1

Roger Moore fucking sucks at Bond. You fail massively

Blazer on Oct 27, 2007

2

Uh, Roger Moore is the quintessential Bond - he's what made it into the image that it is today - suave and slick… He was in the most movies as well, how can you say that?

Alex Billington on Oct 27, 2007

3

Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan were the best and then Roger Moore…I won't watch Daniel Craig in any of the Bond films (including the first one he did)…He lacks the suaveness, believeability and balance Sean, Pierce and Roger were able to continue bringing to the role.

AAron on Oct 27, 2007

4

Sean Connery & Roger Moore still come to mind when i think of the best James Bond, however after a few more successful performance from Daniel Craig i think he might get to the top of list.

CreativeFilm.org on Oct 27, 2007

5

Sean C. is the best. I really enjoyed Brosnan as Bond, Craig is much more stylized but Royale was amazing. Who knew that Poker could be that interesting in a film?

Ryan on Oct 27, 2007

6

…even Sean Connery? Jeesh…let's face it…the others were great at playing James Bond…. but Connery IS James Bond.

Larry on Oct 27, 2007

7

I have to say, that when it comes to bond movies Connery brought the toughness and great one liners. Moore brought the suave. Brosnan brought both…I think when Brosnan first came out…He too had a luke warm reception, just like Craig is having. I'll give Craig another film to prove he can be bond.

Wood on Oct 27, 2007

8

BRING BACK BROSNAN….CRAIG IS NOT JAMES BOND AND NEVER WILL!

Alistair on Oct 28, 2007

9

Connery will always the original, Brosnan was also excellent but Craig make them all look like wussies. Can't wait on the next Craig 007!!!

Kenneth on Oct 28, 2007

10

craig is the best bond ever. i've been a fan of craig for a long time and was tickled when they announced craiga as bond. i loved casino royale. far and above connery i am sorry to say. and i loved connery.

mr. friday on Oct 28, 2007

11

Connery & Brosnan were the best. Stylish, mature & smart. Daniel on the other hand is rough, macho & real. He lacks the style & Royale Casino lacked the gadgetry, but the movie was more real than any other Bond movie before.

I believe Daniel is givin a new look to Bond. And since Bond is a long tradition, v need more time to c if this new image might fight Bond. I'm definitely hopin that it does.

Gdn | TD on Oct 28, 2007

12

Sean Connery - 7
Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Never Say Never Again

You have forgotten Never say never again. I know its not official but…

Raul on Oct 28, 2007

13

Pierce brosnan was a great bond, so were connery and moore, Daniel Craig is an amazing bond as well. It annoys me how people think that hes crap without even watching Casion Royale!, what kind of bond fans are those?!

Paul on Oct 28, 2007

14

Timothy Dalton was my absolute favorite Bond, now it´s Craig. Read the books people; Pierce Brosnan would make a tasty breakfast for Craig. Maybe to much skin and bones though - not any real meat under that italian suite …

M on Oct 28, 2007

15

sean was the real bond
moore the amusing bond
dalton the wannabe bond
lasonby the wuss bond
brosnan the modern bond
craig the emo tough bond

- seems like they all fit the time of production

GoldFinger baby

terrence on Oct 28, 2007

16

remember that casino royale was supposed to be about bond at the BEGINNING of his career. he wasn't supposed to be perfectly suave and slick; he was still learning. craig did a perfect job with the character that he was supposed to portray. wait for the next movies to more accurately compare him to the others.

K on Oct 28, 2007

17

First, Connery is *the* bond - Moore was an acceptable substitute given that we had no other choice but to tolerate his presence.

Second, people forget that James Bond was a novel and *then* a film - a series of novels, actually, that were quite good fiction. It is worth noting that Connery and Craig, and only Connery and Craig, gave Bond the sense of roughness that was *ACTUALLY* found in the Bond books. The books really did have a hard-bitten edge of realism in them, something vaguely related to that of hard-boiled detective novels, and Craig brings that to the fore - even if he does so with a bit more muscle than is strictly needed. As Craig's bond matures I expect him to become more like Connery's; a raised-by-the-docks roughneck under the veneer of culture and civilization. That alone is a more entertaining character than someone that keeps hor'derves on emotional parity with murder.

The Bond acted out by people like Moore and Brosnan is a pathetic caricature of Bond-as-written, and in being so over-stylized and immune to the degradation of the work he undertakes he loses the feel of verisimilitude that is the hallmark of good fiction.

James Stein on Oct 28, 2007

18

No, Roger Moore ruined the Bond movies. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. He couldn't fight. He turned Bond into a pansy.

After he took over the only people who watched the movies were teenage boys hoping to see some boobs or ridiculous gadets.

Craig turned him back into what he should have been all along.

txgeek on Oct 28, 2007

19

Roger Moore portrayed the Bond character as a comedy. I always hated that about him. Sean Connery is the definitive Bond. If Daniel Craig lives up to the standard he set in Casino Royale; he will become a serious challenge to Connery's #1 status.

mrogi on Oct 28, 2007

20

Urgh - he has to be the worst Bond of all time! I mean he got slapped in the balls in the first movie and needed a woman to sort him out every scrape. Also - he looks like such a has-been it's impossible to believe he's got the world under his control.

Small on Oct 28, 2007

21

You left out the original Casino Royale (1967) starring Peter Sellers as James Bond.

Michael Quinlan on Oct 28, 2007

22

I have to agree with James Stein, Connery and Craig played Bond as a dangerous killer who could mingle with the rich and powerful and appear to fit in. Connery was more convincing playing the suave, romantic lead than Craig, in my opinion. I wish we could have seen Clive Owen try it. Just the parody role he did in the otherwise abysmal Pink Panther remake is enough to see he could pull it off.

Arioch on Oct 28, 2007

23

Is this a rhetorical question? Obviously Sean Connery tops the list.

But this article is retarded. "So far I'm quite impressed with Craig as Bond, but he still doesn't beat Roger Moore or even Sean Connery." As if implying that Moore is better than Connery.

My order would be:

Sean Connery
Pierce Brosnan
Roger Moore
Daniel Craig (too early to tell so I put him in the middle because he is decent)
George Lazenby
Timothy Dalton

phinn on Oct 28, 2007

24

I agree with mrogi and James Stein - Connery and Craig best represent the grit of my idea of Bond. I also agree with K in that Craig's performance cannot yet be judged on par with others' performances in other Bond movies - that he will grow into a version of Bond similar to Connery's - more suave and polished but not to the Moore- or Brosnan-like extent. He will (hopefully) maintain a gritty undercurrent. I believe that Craig is already #2 but will ever challenge for #1 - that will always be Connery.

KB on Oct 28, 2007

25

The key to Craig's portrayal of Bond is in the final scene. After the loss of his first love he makes a transformation to "Bond…James Bond". In that scene he resembled Connery. The next movie should be interesting. We should get to see Craig play a more mature, suave and sophisticated Bond.

Bluyonder on Oct 28, 2007

26

Actually Connery and Moore are tied at 7 each. Connery was also in Never Say Never Again. The original Casino Royale actually had several people playing Bond. So technically Sellers only played a percentage of the part in that movie. Don't get it? Drop acid and watch, maybe you'll understand. I like Moore as Bond but he did it with a bit of an inside joke. Connery did it with ego and charm. Brosnan did it the same way. Dalton seemed like a little boy in his dad's suit (BMW and gunholster). I agree that it may be a bit early to judge Craig although he doing a bang up job so far. Lazenby doesn't count, he let Mrs. Peel get killed. A real bond would have had his gun out as he heard the car accelerating from up the road!

