Depends who you ask. For diehards like us, no one is forgotten. For the general public, it's probably George and Tim. Many people would say, "He did a Bond movie?" regarding both of those guys. I have no evidence to back this up, but it seems a reasonable hunch.
Love TWINE, love Brosnan in it and adore the suits. He's Bond in this film -{
Yeah, he carried Sophie Marceau in that scene.
I don't know about the suits, I love the fabrics, ties, etc. but I don't like how they sometimes look on Brozzer.
if so, only because someone else is the current Bond, and his style contrasts so radically to Brosnan's
if the next actor also has a radically different style, then a latter generation will be calling Craig old-fashioned and forgettable
nobody will ever forget Connery, as he defined the role, and Moore actually seemed a bit forgotten until Craig made us all nostalgic for the days of lighthearted humour and optimism
I was thinking we could easily compare and contrast the two actor's respective films, as so far Craig hasn't even started his fifth
comparisons: Goldeneye & Casino Royale: both use the same director, both introduce new Bond actors to a new generation, including the requisite Bond-at-the-casino sequence Tomorrow Never Dies & Quantum of Solace: in each case, hard action overload at the expense of story the World is Not Enough & Skyfall: each have more story than their previous respective entry, and get a bit melodramatic, both of course feature M in peril Die Another Day & SPECTRE: both large scale epics that call back to midperiod Moore, both fall apart, well short of their ambitions, especially in the last half
contrasts:
generally speaking, the Brosnan films were the result of the Brocolli kids trying really really hard to replicate what their father had already done
whereas the Craig films are the result of deliberately taking a radically different approach
if so, only because someone else is the current Bond, and his style contrasts so radically to Brosnan's
if the next actor also has a radically different style, then a latter generation will be calling Craig old-fashioned and forgettable
nobody will ever forget Connery, as he defined the role, and Moore actually seemed a bit forgotten until Craig made us all nostalgic for the days of lighthearted humour and optimism
I was thinking we could easily compare and contrast the two actor's respective films, as so far Craig hasn't even started his fifth
comparisons: Goldeneye & Casino Royale: both use the same director, both introduce new Bond actors to a new generation, including the requisite Bond-at-the-casino sequence Tomorrow Never Dies & Quantum of Solace: in each case, hard action overload at the expense of story the World is Not Enough & Skyfall: each have more story than their previous respective entry, and get a bit melodramatic, both of course feature M in peril Die Another Day & SPECTRE: both large scale epics that call back to midperiod Moore, both fall apart, well short of their ambitions, especially in the last half
contrasts:
generally speaking, the Brosnan films were the result of the Brocolli kids trying really really hard to replicate what their father had already done
whereas the Craig films are the result of deliberately taking a radically different approach
+1 to everything, wonderful summary
I always have said the Craig era is not at all different to Brosnan's nor are the films better.
The similarities are almost eerie really. For avid Craig fans that is hard to swallow naturally.
In 10 years this current era will be remembered mostly for the long gaps between films, the big 50th Anniversary splash and two films out of five that were well received. Of course there is the very unlikely possibility Bond 25 will be some kind of miracle and be viewed as another GF, TSWLM or GE. Highly doubt it though.
Brozza will never be the forgotten Bond for me. He had two great films (GE and TND) and two solid ones (TWINE and DAD). All thats missing is Everything Or Nothing in 2004.
-{
Brosnan was a a quality Bond and in my opinion GE was a really good film, easily the best of his four. Casino Royale is easily the best of Craig's films in my opinion and of course both films had the same director.
I'm hoping Pierce will receive a newfound appreciation once the Craig era ends. He was the popular choice to play Bond. After Tim there was an overwhelmingly immediate audience approval on his casting as if he should have been Bond all along. Audiences really wanted the cinematic Bond back after LTK, the 6 year gap, and Pierce delivered. I personally wish there was more support for a return to classic tradition in the Bond films.
I don't think Brosnan is a forgotten Bond, but I do think that Craig's reinvention of the role -- bringing back Connery's and Lazenby's mojo while making us pay more attention to the man than the suit -- makes Brosnan's incarnation seem pretty one-dimensional by contrast. Despite their occasional dramatic pretensions, the Brosnan Bonds seem pretty light and plastic by comparison. And Brosnan's looks are so modern cliche about what Bond should look like -- more like a videogame or book cover incarnation -- there's nothing surprising about him. For all the ballyhoo from outraged Bond fans about Craig's looks, he had to genuinely act the role out in order to make people believe he was the part. He did such an outstanding job, that he now owns the part rather than merely gets by on his looks.
