Ian Keldon wrote:
I have no desire to see any Bond film with Craig as Bond or the current production team.
They should not have let Brosnan go early...he was perfect in the role.
Brosnan's Bond feels like he was created by some advertising agency to sell watches, cars and vodka. It's as though they took all the stereotypical attributes of Fleming's character, combined them, and grew Brosnan in a vat. All the other Bonds have something that defines them: Connery's toughness, Moore's charm, Dalton's darkness, with Craig having some elements of both Connery and Dalton. But what does Brosnan have? Beyond the Bond stereotypes, he's essentially a cipher.
Also, he runs like a girl.
He was a mix of all of his predecessors. Connery's charm, Moore's humour, Lazenby's vulnerability and Dalton's humanity. As I've said before in this thread, he was exactly what the franchise needed at that time - people were ready for a populist Bond, a sort of 'best of' 007. You only have to look at the box office receipts for his movies compared to any of those from the early 1980s onwards.
Rush Limborg wrote:
Oh, it's more than that. Brosnan came across--to me, anyway--as the most refined, the most cultured of the Bonds. He's the most reserved, the most polite, if you will. He's a gentleman with a slick sense of style, who could still kick your behind if need be.
Honestly...he struck me as the Bond most comfortable in a tuxedo--and frankly, in his own skin.
As someone said, Craig is like the doorman in the casino, Brosnan like the croupier.