I'm curious if anyone else has read the books. They are awesome. I'd like more real danger and less gadgets please. Don't get me wrong, nothing beats a bullet-proof Aston Martin but submarine Lotus us lame.

Michael Durwin on Oct 28, 2007

27

Connery is da BOND!!!!

Sam Lewis on Oct 28, 2007

28

Sean Connery will always be THE Bond to compare all others against. With that said Craig is definately a close number 2. If the writing continues to be excellent (and doesn't fall back into technology trickery) than I think Craig will become the new standard bearer. On a side note, we need a Q. The only thing missing is Q. I miss the Connery/Desmond fueding, even if it was only for a few minutes. John Cleese could be good, just tone down the slapstick.

James Bond on Oct 28, 2007

29

Pierce Brosnan's handsome features made him a popular Bond. Unfortunately, Brosnan became so obsessed with projecting his suave debonair persona he made James Bond appear disturbingly metro sexual, effete and somewhat gay. A Bond with a pretty face may be delightful to women and limp-wristed men, but Ian Fleming envisioned an edgy hardboiled secret agent hero who would have killed guys like Brosnan and Moore between martinis.

mrogi on Oct 28, 2007

30

Craig blew me away as Bond.

Vespa on Oct 28, 2007

31

Moore was terrible as Bond - the whole franchise needed a restart *because* of the image he made it into - I don't think the franchise ever recovered from him completely. There was something always creepy about the geriatric Moore chasing much younger women; it made Bond into a dirty old man.

Craig so far seems terrific, although we have only one movie to base anything on (I sure hope the writing holds up). I don't fault his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale because that was supposed to be the *start* of his career as "the" James Bond. So over the next few films we'll see him evolve into the Bond character we think we know.

Connery was great, but I have to admit I'm probably biased because he was first. If there was no previous history and you had to choose Connery vs Craig, it'd be pretty tough to choose between the two.

bondfan on Oct 28, 2007

32

Craig is the closest to how Bond is in the books. Connery is second best. Roger Moore was terrible. Not as in bad acting, but come on. That scrawny wimp couldn't beat up a six year-old girl.

Davezilla on Oct 28, 2007

33

In Moore's defence, I don't think the other guys would be as good as The Saint either.

Larry on Oct 28, 2007

34

Dood I can't believe the Brosnan supporters… have you actually watched any of his crap?!! He was the softest Bond ever! And it didn't help that they gave him such incredibly stupid plots to work with (the last one was phenomenally bad).

brosnansucks on Oct 28, 2007

35

Everyone needs to realize that people in general are sick and tired of these franchises sticking with the same old prescription to the movies. People want a different version and they want a new story, not the same freaking story everyone has heard 20 times before. Batman Begins was so successful because they redefined the franchise and Bale redefined Batman.

Sorry to everyone that wants to be bored with the same thing all day every day but the James Bond franchise has been redefined and Craig has redefined Bond himself. That is why he's probably going to be the best Bond, he's not afraid to be his own character. He's the Bond of today and he did it beautifully.

And, yes, how can you say that Craig is "never Bond and never will be Bond" if you haven't even seen him play the role.

a1970gto on Oct 28, 2007

36

First of all, he signed for three movies (including the first). I didn't read about this new number anywhere else. But I'm going to verify.


Second, one can't ever please everybody. But the majority disagree with you and says Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever (tons of sites had polls about it with the same result). Yeah, yeah, some people will say "blasphemy! what about the old movies with Sean Connery?!". Well, let's just say I'm part of the majority here and can't watch again these freaking 836647365 infantile gadgets. They worked decades ago, but don't work anymore, let's face it. People just say that because they feel they're supposed to. Go watch the old ones again then. Without bathroom or food breaks. *laughs* Sadly I'm sure I couldn't even watch again the Pierce Brosnan ones and I like him. They are freaking terrible, a big joke.

Too bad it seems the new director will bring them back. *sighs* I bet people will start to bitch about Daniel saying he isn't a good Bond then.

Lucy on Oct 29, 2007

37

I'd have to say to Craig is doing great as the new Bond. It's a bit back to the original Bond films with Connery; more acting, action, and storylines, less reliance on gadgets and special effects. I never felt that Moore made a great Bond, as people have state before, it was embarrassing and downright unbelievable to see an old man doing those stunts and ending up in bed with young girls.
I hope they'll continue in the style of Casino Royale.

Jason on Oct 29, 2007

38

Roger Moore? Can u say Moonraker?!?!?! The Flying Gondola?!?!?! Roger Moore is inexcusable!!!!! He Fails MASSIVELY compared to both Craig, Brosnan, and Connery.

Bond Fan on Oct 29, 2007

39

You forgot one of Connery's movies: Never Say Never Again… so he's up to 7

Fred on Oct 29, 2007

40

He is great, I think. A very sexy 007!!BTW, someone saw his profile with hot & sexy photos on meetrich.com, a dating site for celebrities and millionaires. It seems the profile looks sincere and attractive. Maybe even clebs feel lonely and lost sometimes. They also need love and fun. hehe..

mmlobe on Oct 29, 2007

41

I am soooo tired of people plugging some and putting other Bonds down.

THEY WERE ALLLLL GOOD: Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig.

IF ANYONE SUCKED it was because THE WRITING SUCKED. Uhhh…Octopussy and Man With the Golden Gun, Golden Eye, Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Die Another Day…
if not silly then far fetched or ridulous or low brow gag jokes. The actor's can only do so much. The writing has to be strong to begin with. I lament for Moore and Dalton.
The topper was Die Another Day…INVISIBLE CAR? DO MOVIE PATRONS HAVE "IDIOT" WRITTEN ON THEIR FOREHEADS? Bond is about class, sophistication, aplomb and sexy banter, sexy style, sexy sleuthy and sexy smart solutions.

Hey! Adding my two cents worth was too Fun!

Lastly, I recommend everyone give George Lazenby (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) some accolade.

Thanks!

Girl Fan of Many Years

Girl Fan of Many Years on Oct 29, 2007

42

i just dont really like him (Daniel) as a bond.. he aint the quality for bonds……..what are the MP thinking….. god.. i aint watching him in big screen again…

Wing on Oct 29, 2007

43

Roger Moore was terrible as Bond, he came off as a rich playboy. Just because he was in the most Bond films doesn't necessarily mean that he was the best, either. Moonraker is god awful.

I actually liked Lazenby quite a bit and feel like if he had a second chance he probably would have been even better.

Rockstrongo on Oct 29, 2007

44

Connery had Never Say Never too you ingrates…

Brosnan fit the part but Die another Day and Tomorrow where rubbish, Surfing a door gimme a break. Roger Moore is still the best imo

Stuntbum on Oct 30, 2007

45

What are you talking about guys?!

TIMOTHY DALTON is the best Bond past, now and future!

He looks like James Bond and if you would read the bond novels you would know that he is the same kind of bond than Ian Fleming's bond was.

Dalton had five, six chances to act Bond but in 1969 he thought he was too young and in 1991 Bond-producers made a lot of mistakes so "The Property Of A Lady" never saw daylight. Timothy Dalton was also considered to act in Original Goldeneye (1993).