To me Brosnan may not be the best Bond, but he certainly is the quintessential Bond. Without Brosnan's there would be no Craig's Bond. Their portrayals may be different, but it was Brosnan who invented the post-cold war Bond. Craig draws on that heavily, and Spectre, after a period of trying "something different" just for the sake of it, was an attempt to return to an earlier vision of Bond, something akin to both Moore and Brosnan.
I don't think Brosnan is a forgotten Bond, but I do think that Craig's reinvention of the role -- bringing back Connery's and Lazenby's mojo while making us pay more attention to the man than the suit -- makes Brosnan's incarnation seem pretty one-dimensional by contrast. Despite their occasional dramatic pretensions, the Brosnan Bonds seem pretty light and plastic by comparison. And Brosnan's looks are so modern cliche about what Bond should look like -- more like a videogame or book cover incarnation -- there's nothing surprising about him. For all the ballyhoo from outraged Bond fans about Craig's looks, he had to genuinely act the role out in order to make people believe he was the part. He did such an outstanding job, that he now owns the part rather than merely gets by on his looks.
I thought Doug Liman would be a great Bond director way back when he did some indie film, Go I think it was, not sure, he has a lightness of touch. I'd love him to do Bond, though he's done some crap like Mr and Mrs Smith so I'm not sure.
Brosnan never really did a TV classic, don't underestimate that. Most of us grew up with Bond thru the TV not the cinema but GE is a movie classic but is too violent for kids viewing and the others should have occupied that Bank Holiday Monday slot but just were never quite good enough to do so.
Craig's films don't either, being too grim and violent, but they do have critical kudos and credibility now. I don't know why ITV never schedules CR to be followed by QoS on a midnight showing, but there you are.
I wonder if SP is due for a Christmas TV showing this year?
Pierce is underrated I think. The 'problem' with his movies is not Pierce, but more the material he had to work with, because they had a lot of flaws:
- No memorable villains
- No memorable Bond girls (for the right reasons that is)
- No memorable locations for most of the movies
- No real classic moments that really stand out in the Bond history. Maybe the Tank chase.
But Pierce? Pierce was great. When I think of James Bond, I think of a guy I would want to be. Only 2 really had that for me: Connery and Pierce. They had the suaveness that I look for in Bond. Moore was great in what he did, but I never saw a secret agent in him or an action hero. Dalton lacked the sense of humor and suaveness. Craig also. Lazenby looked the part, but his acting wasn't that great to put it mildly.
But Pierce, he looked like he was enjoying himself and still had great moments where he meant business. Specifically in the underrated TWINE he had the look of a killer (in Bilbao specifically.) Also Pierce looked the part. No actor has looked more comfortable in a business suit probably than Pierce.
I always felt a bit sorry for Pierce. Probably no actor wanted the role more than him and has enjoyed the ride of being Bond as much as he did. But he never had the real material to make a perfect Bond movie. Or even a really great one. Which is unfortunate, because he does have the acting chops. Take a look at the tailor of Panama for instance, where you can see Pierce portraying Bond's evil twin.
I don't think Brosnan can possibly be tagged a forgotten Bond. He did four films which is a large number. He only But he was possibly a tad overrated at the time. I think he was great in his movies but two of them simply weren't up to scratch. He was no better than Dalton but did have a charisma about him and a good blend of Moore & Connery. It probably makes him a better Bond than Moore. He had more conviction and a bit of an edge, but I do think scenes like the opening of GE flying after the plane and some silliness in DAD spoilt his tenure. He never added depth to the character in the way Dalton did. He could be a bit smug at times.
It was a great decision to reboot afterwards. His 4th movie, despite huge box-office success was possibly the worst ever Bond movie. The critics and fans rightly pasted it. Although even DAD had potential and starts well. The first hour is quite good, but the 2nd half after the fencing match is a real let down, largely dire in fact. Brosnan ultimately left no legacy. His reign ended bad enough to cause a reboot and a 4-year gap.
