Whose BOND flicks were worse: Roger Moore's or Brosnan's?

[DerekG]

Understand, I have nothing against either actor, but their films were utter abominations. Eleven movies between them, and the only one that had any respect for Ian Fleming's world was For Your Eyes Only.

Help me settle this debate, please.

[The Straight Story]

1. Bronsan had one slight edge

In that his movies were done later with some better writing and less hokie plots/scenes.

Roger Moore was less of a pretty boy and seemed more realistic in some ways.

They were both entertaining though, but i'll take Bourne :)

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Moore's, totally. And not any fault of Moore - the writing was shit.

Those movies, except the first three, should be stricken from the canon.

Brosnan's Bond, acting-wise, was a brilliant Bond - though there were some sufferings from script with his movies as well.

But of all the Bonds, I rank Brosnan one of the top three: Connery, Brosnan, and that last guy.

[jobycom]

17. Hunh.

I agree with you. :shrug:

Except I might put Dalton higher than Brosnan. Depends on my mood. Dalton's Bond was good, but the two scripts he got were confused, with that whole "What do we need super spies for now that the USSR has collapsed?"

[DarkTirade]

3. I think Moore was a worse actor, but his movies were better written

Brosnan COULD have been a great Bond, had he been given the right script and directing.

Keep in mind I'm not disagreeing with the comment above mine, I don't think Moore's were particularly well written... just better written than the ones Brosnan was in. :)

[Fox Mulder]

4. Brosnan was one of the best Bonds, IMO.

Roger Moore was worse because he had to deal with crappy script writing.

[LynneSin]

12. I've only ever watched the Brosnan Bond movies

I attempted to watch Casino Royale and fell asleep during the middle of it. Something about Pierce Brosnan just attracts the chicks.

[Kutjara]

5. Moore's were hands-down worst.

- His entire acting repertoire consists of lifting one eyebrow.
- He was about 153 years old, so his "love scenes" looked like necrophelia.
- His early days as a stuntman must have screwed his back, because he moved with all the grace of a Chippendale sideboard.
- His hair was constructed from a single piece of steel that never moved a millimeter, regardless of what the rest of him was doing.
- The clothing was 1970s. Need I say more?
- The special effects would have shamed the set designers of early Dr. Who episodes.
- The supporting characters were stereotypes of stereotypes, rising to a crescendo with Sherriff J.W. Pepper, who made Boss Hogg look like Sir John Geilgud.
- The Lotus Esprit was the most unbelievable submergible car ever, considering the real one couldn't even keep out the rain.
- The Bond girls during this time were bimbos, even by the standards of the time. Giving a couple of them PhDs didn't fool anyone.
- The writing was appalling, to the point where Bond's little coup de grace bon mots sounded like Tourettes.

[Frank Cannon]

7. The Esprit was the most unbelievable submersible car ever?

And the invisible car from that last piece of shite Brosnan Bond film was the most believable invisible car ever? :shrug:

[Kutjara]

8. I couldn't see anything wrong with it.

;)

Actually, my comment was more about the poor quality and general leakiness of Lotus products during the 1970s than any confusion as to the existence of submersible cars.

[Fenris]

6. I think Timothy Dalton's Bond films are worse than both.

[Giant Robot]

14. Double plus agree

[regnaD kciN]

9. "For Your Eyes Only"...

I remember one of the great moments in Academy Award telecast history that year, when Bette Midler was reading the names of the nominees for Best Original Song: "'For Your Eyes Only', from the motion picture For Your Eyes Only...and you know, they're right: it must have been for your eyes only, because my eyes couldn't stand a frame of it!"

:spank:

As to my opinion on the question of the thread: there's only one James Bond. If it doesn't star Sean Connery, it's shite!

[DerekG]

10. You haven't seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale?

The two best Bond films, and Connery is nowhere in sight.

[jobycom]

19. Sean Connery? Did he ever do Bond talkie films?

I remember them in black and white and silent, with that piano playing in the background. :rofl:

Fleming called Sean Connery a puffed-up stuntman, or something like that, and really wanted Roger Moore for the role. He warmed to Connery, though. Still, I don't get that attitude, that Connery was the only real Bond. He was good, but... Maybe it's a generational thing. I grew up on Moore, so Connery was like watching an old Sherlock Holmes movie to me. Interesting from an historical perspective, and I could see the charm, but if I was in a mood to just enjoy a film, I wouldn't pull one of his off the shelf first.

[Deep13]

11. Moore's without question.

Many of them were mere spoofs of 007 films.

[DS1]

13. Brosnan was better at being Bond, but his movies were total shite

[NewJeffCT]

15. The movies sucked in general for both of them

I think Brosnan was better overall, but the movies were just so bad that it's kind of hard to tell.

[supernova]

16. Brosnan's best is Goldeneye

What's betting than a double dealing 00 agent for a villian?

Alec Trevelyan (Formerly 006): Unusual in that he was a former colleague of Bond in MI6, Trevelyan makes for one of the more interesting villains of the series consequently. When Bond discovers Trevelyan was not executed, but in fact taken on by General Ourumov, the by-play between them on their recent pasts provide the audience with some scenes valuable to the film. Looking more deeply into the character, you find that his motives, like villains before him in the series, are rather dubious. Here, his reason for treason is that his parents (Lienz Cossacks) were poorly treated after World War Two by the British. It could be argued that he is an avenger but more oftern than not, world domination or lust for money is the vital reason behind these twisted masterminds. Trevelyan's reason is in the same league as that of Blofeld in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (recognition of a dodgy claim to title). Despite that, the role is played with understatement by popular British actor Sean Bean, who develops a good dialogue with Brosnan - their fight scenes are good too.

http://www.thegoldengun.co.uk/goldeneye/geyevillainsdf.htm

[InvisibleTouch]

18. I love both, actually, so can't help you here. n/t

[Vidar]

20. I liked Moore's Bond, though not as well as Connery. I haven't really cared

for any of the newer incarnations.