He really can act and he looks great! He is not some kind of womanizer or alcoholic, he is James Bond!

My order is:

1. Timothy Dalton (perfect actor!)

LonelyRider (from Finland) on Oct 30, 2007

46

*My order is:

1. Timothy Dalton (perfect actor!)

LonelyRider (from Finland) page 2 on Oct 30, 2007

47

I think all the actors that have and are playing Bond are great. They all have their pluses and minuses. The thing that makes a great Bond movie is the writing. Moonraker and A View to a Kill are just horribly written and boring to the max, while Die Another Day just has a bunch of bull crap inventions and CGI scenes. Keeping gadgets to minimum(Casino Royale, Dr. No) and a well written story(License to Kill, Goldfinger) make a great Bond film in my book.

P.S. To all you people who keep mentioning Never Say Never Again as a forgotten Bond film on the list, it is not an official Bond film, and it's basically a remake of Thunderball.

Adam on Oct 30, 2007

48

Dalton is the best, Craig second, Brosnan third, then Moore, Lazenby and Connery is the last one (arrogant and selfish like Lazenby). But Dalton is also well-behave actor, he don't hit and kick paparazzies(?*) like Brosnan did yesterday. Craig also damned one paparazzo few months ago…

LonelyRider (from Finland) on Oct 31, 2007

49

Going back to the beginning of the article, I must protest Roger Moore's ranking over Sean Connery. Clearly Moore was good, if fact he was great. But the title of "Quintesental Bond" must go to the original, Connery was the perfect blend of humor, subtle masuculinity, and outright ass-kicking. While I can't remember who said it (It might have been no one of consequence) but it isn't so much that Connery was a great Bond and others have been emulating his role, rather that Connery was and, in some sense, still is Bond and all others are following in his footsteps.

TaylorW on Oct 31, 2007

50

You forgot Sean Connery's "Never say Never Again" - the rogue Bond film made during a big fight over the rights. That brings the total to 7 for Sean Connery - tie-ing it up with Moore.

Ubermonkey on Oct 31, 2007

51

I was getting ready to add that you had forgotten one (Sean Connery) Bond movie but I see übermonkey beat me to it. You could also add David Niven who played Sir James Bond, retired, in the original spoof 'Casino Royale'.
Regarding the best Bond, has to be Connery. However if they had let Brosnan play the part to his full ability (think 'Thomas Crown Affair' he wold have been the best. Funny that they had to use a Scott and an Irish to do Bond…

Nick Kearns on Oct 31, 2007

52

Connery : 1st (Should be above ranking. He 'is' Bond)
Brosnan :2nd (Has that gritty edge that Bond needs to be believable)
Craig : 3rd (But has serious potential to take 2nd with experience. Casino Royale was wicked cool and Daniel Craig did a great job for his first 007 adventure. I look forward to seeing him in more Bond movies!
Moore : 4th
Dalton :5th (Always looks on the verge of tears. (can someone recommend a good eye doctor for him?))





Lazenby: Uh, no, not 6th. He does not belong in this list. Perfectly pitiful as Bond. What were they thinking?

Troy on Oct 31, 2007

53

Daniel Craig brings an air of authority and realism to Bond, you have to consider he is not meant to be the suave unruffled hero of previous films this is about the rookie agent winning his spurs, his 00.

I look forward to seeing him develop into the tough, cynical and ruthless bastard that Bond has tried to be portrayed as before, with limited success.

Forget the gadgets we want a fallible hero who can cut it with the toughest. Craig is the man.

BJ

Barry Jordan on Nov 1, 2007

54

James Bond is my favourite I would say that Daniel Craig is the best and he played the best James bond

License To Kill on Nov 2, 2007

55

OK, here's how I would rate what made the Bond movies popular, and while the actors are key, each era had their other tie in that drove Bond as a franchise.

Sean Connery vs The destinations. The 60s was the era where most people hadn't experienced much more than the country they live in. The english knew Europe, but most had not been to America or the far east. It seems that Bond was about escapism at this point. And of course, cold war espionage. It was gritty work, and gadgets simply weren't "fancified" as of yet.

Roger Moore vs The Gadgets. Q was almost the star of the Roger Moore Bond years. Who didn't wait impatiently for the debriefing on the new gadgets with Q? I sure did. The gadgets, Loti, planes, boats, etc, were Roger's great equalizer. Sure he was old and loved a one liner after a nasty baddy death, but if it weren't for the gadgets (INClUDING JAWS), Roger Moore years would have sucked. As it were, they were a good sophomoric years.

Timothy Dalton vs Lame plots. Sorry, I never liked the Dalton movies, especially Licensed to Kill, which felt like it was made by the guys who produced The A Team. This film was miserable because all the actors were American. The US wants escapism, not the same old characters we see all the time! He was pretty much a dead fish as far as actors went, but he needed not to be so smug as Moore, who pretty much made Bond into a cartoon.

Pierce Brosnan vs Technology. Let's face it. There were no scary World Crises going on about the time of the Brosnan Bonds. That and all the original novels were during the cold war, which was now history. Brosnan then ends up battling impossibly ridiculous businessmen who want to take over the world or are mad and want to plunge the world into chaos. The world had basically developed REAL gadgets that did the stuff or were close enough to the previous Bond Gadgets, that, they just didn't matter anymore. And the BMW sellout will forever suck. I know product placement is everything, but come on. It was pretty lame if you ask me.

Daniel Craig vs The Old Guard. This guy had to erase all the preconcieved notions of Bond. He did it with that Martini recipe in the Casino. Probably the best "bow" to the old Bonds, and yet, creating a totally new twist on the Martini, pun intended. Awesome. His sensitivity and realness really show. This Bond sweats. He bleeds. He kills. He loves. He even dies. Bond is not protected by a bubble, he's touchable, but in the end, he's unstoppable. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Craig is an awesome Bond. I was so pumped when I saw the movie I was rewinding parts in my head for days. The Range Rover parking job, the Martini scene, the torture scene, even him getting cleaned up after the fight with the terrorists. Holy Kick Ass. I would say, the only lame part was probably the final fight in the Venitian Villa. That was a little too corny and didn't really flow with the rest of the movie.

So I guess my list would be:

1. Craig (if he continues in this way)
2. Connery
3. Moore (even though he was corny, the movies were more enjoyable than….)
4. Brosnan (His NBC clause killed him as a quintessential Bond, too little, too late)
5. Dullton (no need to comment)
6. Lazenby (not even worth mentioning, it's so long ago)

Craig brought me back into the Bond world. I was bored with Pierce after 2 movies, and didn't see the last two until they were shown on TV, didn't even watch them on DVD first.

I will definitely see ANY Craig Bond movies in the theaters. He was awesome in Layer Cake, and he'll be awesome as Bond.

SprinterMatt on Nov 4, 2007

56

I think it has to be said that Sean Connery was by far THE best Bond, Roger Moore was sooooo damn wooden. Daniel Craig is bringing something new and reshaping Bond as we used to know him, taking it back to the begining was great idea, I think the Brosnan movies were so overdone all the damn focus wsa on gadgets and special effects, for me Craigs' Casino Royale was by far the best Bond movie there has been - and actually the first Bond movie I actually wanted to have in my DVD collection.

Bring it on, can't wait for more more Daniel Craig as Bond. Superb.

