Hi seri,

I very much agree with most of your points.

However, I only gradually came to agree with your opinion on Pierce Brosnan. I was thrilled when he was chosen as the new Bond in 1994, but over the course of his four Bond movies, my opinion of his way of playing Bond deteriorated a lot. Although I originally found Daniel Craig an odd choice, I have come to agree with this casting decision given the 'prequel' concept of the upcoming CASINO ROYALE and I am now glad he replaced Brosnan. Brosnan is either too limited and superficial in his playing of Bond or they never let him show the real range of his acting abilities (as he suggested in his notorious PLAYBOY interview).

I agree with your opinion on Dalton and Lazenby 100%

Regarding the frequent speculation about "What would OHMSS have been like with Connery?", I strongly disagree with the oft-stated view that Connery would have been so much better. I have to say that although Connery definitely set the standard of how people expect Bond to be like, Connery never appeared to me as a very versatile actor, putting it mildly. In other words, Connery would probably never have been able (and probably not willing either) to play a Bond showing emotions. In a way, I think of Connery's acting skills as similarly limited as Brosnan's. So, NO, I don't think Connery would have been great in OHMSS. Not at all.

On the music. Plainly speaking, I liked exactly two James Bond scores in the last 25 years (FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS). This is absolutely the last shot I would give Arnold. If he cannot produce anything deeper now than his previous three Bond scores, I would really want to see him dropped as soon as possible.

Regards,

Urs

handstand, October 6, 2006; 8:16 PM

It's just more than Pierce Brosnan perhaps being limited in his acting abilities or perhaps coming through as a superficial 007.
This modern day flacid persona, even though a fine actor in his own right, simply did not have or does not have the Sean Connery/Roger Moore charisma and charm and frankly the overall James Bond look and absolutely no way compares to any of these two actors.

George Lazenby on the other hand was overshadowed and could not compete or at least was not given the chance to, by Sean Connery's magnetic, manly and rugged larger than life presence which indeed did root the refined and educated, athletic, strong jawed, pierce looking, cold blooded, licensed to kill 007's low key character traits and set the standards for this big screen potrayal of James Bond - at least in the first few of the Bond films - only to be replaced again by Connery in a slightly less serious, more fun and off beat potrayal of 007 on his final Broccoli/Saltzman produced James Bond film ''Diamonds Are Forever'' (among my favorites) only to return much later in 1983 in the independent ''Never Say Never''.

Roger Moore was actually Ian Fleming's first choice to play the James Bond character but soon was overtaken and became convinced of Sean Connery's strong character 007 performance.

Roger Moore was undoubtetly the debonaire and gracious, totally British and noble, refined looking James Bond were as Sean Connery, besides having different acting skills, was the more athletic looking, again rugged and again manly, cutting edge James Bond.

Timothy Dalton a fine actor indeed, gave a more earthy and less perfect feel to 007's character, still rugged and refined but perhaps a bit clumsier than the preceeding James Bond characters who unfortunately was not given the chance as was not done much earlier with his fellow actor George Lazenby to develop and transgress the 007 character onto the films to follow.

Roger Moore on the other hand though had a head start as 007 since his experience from the days he potrayed Simon Templar in The Saint must have proved excellent experience for his new role as James Bond.

Let us only hope "Casino Royale" will prove to be an intelligent and less noisy rebounce on this 44 year run of James Bond films and a tribute to the original films because if not, ''Casino Royale'' might be the last James Bond film we will ever see if not permanently at least for a very long time.

serifiot, October 6, 2006; 11:00 PM

If my memory serves me correctly, Ian Fleming's first choice to play James Bond was Noel Coward, his second choice was his cousin Christopher Lee. Ian Fleming was never happy with Sean Connery and took some serious persuading from the producers, Broccoli and Saltzman and was still not happy until the finished product still. Here in England, however, OHMSS is considered amongst James Bond afficionados as the best James Bond film and I dont know if that opinion is shared. The reason for Connery's return was that his film, I think it was Zardoz and maybe one other had bombed and so he went back to the producers offering to play Bond. The temptation was irresistable to the producers and I think he was paid a considerable sum of money to return. Connery, though, had ulterior motives, he was financialy unsecure at this time as he was funding certain projects, so I am led to believe, which needed an in flux of cash. He was adamant and swore never to do a James Bond film again. Remember, Never Say Never...Again! I am not happy with the new casting of Daniel Craig as his hair is too light and he has these piercing eyes, but what do I know. We'll wait until the box office shows us the returns! I would have preferred Dougray Scott.

TheSaint.786, October 7, 2006; 9:58 AM

Hmmm... I never knew Christopher Lee was related to Ian Fleming. Interesting triviality.

I believe that Christopher Lee (with fangs) being eight years older than Sean Connery and five years older than Roger Moore would have been a bit too old to play an early thirties and robust James Bond back in 1962 and if he had done so it's most likely that he would not have made all those Hammer films I luv to watch so I'm glad he was not chosen.

He was excellent though as the villainous Francisco Scaramanga in The Man With The Golden Gun.

As far as Ian Fleming at first not being fond of the idea for Sean Connery playing the character role of 007 must have stemmed from the fact that Connery was a Scottish, unrefined, rough looking lad as opposed to a milky and polished 100% British import like himself.
I'm sure Mr. Fleming thought otherwise after the huge success of Dr. No and the films to follow.

Interestingly enough, Cristopher Lee believes that the best big screen Bond character and the closest to Ian Flemig's potrayal of 007 in his novels was Pierce Brosnan. Yikes!...

Sorry Count Chris but with all due respect my opinion on Pierce Brosnan as 007 has been made clear already.

Perhaps I should view these late Brosnan Bond films once more without falling asleep.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4735000.stm

P.S. Yes, I also share the view that OHMSS is among the top Bond films.

Sir Sean Connery was paid a whopping 1.2 million British Pounds for his last film "Diamonds Are Forever'' which at the time was the highest paid salary of any actor!

P.P.S. Well phrased David! Perhaps Ian we'll reventilate once more with the soon to be released "Casino Royale".

serifiot, October 7, 2006; 5:25 PM