Casino Royale 1954 Review

[amp316]

spurgeonryan said:

amp316 said:

zuvuyeay said:

spurgeonryan said:
Brosnan is your least favorite?

What about the guy who plays bond in this movie, or the guy from Hot Fuzz who played bond in the early 90's, or lazenby?

Brosnan is right behind Connery. I.M.O and in many others opinions as well. Goldeneye alone cemented his spot at number two!

not for me,but we will have to see i prefer lazenby and dalton,timothy dalton was the 80's wasn't he i like the tommorow never dies story of the media manipulator,here is a chance for brosnan to see how he really shapes up in the world of bond

and the guy we just watched is not a real bond movie if you ask me

First off, I don't consider Barry Nelson to be a real Bond either.  It was a completely different character the way that it was done.

Out of the official Bonds, I also rank Brosnan last.  Sure, he was a good looking guy and could charm the pants off of the ladies, but he was not convincing as a tough guy at all.  When Connery, Lazenby, or Craig punched someone there was no question that it would hurt.  When Brosnan would, you were afraid that he broke a nail or something.  Also, his portrayal of Bond to me was similar to Roger Moore in the way that it seemed as though he was more interested in spitting out one liners than getting the job done.  The thing is, Roger Moore actually was much better at the comedic stuff and in that way Brosnan comes across as Roger Moore Lite.  I know that many people disagree with me and list Brosnan as their 2nd favorite or even sometimes top Bond ever, but I never saw him that way.

Now I really like the movie GoldenEye, but Pierce Brosnan was not why (I didn't care for the next three nearly as much).  The plot and villians were the reason why it was a good film. 

You liked Goldeneye. That is reason enough why Brosnan is number 2. If Sean Connery would have made just one movie "From Russia with Love", he still would have been the best Bond ever! Brosnan worked his ass off in Goldeneye, and some would say Die Another Day as well. Surfing Tsunamis, Fighting in Planes plummeting to Earth, Battling Sean Bean (One of the best villains ever!) flew an airplane off of a cliff while riding a motorcycle, etc.

Bond does not have to be a tough guy, Sean Connery was not all that tough, and neither was Mr. Moore for that matter.

1. Connery vs Odd Job

2. Connery vs Guy in train in From Russia with Love

I think that people have forgotten that Bond has not always been the running, parkay jumping, pain bearing, beat to a pulp agent like Daniel Craig portrays in the recent movies. I think Casino Royale was no different than the Casino Royale in this movie here. They were testing the waters. Back then it was more of a 'How do we do this Bond thing'. Recently it was how do we compete with Jason Bourne, and get back to reality after the previous Bond films (with Brosnan). Did you see the 2 points that I made above this paragraph? Bond did not automatically win because he was some sort of tough guy. Yes, it helped in  his fight with Grant, but it was not the reason the tables had turned. Ingenuity. Connery had it and so did Brosnan. You saw it in Brosnans eyes whenever he was on screen. From the very beginning of Goldeneye he was already one step ahead even though he was up shit creek. Reducing the time on the bombs, pushing the cart to the conveyor belt, F**K!-flying off a cliff on a motorcycle to catch a plane as it careened off a cliff to its doom only to fly it out while the whole airport blew up in the back ground!

I think Brosnan deserves much more respect. He may not have been tough, but he had the balls an no-how to get the job done. Always!

GoldenEye was a very good Bond film, but not one of the best.  I would rank many Bond films higher.  Anyway, I do not rank the actors by how good the movies were that they were in.  To me On Her Majesty's Secret Service was probably the best non-Connery, but that doesn't make Lazenby my second favorite Bond.

I am not saying that Bond always won in the end because of his fighting ability, but it definitely is a factor.  This man is not only an agent for the secret service, but he works for the Double 0 Section.  This means that he has a license to kill.  Why is this?  It's because he is highly skilled in not only weapon proficiency, but also in hand to hand combat.  Of course he has to rely on ingenuity against guys like Odd Job and Jaws since they would be unbeatable otherwise, but he should be able to dispose of most opponents (with his bare hands) easily.  

I don't know what Connery movies you were watching where he wasn't that tough.  There are many sequences that involve brawling and he was very convincing in them.  I couldn't even tell you how many times he one hit KO-ed someone.  Brosnan even has done it.  He did that hold both hands up spin around and punch somebody out move on more than one occasion and every time that I see it, I shake my head in disbelief.  

To me the reason that Moore and Brosnan are guys that push buttons and blow things up more than the other Bonds is because even the film makers know that they aren't very believable in the physical action sequences.