Ian on Nov 7, 2007

57

Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond on the other hand Daniel Craig is ok as james bond ,So he will be a so- so bond !!! But He is no Pierce Brosnan .!!!! To me Pierce Brosnan will always be James Bond .I own ever James Bond movie thaT Pierce Brosnan HAS DONE .

Sam Deverell on Nov 22, 2007

58

I gained respect for Lazenby when he called Brosnan a pussy.

KB on Nov 22, 2007

59

Dalton was the best actor to play Bond- he played the role perfectly, as a somewhat cynical, vulnerable spy who did his job out of sense of duty, and killed because he had to, not because he wanted to.

Moore was a total buffoon; it was Dalton's great misfortune that he followed him, the contrast was too great for a lot of viewers who grew up with Moore's cartoonish antics (I'm one of them, but I always appreciated Dalton.)

Connery was excellent and of course the original will always be the most appreciated.

Lazenby was ok but his one film was a bit too maudlin and dull.

Brosnan did ok for exactly one film, then he looked bored and afraid to muss his hair for the last four. "Tomorrow Never Dies" might have been as bad as "Moonraker," and that's saying a LOT.

"The Property of a Lady" (1991) and "Goldeneye" (1993) would have been wonderful with Dalton. What a shame that legal problems derailed his Bond career. Our loss.

John on Dec 1, 2007

60

Considering that "Live and Let Die" (1973) and "The Man with the Golden Gun" (1974) did poor box office, it's a real shame that Broccoli, etc. didn't dump Moore and start the long-considered "reboot" with Dalton in the late-70s. A 30-year old Dalton would have been amazing in a series of more serious, down-to-earth spy adventures, a hint of which we got in 1981's "For Your Eyes Only" (would have been a more than decent film if only an already-too-old Moore wasn't mucking it up) and most obviously in "The Living Daylights" (1987), my favorite Bond film of all.

Dalton should have taken the gig in 1969, at 25 he could act circles around George Lazenby, and it might have opened a whole new era for Bond. Instead we got Moore and a decade-plus of slapstick garbage.

John on Dec 1, 2007

61

This isn't even a contest.
Sean Connery IS James Bond. Period. Anyone else in the role is simply doing a Connery impression. It's comparable to traveling at the speed of light. That is, impossible - or approachable, at best.

Ric on Dec 12, 2007

62

i like lazenby actualy as for people saying he was a wuss he kicked more ass and slapped more women than moore and dalton without a doubt.
dalton suffered from the unfortunate budget cuts and bad writting of that eras bond films.
to be honest i didnt like the craig movie. its not that i thought he was giving us a bad performance its just the movie seemed more like a bourne identity movie than a bond flick.
i just didnt get it. forty five minutes watching a poker game being played out in a film.
well meh its just me.
as for the all time best bond it would sean connery. this being said he was also responsible for the worst bond acting perfomance in never say never again.
i mean even roger moore did better than that good awful portrayal of bond.
yeah so the directors had a role in it for sure but it was horrid.
pierce well too skinny to wimpy and just too 90s.

bond on Dec 29, 2007

63

Bring me back, i want new chance!

Pierce on Dec 30, 2007

64

SEAN CONNERY WAS AND IS STILL THE BEST JAMES BOND EVER HE MADE JAMES BOND WHAT IT IS TODAY. PEIRCE BROSNAN WAS THE THE NEXT BEST AFTER SEAN CONNERY HE BROUGHT OUT THE MOR SENSITIVE SIDE OF BOND.THE NEXT 2 BEST ARE ROGER MOORE AND DANIEL CRAIG. IN MY OPINION THE WORST BOND ACOR EVER WAS TIMOTHY DOLTEN HE BROUGHT OUT THE DARK SIDE OF BOND AND THAT WAS CRAP

DEEP THROAT on Feb 2, 2008

65

Craig is a great James Bond, but hasn't yet compared to Sean Connery who is a incredible Bond! But if Craig keeps playing Bond the way he does I think that he will be the new James Bond!

Vesper on Mar 19, 2008

66

Some were lucky to receive an excellent script while others weren't.
I LOVE THEM ALL, BECAUSE I LOVE THE IDEA OF BOND FIRST AND FOREMOST.


Films with Connery set the standard.
Lazenby: never gets enough credit. He played the script with wit and candour and sex appeal.
Moore: He was nothing but Bond-slick and sharp before the writing got ridiculous.
Timothy: they turned the Bond franchise into the A-Team. Dalton however did well. Producers downplayed Bond ego and sexual appetite in light of AIDS.
Broznan: did an excellent job regardless of the fact that I can't stand him.
Craig: the writing was superb. I waited for a decent bond film for the past eighteen years.

Like i said it all boils down to writing…Invisible car? SPARE ME. A tank blowing holes through the Kremlin? AS IF. Cello sled? PLEASE. Felix Lighter and his wife (Terri from Three's Company) chewed on by a shark and alive to tell about it… UGH. Roger having to do anything stupid in Octpussy… I REST MY CASE.

Girl Fan of Many Years on Apr 1, 2008

67

Barry Nelson, an MGM contract player during the 1940s who later had a prolific theater career and was the first actor to play James Bond on screen, has died. He was 89.

wanlock on Apr 12, 2008

68

Bond can never be so real and interesting as how Craig portrayed the character, even in the absence of those inventions and too much effort of making scenes sexy. Craig is that actor who acts out his craft with seriousness that brings out a seriously captivating character out of Bond. I love Craig!!! Casino Royale was so cool… Glad there are more Bond-Craig to see:-)

cristy arriola martin on Apr 16, 2008

69

Brosnan sucked and was great at the same time, if that is at all possible. In my opinion he didn't do quite so bad as BOND, but yet was not up to par as others, such as Connery, Moore, and Craig.

End of story, Brosnan played that sleeke and suave, and in my opinion it is the only thing he can play, it seems fitting to obvious the Bond Films, yet How many movies like Mrs. Doubtfire, where it carries over can he play?

helicoptrical on Apr 19, 2008

70

Daniel Craig is Bond's most real character ever. Why would be a secret agent like a businessman? He has to look as usual as he can, not to be conspicuous.
Maybe that's why Casino Royale was the best James Bond film in my opinion. It has some weak points of course. But I think, Craig added some new traits to the character, he improved it to be more varied.

Armatus on May 9, 2008

71

Casino Royale was the best James Bond film? If you cut out all the parts where people are talking into or looking at cellphones, the film is roughly 45 minutes long. The product placement for cellphones was REALLY over the top.

From the opening scene in Madagascar to the final scene with Mr. White, someone is yammering away at, looking at, or turning off a cellphone. Ridiculous.

"Ellipses"
"they are extracting LeChiffre…Mathis needs me" (two looking at cellphones moments, within seconds of eachother)

John on May 9, 2008

72

I realize I'm entering this discussion very late, but I have to say that the WHOLE REASON Craig came off like a simplistic, thuggish Bond is because the director was savvy enough to realize that this is the movie where Bond /becomes/ bond. James Bond wasn't born from the womb with savoir faire and killer instinct. In fact, we get to see 007's first Kill in the movie. Read that again: his first kill.

Some of you are simply too young to remember anyone but Brosnan. I can accept that. I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond, and I thought at the time that he was THE Bond. However, after buying my ex-husband the Sean Connery 007 box set and watching the movies, I have to say that Connery beats the holy living crap out of Roger Moore–and remember, I was very firmly and adamantly in Moore's corner from childhood onwards. That is, until I had my eyes opened.