But in the 90's he was the right man and was widely popular. A good Bond but none of his four movies are amongst the very best in the whole series. Craig and his movies have been such high quality that Brosnan's looking a lesser Bond now than people perceived him at the time. True fans don't forget any contribution from the lead actors, but casual fans are more inclined to disregard older films or only have time for the current fashion (Craig in Bond's case). The 90's films won't impress as much as the likes of Casino Royale & Skyfall, and rightly so. They're nowhere near as good, but my opinion for that is not because they are 90's or Brosnan's rubbish. That's not the case. It's just that a better Bond has replaced him and the new style of films and stories & scripts are way better than anything we saw in Brosnan's tenure.
But even Craig had a blip. QOS was dreadful by good Bond standards and equates to one of the worst Bond films..terribly bland and mundane. too short and even Craig's performance is his least best of the four. But Brosnan is level on 4 movies with Craig so far. No way a forgotten Bond but perhaps the Bond who most fans watch back and rate his era as a tad disappointing now. That's understandable I think. For me I never much liked TND or DAD anyway..However I was more impressed by TWINE than many fans. I rate it as a good entry in the series.
The Brosnan era never stepped it up. It starts quite strong with GE, then dips a bit with TND. Improves a bit for TWINE then dips for DAD. It just never took things to a new level. Most regard Goldeneye as Brosnan's best. Possibly it is but for huge Brosnan fans I'd have to counter that by saying that many other Bond films rank above it. It's down to personal choice but I could name 10 or 12 easily that I prefer than Goldeneye. Brosnan did his job well but won't go down as the best Bond. Ironically some reviews said Dalton was the best Bond since Connery, then Brosnan came along and was often tagged the best Bond since Connery. Craig's also had this written about him, except with Craig you also read people say HE is the best Bond now. Craig genuinely seems to be regarded as Connery's equal now, possibly the best too. It's a debate which will always get different responses.
No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs No paragraphs
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
- No memorable Bond girls (for the right reasons that is)
I think the bad-girls are very memorable in Brosnan's films.
Xenia Onatopp, Elektra King, Miranda Frost. All great characters, well acted.
Perhaps the problem is the formulaic need to add a good-girl character, to survive to the last scene and set up the obligatory bad pun? The World is Not Enough for example, were it done in the Craig era, would not have even required Christmas Jones and she seems to be most people's biggest issue with that otherwise superior film.
Same with Jinx, who really serves no plot purpose. The mystery of the mole should have been a bigger part of Die Another Day's plot, Miranda could have been a much bigger character.
- No memorable Bond girls (for the right reasons that is)
I think the bad-girls are very memorable in Brosnan's films.
Xenia Onatopp, Elektra King, Miranda Frost. All great characters, well acted.
Perhaps the problem is the formulaic need to add a good-girl character, to survive to the last scene and set up the obligatory bad pun? The World is Not Enough for example, were it done in the Craig era, would not have even required Christmas Jones and she seems to be most people's biggest issue with that otherwise superior film.
Same with Jinx, who really serves no plot purpose. The mystery of the mole should have been a bigger part of Die Another Day's plot, Miranda could have been a much bigger character.
About the last part, I could say the same for Elektra King but at least her scene being revealed as a villain(ness) was done properly.
Agree that Xenia and Electra where great. But the good girls where extremely bland for Pierce. TWINE missed besides a strong Bond girl also exotic locations, as in locations you would love to visit. It therefore kind of missed a bit the glamour that I want to see in a Bond movie. Which is a shame, because it is probably Pierce's strongest Bond movie from a story and acting perspective.
Agree that Xenia and Electra where great. But the good girls where extremely bland for Pierce. TWINE missed besides a strong Bond girl also exotic locations, as in locations you would love to visit. It therefore kind of missed a bit the glamour that I want to see in a Bond movie. Which is a shame, because it is probably Pierce's strongest Bond movie from a story and acting perspective.
I find the good girls to be more annoying than anything else. The first three don't like Bond and want to give him a hard time, each taking a different amount of time to warm up to Bond, and the last two are two of the most painful Bond characters ever. Many classic Bond girls need time to warm up to Bond, but they're not usually frustrating characters like all of Brosnan's good girls.
Agree that Xenia and Electra where great. But the good girls where extremely bland for Pierce. TWINE missed besides a strong Bond girl also exotic locations, as in locations you would love to visit. It therefore kind of missed a bit the glamour that I want to see in a Bond movie. Which is a shame, because it is probably Pierce's strongest Bond movie from a story and acting perspective.
I find the good girls to be more annoying than anything else. The first three don't like Bond and want to give him a hard time, each taking a different amount of time to warm up to Bond, and the last two are two of the most painful Bond characters ever. Many classic Bond girls need time to warm up to Bond, but they're not usually frustrating characters like all of Brosnan's good girls.
