone cold classic. The Untouchables also gave Connery his Oscar too. Craig still hasn't won one of them yet.

    Throw in The Rock, Hunt for Red October, The Name of the Rose, Robin and Marion, Indiana Jones, etc. and that is some body of work to beat.

    Even when Connery has a bit part like Highlander, A Bridge Too Far or Time Bandits, his performance shines through and ends up being the most memorable thing about that movie.
    Thank you for mentioning those two Connery powerhouse performances @jetsetwilly. I'm guessing that @MakeshiftPython hasn't watched either The Offence or The Hill when he states that Craig's Our Friends In The North blows away any other actor who's played the role before him. @MakeshiftPython needs to remedy that and watch those 2 movies pronto, otherwise he might start believing his own ill-judged beliefs. That's not to take away Craig's own acting capabilities as I rate Craig very highly, much higher than I do Brosnan's acting chops.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Can you people give me a list of Brosnan's non Bond movies (with him in the lead) that I should watch?

    :-? :D
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited February 2020 Posts: 4,043
    bondsum wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    WhyBond wrote: »
    Brosnan was ok but nowhere near as good an actor as Craig.

    Oh I feel they are on the same level acting skill wise. Craig is more stoic and does not show a wide variety of emotions in his acting. Craig is boosted by added makeup showing blood, his battle scars, tattered clothing, etc.

    Outside of that last fight with 006 the artists never had Brosnan have blood and such on him.

    Brosnan is on the same level as Craig at acting, my God you gave me a good laugh with that.

    I forgot being smarmy and cheesy was an acting quality.

    Skill wise you kill me, Brosnan was all surface, Craig acts Pierce off the screen.

    Not since Connery has there been an actor in the role so comfortable in his own skin from the get go.

    In terms of Bond performances, yes.

    But if we are speaking generally, Brosnan is a very capable actor and his resumé is filled with many extremely good performances in different genres.

    Craig does too. They're both good.
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    To me, Pierce his "coldest" moment was shooting Elektra.

    That's always cited as a cold moment for Brosnan, but I never bought the idea that he's "cold" in it. Given how the emotions are heightened in the scene, especially with Brosnan's performance, it's more hot blooded than anything. He even goes to her corpse to mourn her looking regretful of what he had to do.

    I think Brosnan's coldest moment is in bits nobody seems to bring up, like him knocking out Xenia swiftly "sweet dreams". He's such a dick in that moment, it's wonderful. Also shooting Davidov and making a joke that's enough to make him grin "he was buried with work".

    Shooting an unarmed woman is cold regardless of the emotions running through the scene, I feel. She could have easily been incapacitated, but he chose to kill her.

    I do like that moment with Xenia you mentioned, though. A good example.

    Our Friends In The North negates anything Brosnan has done, it blows away any other actor who's played the role.

    Also I maintain that DC will have by far the most interesting and exciting career of anyone else who's played the role after NTTD.

    Not sure I agree with this. Connery still stands head and shoulders above anyone else who played Bond, and that includes Craig.

    Watch The Offence or The Hill, and you'll see a masterclass in acting. Connery's work after Bond is a difficult one to beat. Sure, he did some forgettable crap in the 70's and 80's, but The Man who would be King is a stone cold classic. The Untouchables also gave Connery his Oscar too. Craig still hasn't won one of them yet.

    Throw in The Rock, Hunt for Red October, The Name of the Rose, Robin and Marion, Indiana Jones, etc. and that is some body of work to beat.

    Even when Connery has a bit part like Highlander, A Bridge Too Far or Time Bandits, his performance shines through and ends up being the most memorable thing about that movie.
    Thank you for mentioning those two Connery powerhouse performances @jetsetwilly. I'm guessing that @MakeshiftPython hasn't watched either The Offence or The Hill when he states that Craig's Our Friends In The North blows away any other actor who's played the role before him. @MakeshiftPython needs to remedy that and watch those 2 movies pronto, otherwise he might start believing his own ill-judged beliefs. That's not to take away Craig's own acting capabilities as I rate Craig very highly, much higher than I do Brosnan's acting chops.

    Don't blame @MakeshiftPython for that comment, that was me and I've seen both films and Connery is terrific.

    Though Craig's performance in OFITN I maintain is better, that character is a real journey, yes it is TV so the actor has more time to develop the character but Connery wouldn't have been able to nail that the way Craig does.

    It takes an actor that immerses himself in the character goes skin deep and commits, Connery rarely has shown that ability.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited February 2020 Posts: 13,882
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    Can you people give me a list of Brosnan's non Bond movies (with him in the lead) that I should watch?

    :-? :D

    He was very good in The Tailor Of Panama. Probably my favourite of his films. It's like watching an oily, unscrupulous, twisted version of James Bond. It's hard not to make this sound like an atatck on Brosnan, this really isn't, but he is very good playing a slippery little shit.

    What's the film where he has a porn 'stache, and he free climbs up the side of a building. I watched it on tv once, never seen it on again. I think there's also a boat chase through the canals of Amsterdam.
  • Posts: 3,275
    Shardlake wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.

    Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?

    I've seen the Offence ( a few years back the last time) and The Hill a long time ago and yes Connery does come out of his normal box in these. I believe it was part of his deal for coming back for DAF to do this and with Lumet again, they obviously liked working together as we also have Murder On The Orient Express, all quality work from Sean. The Anderson Tapes and Family business not really in the same league.

    Connery wasn't stretching himself in those other 2 like he did with the other 3, especially The Hill and The Offence.

    Sidney Lumet was one of the masters, so I can imagine Connery loved working with him. Although unfortunately as he got older he accepted his fate and the likes of Rising Sun, The Rock and Entrapment became his bread and butter.

    Trying to rip off Dead Poets Society with Finding Forrester was ill advised, Connery is no Robin Williams.

    I'm not denying that Connery can't be compelling but varied and a chameleon, these are 2 roles in his whole CV, Craig was doing varied work years before he became Bond.

    Craig has had the advantage of being an actor of acclaim before he became Bond, he had an impressive CV.

    Look I don't go through Craig's career and say there is 2 moments he was displayed as much star quality as Connery, these are 2 films.

    Can't it be enough that he is who he is, Connery will never be one of the all time great actors, I'm not saying that Craig is or will be, though his skill and varied roles show that he definitely is a better all round actor than Connery.

    I do think sometimes think that because he is the first Bond and regularly voted the best that he can't do no wrong is some fans eyes and they make him out to be something more than he is.



    Fair enough. You've seen Connery at his best then, in terms of performance. If you still think Craig beats these performances then its down to personal opinion. Let's see if Craig manages to bag himself an Oscar too whilst he's at it.... ;)

    Another Connery performance worth watching is a TV mini series called Male of the Species. Connery was superb in that too.
  • Posts: 3,275
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Very well said @Shardlake -- Connery will be unmatched in oozing charisma with every word uttered, every movement made. He is one of the most enjoyable screen presence of all time.

    And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)

    Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.

    Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?

    ;))

    Have you seen either of these films?
Sign In or Register to comment.