Brosnan was a brilliant Bond selection because of reasons others mentioned, however… I believe that the savoir faire that people think this "thuggish" Bond is missing will be revealed in the next movies.

Remember, Vesper was TEACHING Bond how to behave as an upper-class gentleman. It's noted specifically in the movie that he was not born to the upper class and therefore lacked proper "taste" in clothing and other matters. She also taught him that falling in love with the heroine is a bad idea. Thus we will see more casual liasons throughout Craig's tenure as Bond.

Re-watch the movie and think about the beginnings of the underpinnings that are so familiar to us now after many Bond films. (For instance, the expected later appearance of the Q character for the gadgets that were largely missing in Casino Royale.) I have a feeling that this Bond will be teaching his handlers a thing or two…

ArmageddonKitten on May 15, 2008

73

To the person above me- I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

Travis on May 16, 2008

74

Thank you, Travis.

I think for me the part that brought that home was when Bond, frustrated at losing his money and out of control of the situation went to the bar to order his "Vesper" martini. The bartender asks him politely and smoothly (like any good functionary should), "Will that be shaken or stirred, sir?"

And Bond replies with irritation, "Do I look like I give a damn?"

Whoa, hold on here… "Shaken not stirred" is a quintissential Bond staple line that we have always heard. It's likely he didn't even know there was a difference or that no matter what happens, he should always appear as if he is not rattled. You know the old line: never let them see you sweat.

Not only did the "Do I look like I give a damn" line have to be written into the script, but it had to be approved by the director and vetted by god-only-knows-who at the production level. You'd think someone would have gone, "Uhhhhh… Bond never says that…" But they didn't because this isn't a film about James Bond, this is a film about the MAKING of James Bond.

ArmageddonKitten on May 16, 2008

75

P.S. I really like comment 17. Kudos to you, James, for recognizing the underpinnings of what makes good fiction (and a good Bond)!

Some people simply don't know what they're talking about. For me, Casino Royale 2.0 was mind-blowing and a true mental reboot. I couldn't stop watching Craig's face and posture. There was no doubt in my mind that he understood the actual character and so did the director. It was bloody brilliant.

The last scene with Mr. White really sealed the transformative process and was entirely necessary–not as epilogue but as a capstone on what we have learned about 007's creation. At that moment, he is the sum total of what Vesper and M have taught him. Being a Double-0 isn't a game, it's a sacrifice.

Brilliant.

ArmageddonKitten on May 16, 2008

76

Don't get me wrong, I really liked Casino Royale (stand alone) and I think Craig is a fantastic Bond - my only reservation about what they are doing with the films is that Casino Royale wasn't a prequel to Dr. No, it was a reboot and really is in a completely different universe than the 20 other Bond films.

Maybe it's because I grew up on the bond films but I get a quasi empty feeling when I think about the all the other films being nullified by the new one's. Personally I feel much better about Bond not ageing throughout the years than I do with them completely restarting the story……though as far as restarting the story goes, they have been doing a considerably good job so far (but that's not the point ).

Travis on May 17, 2008

77

What, like I didn't grow up on Bond? ;D I can handle a reboot. The other films were what they were… These will be different. Doesn't hurt my brain or feelings any.

ArmageddonKitten on May 17, 2008

78

I know you did as well =) I think a prequel set in the 50's would have been just as well though…..but then again as I said, I really liked Casino Royale.

Travis on May 17, 2008

79

Sean, Daniel and Pierce are the best. just under them is Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. i really try to like George Lazenby but i just don't. at all….George Lazenby sucks.

Luke on Jun 13, 2008

80

pierce is great!more power,

richard m.abanono on Jun 24, 2008

81

pierce is amazing james bond,and great actor.more power pieirce!

richard abanono on Jun 27, 2008

82

I love them all because I love James Bond films, end of story.

Alex Cardoso on Jul 5, 2008

83

the new trailer is up and The Quantum Of Solace looks like a proper Bond film. I like the trailer because it doesn't really give any of the plot away =)

Travis on Jul 5, 2008

84

Quantum Of Solace looks nothing like a Bond film. I am starting to think that people have forgotten what the essence of Bond was supposed to be. Instead we are faced with a new set of Bond films that seem to be a clone of the Bourne films. MI6 after Bond, CIA after Bourne; sounds like similar plots to me. Craig even looks more like Matt Damon then the other Bonds. Both Blond and about 5'10. Bond isn't a killing machine in the novels, he is an agent that kills when he has to, and he is charming, attractive and highly intelligent. Craig was none of those things in Casino Royale and he won't be them in QOS. So chalk it up to what it is a generic action movie, no Q no Money Penny, no charm.

Yeah on Jul 6, 2008

85

I wonder if anyone has a body count on some of the bond films… It would be interesting to go back and see just how many dead guys Bond left behind in the previous films. I bet Roger Moore has the most rack-up of anyone. Just a hunch, mind you.

ArmageddonKitten on Jul 6, 2008

86

Never mind bodycount; I hope the "looking or talking into cellphones" count is way down in this next film.

I swear, half of "Casino Royale" consisted of people looking at cellphones, talking into cellphones, setting off bombs with cellphones- enough already. I'm not impressed by technology most ten-year olds have in their backpacks.

John on Jul 6, 2008

87

Of course you're not impressed… That's because cellphones are entirely ubiquitous. That's the point. Everyone has a cellphone attached at the hand–absolutely everyone. My doctor carries his cellphone and his PDA around, everyone I know has a cell that they whip out just to check the time (nobody wears watches, why bother?). At the place I hang out, it's like round-robin cell phone tag. One person drops out of the conversation to answer their cell just as another finishes a conversation, etc. Nobody bats an eyelash unless a juicy conversation is going on.

I get calls from my husband while I'm in line in the grocery store, and we trade text messages while he's at work. I mean… it's just a fact of life now. It was used as a plot device, but it was hardly out of place. He hasn't gotten to all his gadgets yet. He'll get there.

ArmageddonKitten on Jul 6, 2008

88

Um, are you serious? People go to the bathroom and shop for food too- I dont want to see that in a Bond movie.

If you want to spend ten bucks watching Bond and every other character on the screen looking at or talking into their cellphone every few seconds (seriously, watch the film again and try to keep count of how many times cellphones are used) that's your choice. Please don't try to tell me that because cellphones are used all the time in real life, it's ok for them to crowd out the action in Bond films.

BTW, you get calls from your husband while on the line for groceries and you text eachother while at work? That's really fascinating, it really is. I would'nt pay five cents to see you do that on a big screen though.

John on Jul 6, 2008

89

Maybe half of Quantum of Solace involves the use of Global Positioning Systems, or maybe Bond's new car has (gasp) A DVD PLAYER!! ZOWIE!

I swear, I half expected that jackass in goofy glasses and overalls from the ATT commercials to show up in Casino Royale to let Bond know that his signal was still clear.

John on Jul 6, 2008

90

It´s all what you compare against - before - the technology in the Bond movies represented the future and the state of the art, today it´s just product placements. I think the last Bond-film was the most of a "real movie" a Bond film has ever been (only Timothy Daltons movies managed this really well), and I don´t even count the Brosnan adventures as real Bond movies. I´m still in awe of how good the movie was, and I´m sure the second one is gonna be better. Can´t wait really!