I love Brosnan as Bond. I grew up with him as Bond and he really fit the part well. He is the suave Bond.
The problem is that apart from Goldeneye, he doesn't really have any memorable films. Connery has Goldfinger and From Russia with Love, Moore has The Spy Who Loved Me and Live and Let Die, Craig has Casino Royale and Skyfall.
The World is Not Enough and especially Tomorrow Never Dies heavily emphasize the action sequences. Die Another Day is mostly over-the-top silliness. That only leaves Goldeneye, which is a great film, but overshadowed by Craig's films and the other classics.
Comments
I don't know about the suits, I love the fabrics, ties, etc. but I don't like how they sometimes look on Brozzer.
if the next actor also has a radically different style, then a latter generation will be calling Craig old-fashioned and forgettable
nobody will ever forget Connery, as he defined the role, and Moore actually seemed a bit forgotten until Craig made us all nostalgic for the days of lighthearted humour and optimism
I was thinking we could easily compare and contrast the two actor's respective films, as so far Craig hasn't even started his fifth
comparisons:
Goldeneye & Casino Royale: both use the same director, both introduce new Bond actors to a new generation, including the requisite Bond-at-the-casino sequence
Tomorrow Never Dies & Quantum of Solace: in each case, hard action overload at the expense of story
the World is Not Enough & Skyfall: each have more story than their previous respective entry, and get a bit melodramatic, both of course feature M in peril
Die Another Day & SPECTRE: both large scale epics that call back to midperiod Moore, both fall apart, well short of their ambitions, especially in the last half
contrasts:
generally speaking, the Brosnan films were the result of the Brocolli kids trying really really hard to replicate what their father had already done
whereas the Craig films are the result of deliberately taking a radically different approach
+1 to everything, wonderful summary
I always have said the Craig era is not at all different to Brosnan's nor are the films better.
The similarities are almost eerie really. For avid Craig fans that is hard to swallow naturally.
In 10 years this current era will be remembered mostly for the long gaps between films, the big 50th Anniversary splash and two films out of five that were well received. Of course there is the very unlikely possibility Bond 25 will be some kind of miracle and be viewed as another GF, TSWLM or GE. Highly doubt it though.
-{
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/09/07/pierce-brosnan-says-hell-never-play-james-bond-again-thats-another-mans-job.amp.html
Quote: Many fans still recognize Pierce Brosnan as 007 and he’s proud of the title.
Yeah, it's kind of a non-story, but the main message suits this thread like a proper gun barrel suits James Bond.
{[] {[] {[] Me too!
The most horrifying part of that article is that there'll be a "Mamma Mia" sequel... X-(
I thought Doug Liman would be a great Bond director way back when he did some indie film, Go I think it was, not sure, he has a lightness of touch. I'd love him to do Bond, though he's done some crap like Mr and Mrs Smith so I'm not sure.
Brosnan never really did a TV classic, don't underestimate that. Most of us grew up with Bond thru the TV not the cinema but GE is a movie classic but is too violent for kids viewing and the others should have occupied that Bank Holiday Monday slot but just were never quite good enough to do so.
Craig's films don't either, being too grim and violent, but they do have critical kudos and credibility now. I don't know why ITV never schedules CR to be followed by QoS on a midnight showing, but there you are.
I wonder if SP is due for a Christmas TV showing this year?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
- No memorable villains
- No memorable Bond girls (for the right reasons that is)
- No memorable locations for most of the movies
- No real classic moments that really stand out in the Bond history. Maybe the Tank chase.
But Pierce? Pierce was great. When I think of James Bond, I think of a guy I would want to be. Only 2 really had that for me: Connery and Pierce. They had the suaveness that I look for in Bond. Moore was great in what he did, but I never saw a secret agent in him or an action hero. Dalton lacked the sense of humor and suaveness. Craig also. Lazenby looked the part, but his acting wasn't that great to put it mildly.
But Pierce, he looked like he was enjoying himself and still had great moments where he meant business. Specifically in the underrated TWINE he had the look of a killer (in Bilbao specifically.) Also Pierce looked the part. No actor has looked more comfortable in a business suit probably than Pierce.