Niclas on Jul 6, 2008

91

Don't get me wrong; I liked Casino Royale. I thought the use of cellphones was badly overdone, that's all- in fact, I thought they repeatedly interrupted the flow and acted as clutter. Strange in a movie refreshing for it's lack of stupid gadgets.

And I totally agree with the Dalton comment; if you read above, you'll see I was a big fan of Dalton's portrayal of Bond and the down-to-earth, script-centered films he was in.

John on Jul 6, 2008

92

Sean Connery set the standard in the first three Bond movies that nobody has ever matched. I think Judi Dench is sexy. Should I seek therapy?

mrogi on Jul 6, 2008

93

Dame Judi is hawt. I don't care what anybody says.

ArmageddonKitten on Jul 6, 2008

94

I think Desmond Llewelyn is HOT! You guys are crazy, she´s not hot.

Niclas on Jul 6, 2008

95

I cant wait for the new James bond movie to come out. First the last guy was right Roger moore wasnt very good at James bond. My order is Sean, Daniel, Roger, Pierce, Dalton, Lasonby. I have a good feeling that Craig will pass Sean if he keeps up what he is doing Casino Royal was one of the best bond movies ever i hope he does as much as Roger moore if not more.

Jake on Jul 17, 2008

96

Bluyonder on Oct 28, 2007 wrote:

"The key to Craig's portrayal of Bond is in the final scene. After the loss of his first love he makes a transformation to "Bond…James Bond". In that scene he resembled Connery. The next movie should be interesting. We should get to see Craig play a more mature, suave and sophisticated Bond."

Daniel Craig is the best Bond of the franchise, however, I don't think he will transform in to a Connery type of Bond in the new movie. I predict Bond will be belligerent, looking for payback and creating quite a bit of mayhem to exercise some demons before turning into the more suave and sophisticated Bond for the remainder of the movies.

madbax68 on Jul 31, 2008

97

Ian Fleming must haved turned in his grave knowing about the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond, and the poor performance he does in Casino Royale 2006. Almost only one expression on his face, and what a terrible face!!!! Can you imagine that the Broccoli/Wilson Bond team has not been able to find a great and hansome actor among the billion of people living on our planet!!! Craig can't even wear a smoking jacket!! He looks like a delayed student in it!!! No class at all. Well, one thing… everybody agrees that he would have been perfect as a bad guy. Yes, we simply expect him to die after each of his actions in the movie. I hope to see again at the end of the next Eon production "James Bond will be back"!!! Daniel Craig is no James Bond.

Sylvain on Aug 1, 2008

98

Sylvain on Aug 1, 2008
Almost only one expression on his face, and what a terrible face!!!!

Typical liberal cynicism, obsessed over imperfections instead of appreciating the important qualities like acting criminal to outsmart the criminals, pushing the limits of the rules of being good to triumph over evil and owning up to responsibilities. Yes Bond is reckless and irresponsible at times but that is what makes his stories interesting to puny, little critics like us.

What a sad, little, ball of hate you are.

PS: Daniel Craig may not be the best actor to portray Bond but Casino Royale was (IMO) the best Bond movie so far but, like yours, is just an opinion, .

madbax68 on Aug 2, 2008

99

Dear readers,

Never forget that Sean Connery was the original, the first actor chosen by the original Bond producers (C. Broccoli + H. Saltzman), and that THE AUTHOR, Mr. Ian Fleming shared their enthusiasm. Obviously with Mrs. Barbara Broccoli, we have a proof that talent and taste are not hereditary!!! Only the sense of making money!! Not mentionning the overbid of violence, a competition between movie makers for decades!!!


K on Oct 28, 2007 : "remember that casino royale was supposed to be about bond at the BEGINNING of his career. he wasn't supposed to be perfectly suave and slick; he was still learning. craig did a perfect job with the character that he was supposed to portray."

Well doctor, it's really sad if at more than forty years old James Bond is not educated yet!!! lol I think that we see a lot of Daniel Craig in that character. He is not acting, he is just himself! lol An elephant entering a porcelaine store!! And it's all about this movie.


KB on Oct 28, 2007 : "Craig's performance cannot yet be judged on par with others' performances in other Bond movies - that he will grow into a version of Bond similar to Connery's - more suave and polished but not to the Moore- or Brosnan-like extent. He will (hopefully) maintain a gritty undercurrent."

Come on!!! Craig has done this movie and must be critized (positively or negatively) for his performance. Did critics had to wait 2 or more Bond film to appreciate Connery's performances!!


Girl Fan of Many Years on Oct 29, 2007 : "IF ANYONE SUCKED it was because THE WRITING SUCKED. Uhhh…Octopussy and Man With the Golden Gun, Golden Eye, Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Die Another Day…
if not silly then far fetched or ridulous or low brow gag jokes. The actor's can only do so much. The writing has to be strong to begin with."

Absolutely true. Some of the plots were waisted by consternant gadjets specially in the Moore area (that gondola!!!). But I don't think the writing is particularly original for Casino Royale 2006. The story is mostly boring or too violent. I had refused to see the movie on a theater and waited to buy the DVD for cheap (I bought a Zone 1 and second hand!! lol). I was so bored that twice I had to give up watching the movie. Only a third time I finally made it, and felt so disappointed. Yes, boring the scenes in the casino, and all that talking with the cell phones. Every body is boring to watch in that movie, from Craig's limitated expressions on his face, to Mads Mikkelsen, and Eva Green, the saddest Bond girl ever. She wasn't paid enough for that role, maybe? lol. And that yamakasi opening sequence!!! dejà vu, from a french movie (Yamakasi) released in 2001!!!! and we can see that the writers tried hard to have Bond following the jumper, and they made him avoid the most difficult scenes by tricks. The jumper could have shot Bond so many times in that sequence!! In that sequence Craig very often runs as an imitation of Pierce Brosnan's robotic move. I almost forgot!!!!! THAT music by David Arnod (a cheap John Barry plagiarist when at his best): it's heard too much and too loud, not very inventive. Well to conclude, nothing breathe in that movie.


ArmageddonKitten on May 16, 2008 : "this isn't a film about James Bond, this is a film about the MAKING of James Bond."

Did we need to see how James Bond was made? Is that movie a James Bond recepe?? lol If so, Eon productions should have made a version with a young actor, as it was done with the series "Smallville" for Superman. I am not just kidding!! Because Daniel Craig looks really retired in playing that role.!!


John on Jul 6, 2008 : "I swear, half of "Casino Royale" consisted of people looking at cellphones, talking into cellphones, setting off bombs with cellphones- enough already. I'm not impressed by technology most ten-year olds have in their backpacks."

I totally agree. A lake of imagination, simply. But enough to impress billion of small minds in this earth!! helàs!!



Boring, boring (did I say it before?)…. I think that the actual Bond team Barbara Broccoli/Michael Wilson forgot what was the original motivation when the series started, approved by Ian Fleming until he died a few months before the release of "Godfinger," and that was perpetued (with more or less success) for decades until this "n'importe quoi" Casino Royale 2006: Entertainment.


PS: pardon my English!!

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008

100

I missed "Godfinger"… You superficial Frenchie.

I'm 100. Yay me!

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008

101

Hey Sylvain. This has no relevance but when I read your posts I hear the voice of Sacha Baron Cohen in the character of Jean Gerrard from Talladega Nights. Mmmmwa! I taste of America.

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008

102

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008 just said: "… You superficial Frenchie."

Mea culpa, I wrote Godfinger instead of Goldfinger!!! But I also wrote "pardon my English". Didn't you see that Mr.madbax68?

You can qualifie me of superficial if you want, and if you think that what I said is superficial (but did you really understand my writing? can you read??), whatever you think on the sujject is fine, but this word of your, "FRENCHIE", has a racist conotation. It smells bad. You smell bad Max. So please, watch your language for future comments on writers on the web.

By the way, your nickname madbax68 shows a brain with a fantastic capacity in humor and originality, you should join the Eon production team, they need spirit like you to do as bad….Max!! lol lol Born in 1968, woaaaaaaa…. how imaginative and subtle too!!! lol

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008

103

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008 said minutes ago:

"Hey Sylvain. This has no relevance but when I read your posts I hear the voice of Sacha Baron Cohen in the character of Jean Gerrard from Talladega Nights. Mmmmwa! I taste of America."



Sorry but I have better things to do than watch american series. And actually I don't think this one exists in France. I even don't watch the French series, even worst than the Americans. So I don't know what you're talking about; but my little finger tells me that it must not be that nice!! looooool

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008

104

I agree with Sylvain, the "Frenchie" comment was uncalled for.

When you find yourself typing "this has no relevance," that's your brain urging you to backspace and erase. Too bad you didn't listen.

John on Aug 3, 2008

105

OMFG! LOL! I did not realize that French was a race… I guess I should feel insulted when I see the word "Yankee" and don't get me started on how the French smell… This is the best thread ever!

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008

106

Its not French, but Frenchie that you employed. Because Mr. madbax68 your brain seems to be really as narrow as James Bond personified by Daniel Craig, I have to show you how nice your Frenchie word was employed.

You wrote "You superficial Frenchie" (on Aug 3, 2008). Just imagine if someone was writing "You superficial Yankee" as you were mentioning the name. Does that sound like a critic on cinema???

And about that "smell" comment!!! how original and "relevant" (to use your word) too!!! LOL Well, what can I say to conclude, that it shows the little word where you come from and around which you survive. So readers here should apprehend your posts now with that in mind.

Now please everybody, back to the subject: James Bond 007.

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008

107

Oh snap! You sure pwned me there.

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008

108

No surprise most think Connery was the best. I'm with the few who think that Craig's Bond will go down as being the best to date at the end of the next decade. My reasons: Unless I missed them, NO STUPID ONE LINERS, which, IMO, are a plaque on the series. Turning good espionage thrillers into comic book idiocy. Another great quality about Craig's Bond is the strength of the Bond character is as it has never been before. Very commanding. This is a Bond that demands attention. I have no dislike for any of the actors choosen to play Bond. They have all been great. I even thought George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton did a great job. To me the actor is only half the debate. The movie is the other half. The first half dozen or more movies in the series were made at a time when the art of movie making was still in it's infancy. Accepting horrible acting, lame fight sequences, God awful dubbing were the norm in action movies. The Bond movies of the last 15 years sparlkle like diamonds compared to the previous movies. Maybe it's the fact that I don't just like James Bond the character, but the entire adventure, which is why I choose Daniel Craig as being the best Bond to date. A far superior all around movie experience! With that being said, I also believe the series will only get better and better in time.

Pounding Metal on Aug 8, 2008

109

my favorites
1. roger moore( he had the best storylines)very good
2. pierce brosnan ( best attitude, should have come back for a fifth and final one)very good
3. sean connery ( classic bond, should have stopped after his fifth one)good
4. daniel craig ( an ok bond, not much personality)fair
5. timothy dalton ( an ok bond, like dc to dark)fair
6. george lazenby ( should never have been bond)poor

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008

110

I'll never get the Roger Moore fans. Moore played Bond like he was a cartoon character, and Moonraker and View to a Kill were virtually unwatchable. Dalton brought the character back to life, a down to earth Bond with believable plots (or do you prefer hearing the Beach Boys as Bond skis down a mountain on one ski, or seeing Jaws slowly run into the arms of a woman and becoming a "good guy?")

Dalton saved the franchise, which is why Brosnan and now Craig play Bond MUCH closer to Dalton's interpretation than Moore's.

John on Aug 10, 2008

111

"The Bond movies of the last 15 years sparlkle like diamonds compared to the previous movies."

Really- where to start in answering this ridiculous comment? "GoldenEye," "Tomorrow Never Dies" (which was just hideous, almost as bad as "Moonraker,") "Die another Day" sparkle like Diamonds compared to which films? Dr No? Goldfinger? Thunderball?

"The first half dozen or more movies in the series were made at a time when the art of movie making was still in it's infancy."

Infancy? How old do you think infants get to be? The first Bond film was made in 1962- that would be the SIXTH DECADE of full-length filmmaking. And again- are you really telling us that in your opinion, the Brosnan films and "Casino Royale" are vastly superior to the Connery films of those early, experimental days of filmmaking, the 1960s? :>). You can't be serious.

John on Aug 10, 2008

112

pierce brosnan saved thee franchise! it was going bankrupt in the early nineties because of timothy daltons awful lisence to kill.

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008

113

timothy dalton almost killed the franchise!

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008

114

how tall are the actors this is what ive heard write back if i am wrong

sean connery- 6 "2"
george lazenby - 6 "2" 1/2
roger moore- 6" 1"
timothy dalton- 6"2"
pierce brosnan- 6"1"
daniel craig- 5" 10"

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008

115

I think that might be a little unfair, Lisense To Kill wasn't Dalton's fault.

Travis on Aug 10, 2008

116

No. 112- totally untrue. All you have to do is look at the figures. "The Living Daylights" made more money than "Octopussy" and "A View to a Kill"- that film represented a COMEBACK for the franchise. Despite poor marketing and Brocolli's refusal to expand the budget, requiring a script rewrite to set the film in Mexico instead of China, "License to Kill" was a box-office success, bringing in more than four times it's production budget.

Compare that to the Brosnan films, which were produced with much larger budgets. "GoldenEye," "Tomorrrow Never Dies," and "The World is Not Enough" barely cleared four times their production budgets, putting them each on par with "License to Kill." "Die Another Day" however was the first Bond film EVER not to make back at least four times it's production budget, pulling only $450 million on a budget of $150 million. "Casino Royale" did only slightly better.

It's also worth nothing that Pierce Brosnan is the only actor in the history of the Bond films to be FIRED from his role as James Bond 007. Not exactly an endorsement of your theory that Brosnan "saved" the franchise.

So please, do your homework before you post here. You have no idea what you are talking about.

John on Aug 11, 2008

117

as the bond budgets get bigger it gets harder to be as successful. when the bond budgets were 7,000,000 back in the early seventies it was easier to make back the money. the budget of the living daylights was 40,000,000 compared to dads 142,000,000 ( not 150,000,000) and YES pierce brosnan did save the franchise. the company was bankrupt and brosnan reinvented the character for modern times. Die another day also made so much more money than tim daltons ever would. something timothy dalton didn't do. it wasn't good for audiences at the end of the eighties because people actually wanted a light hearted bond with a the trouble going on in the world, with the berlin wall and the persian gulf war. but i do think tim would be a good bond if he were younger and doing it right now in are time.

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008

118

dont mess with me, im 6"4" i weigh 235 lbs and im an ex special forces operative.

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008

119

You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

1. It wasn't "easier" for the earlier Bond movies to make far and beyond their budgets because money was worth more then; that's just totally illogical, almost juvenile, thinking. It's all relative. My father made $30,000 in 1972, I make $55,000 in 2008. Do I make more than my father? Hell no I don't. Would "License to Kill" have made a huge amount of money if the budget was far bigger (including a decent advertising budget, instead of virtually zilch like it had in reality?) Who knows? Relative to the amount the film cost, it was far more profitable than "Die Another Day." Anyone over the age of ten should be able to grasp this concept. Discuss this with an older friend who owns a calculator. You might as well argue that Brosnan's movies crushed the Connery movies because none of them made even close to what Brosnan's did. Totally irrelevant unless you compare the production budgets.

2. If the company was "bankrupt" (and it wasn't) it had so little to do with Timothy Dalton that Dalton was signed to do "Goldeneye" all the way up to the spring of 1994, when he backed out after yet another delay in the script rewrite. Doesn't sound like a studio disenchanted with Dalton.

3. "The Living Daylights" made more money than Moore's last two films. I posted this earlier, but you clearly chose to ignore it, because it clashes with your narrative. Again- you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.

4. Brosnan "reinvented the character?" In what way? He was a hybrid of Moore and Dalton, closer to Dalton. There was nothing especially unique about the way Brosnan portrayed Bond.

5. And again- Brosnan was such a savior of the Bond franchise that he was unceremoniously dumped in favor of virtual unknown Daniel Craig. Brosnan has said in interviews that he was "shocked and saddened" by his dismissal. But the FACT is that Brosnan's films were very expensive rolls of the dice that were only modestly successful compared to the other Bond films.

"Brosnan saved the franchise"-please, do your homework.

John on Aug 11, 2008

120

dont mess with me, im 6"4" i weigh 235 lbs and im an ex special forces operative.

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008

–who knows nothing about the Bond films.

John on Aug 11, 2008

121

as you say money isnt worth as much today, so it should be harder for the new bond films to make more money. but brosnans worst efforts still make as much as tims.
by the way tim dalton was shaddened and shocked by his leaving bond. He didnt expect the company to almost go bankrupt(which it did) ( watch lisence to kill bonus features on the dvd) Brosnan made a true comeback. the series had faded and was being upstaged by movies like die hard and other new action movies. Brosnan brought bond back into the public. he hadnt been seen in six years. Sure tim dalton made his first bond movie good, the living daylights. Yea it was a little better than the previous roger moore adventure. but the way he wanted to make bond darker and darker just wasn't good for the franchise at that time.( remember what i wrote above) The living daylights only made a little more than octopussy. and that was because of inflassion. he still didnt outgross rogers MOONRAKER! which wouldnt be outgrossed until goldeneye. Pierce brosnan reinvented the character by bringing the charm and wit that tim dalton had nothing of. tim dalton was signed on to goldeneye to spring 94 thats correct but he backed out because he was fed up with the argueing and loss of money when the studio nearly went bankrupt! im signing off now. ive got better things to do than chat up a storm with you and waste my time. the names struan, dirk struan

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008

122

You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are making it worse by making things up. I have the Licence to Kill Special Edition DVD, and there is no talk of the studio "going bankrupt." The film was badly advertised and did not do the box office it was expected to do, PERIOD.

The delay in making Dalton's third film was caused by trademarking issues and a subsequent lawsuit- nothing to do with the studio lacking money, because it didn't. NOTHING.

And then you change the subject- yes, BROSNAN made a great comeback after being basically out of the spotlight for almost a decade. BROSNAN made the comeback, NOT THE BOND SERIES.

The rest of your post is just opinion- Brosnan brought charm that "Dalton didn't have," etc. Fine. You are entitled to like Brosnan and dismiss Dalton. No problem. But don't try to fortify your argument by making stuff up like "the studio was bankrupt and Brosnan swept in and saved it, yay!" Because it aint true.

John on Aug 11, 2008

123

Oh and BTW "The Living Daylights" made more money than "Octopussy" even when adjusted for inflation.

I can tell by your diction and your failure to grasp an argument that you think getting an education is a waste of time. I hope you are heading out to buy your self a dictionary now. And a clue.

John on Aug 11, 2008

124

Uh oh, we have yet another "expert" in yet another forum. What a shock! Thanks "John" for setting us all straight. You go ahead and sit in sheer excitement watching Oddjob "pushing" Bond around the room givng him a good work over and I'll keep enjoy the stunt work and action sequences in the more recent years, like the arrogant idiot that I am. LOL

Pounding Metal on Aug 11, 2008

125

Deal. I'll take Oddjob "pushing" Connery around Fort Knox and you can have Pierce Brosnan digitally surfing on a wave caused by a collapsing glacier before he gets back to his invisible car ANY DAY.

John on Aug 11, 2008

126

By the way, if doing a few minutes worth of research makes me an "expert" in your eyes, I can understand why you appreciate the shiny cool gadgets and digital special effects of the later movies over realism. I didn't refer to myself as an "expert." You sound like someone who tries to end every argument you are losing with "Oh look at Mister Ed-U-Kation over here, thinks he's BETTER'N ME DOES HE?"

And I appreciate the royal "we"- "look gang, someone's trying to use statistics to prove something! We've been invaded by a rocket scientist!"

Crawl back into your hole, moron. I'm not going to apologize for being able to use my brain.

John on Aug 11, 2008

127

Crawling back in my hole. Thanks for the insults John.

Pounding Metal on Aug 11, 2008

128

dont worry pounding metal, i to think johns an idiot trying to sound smart and represent a awful bond

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008

129

It's I "too," "john" is a proper name and should start with a capital letter, "I" shoujld be capitalized for the same reason, it's "too," not "to," "appear" rather than "sound" smart since one can't hear posts, "an" is to be used before a word beginning with a vowel, and "Bond" should be capitalized for the same reason as "John."

Oh, and you should end your posts with a period. That's the way we know the rant is over.

Now here's a quick quiz: Which of the following is more correct:

A. "Don't worry Pounding Metal…" OR

B. "dont worry pounding metal…"

Have fun!

John on Aug 11, 2008

130

Dude why dont we get back to Bond. I do think Dirk Struan has a point though. You sound very cocky and not very smart. A smart person knows when they are smart and does not need to shout out that they are smart to everybody. People will figure that out when they get to know you.

lance on Aug 11, 2008

131

I think Lance is right. John, your mean and stupid.

Susan Q. on Aug 11, 2008

132

I saw when you were writing to Dirk Struan you said " Brosnan swept in and saved it, Yea!" " Because it AINT true. WHAT KIND OF GRAMMAR IS THAT! You can not give other people English lessons. You do not even know English yourself.

Susan Q. on Aug 12, 2008

133

I saw the preview for Quantum of Solace on a theater a week ago. Huge on the screen. What a consternant vision again, dark images, same loud sound when somebody uses his gun (in case you don't notice the action on the screen!! lol) and about that terrible trytobeanactorcraig: same pinched lips, same attitude whatever he does, a loser look. It seems he really enjoyed that chair the last time!!! And again a scene in a scaffold (they have imagination at EON!! LOL). They really shoud have bring back that chair for another exciting sequence, and by chance this 00000000Craig would give up the Bond movies. One can dream, helas..helas….

sylvain from Paris on Aug 31, 2008