I always felt a bit sorry for Pierce. Probably no actor wanted the role more than him and has enjoyed the ride of being Bond as much as he did. But he never had the real material to make a perfect Bond movie. Or even a really great one. Which is unfortunate, because he does have the acting chops. Take a look at the tailor of Panama for instance, where you can see Pierce portraying Bond's evil twin.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
It was a great decision to reboot afterwards. His 4th movie, despite huge box-office success was possibly the worst ever Bond movie. The critics and fans rightly pasted it. Although even DAD had potential and starts well. The first hour is quite good, but the 2nd half after the fencing match is a real let down, largely dire in fact. Brosnan ultimately left no legacy. His reign ended bad enough to cause a reboot and a 4-year gap.
But in the 90's he was the right man and was widely popular. A good Bond but none of his four movies are amongst the very best in the whole series. Craig and his movies have been such high quality that Brosnan's looking a lesser Bond now than people perceived him at the time. True fans don't forget any contribution from the lead actors, but casual fans are more inclined to disregard older films or only have time for the current fashion (Craig in Bond's case). The 90's films won't impress as much as the likes of Casino Royale & Skyfall, and rightly so. They're nowhere near as good, but my opinion for that is not because they are 90's or Brosnan's rubbish. That's not the case. It's just that a better Bond has replaced him and the new style of films and stories & scripts are way better than anything we saw in Brosnan's tenure.
But even Craig had a blip. QOS was dreadful by good Bond standards and equates to one of the worst Bond films..terribly bland and mundane. too short and even Craig's performance is his least best of the four. But Brosnan is level on 4 movies with Craig so far. No way a forgotten Bond but perhaps the Bond who most fans watch back and rate his era as a tad disappointing now. That's understandable I think. For me I never much liked TND or DAD anyway..However I was more impressed by TWINE than many fans. I rate it as a good entry in the series.
The Brosnan era never stepped it up. It starts quite strong with GE, then dips a bit with TND. Improves a bit for TWINE then dips for DAD. It just never took things to a new level. Most regard Goldeneye as Brosnan's best. Possibly it is but for huge Brosnan fans I'd have to counter that by saying that many other Bond films rank above it. It's down to personal choice but I could name 10 or 12 easily that I prefer than Goldeneye. Brosnan did his job well but won't go down as the best Bond. Ironically some reviews said Dalton was the best Bond since Connery, then Brosnan came along and was often tagged the best Bond since Connery. Craig's also had this written about him, except with Craig you also read people say HE is the best Bond now. Craig genuinely seems to be regarded as Connery's equal now, possibly the best too. It's a debate which will always get different responses.
and he did it again!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Xenia Onatopp, Elektra King, Miranda Frost. All great characters, well acted.
Perhaps the problem is the formulaic need to add a good-girl character, to survive to the last scene and set up the obligatory bad pun?
The World is Not Enough for example, were it done in the Craig era, would not have even required Christmas Jones and she seems to be most people's biggest issue with that otherwise superior film.
Same with Jinx, who really serves no plot purpose. The mystery of the mole should have been a bigger part of Die Another Day's plot, Miranda could have been a much bigger character.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
I find the good girls to be more annoying than anything else. The first three don't like Bond and want to give him a hard time, each taking a different amount of time to warm up to Bond, and the last two are two of the most painful Bond characters ever. Many classic Bond girls need time to warm up to Bond, but they're not usually frustrating characters like all of Brosnan's good girls.
I'm fine.
Thank you very much!
The man contributed four films to the franchise!
I like GE a lot, adore TND and I think TWINE is the best Bond film EVER. I won't speak of DAD, however.
He had the right look, the moves, and handled the action scenes well. I especially loved his chemistry with Teri Hatcher.
I think TWINE has possibly the nicest ending to a Bond film.
I admit that I didn't think much of some of his one-liners, but then I don't make the Bond films.
The problem is that apart from Goldeneye, he doesn't really have any memorable films. Connery has Goldfinger and From Russia with Love, Moore has The Spy Who Loved Me and Live and Let Die, Craig has Casino Royale and Skyfall.
The World is Not Enough and especially Tomorrow Never Dies heavily emphasize the action sequences. Die Another Day is mostly over-the-top silliness. That only leaves Goldeneye, which is a great film, but overshadowed by Craig's films and the other classics.
8. TSWLM 9. TMwtGG 10. AVtaK 11. SF 12. TND 13. LtK 14. NTtD
15. MR 16. LaLD 17. YOLT 18. GF 19. DN 20. SP 21. TWiNE
22. TB 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF