Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on December 12, 2008 at 15:07:09

In Reply to: RE: MickLasalle of the SF Chronicle had an interesting response... posted by mkuller on December 12, 2008 at 14:40:00

I grew up with Roger Moore, and thought he was better than Connery. As I have become older, I appreciated Connery more and more, and now feel Connery much better than Moore. I can watch Connery's films over and over. With rare exception, Moore's films seem dated. I think this also stems from the fact that Connery is a better actor. Look at some of Moore's work when he played The Saint before Bond, and I am hardpressed to tell much of a difference. I would disagree with his characterization of Moore as a first rate actor.

I always felt that Dalton was underappreciated. Following on the heels of Moore, I think that he suffered from the attention deficit disorder of people who were drawn to Bond during Moore's tenure. I think if Moore had only done three films or so, Dalton would have been more successful.

For me, Brosnan is the wild card. I liked his films as Bond, but I question what lasting attraction they will hold. He is very dapper, like Moore, but I think that dapper, English gentleman quality is what ultimately loses my interest in Moore's films. I fear it will do the same with Brosnan's films.

I thought Craig an odd choice, but seeing the first two films, and seeing what the producers are trying to do with Bond, I've enjoyed him very much. My parents, who saw the first Bond film as the opening bill of a three film bill at a drive-in complained that Craig's first was really not a Bond film. Comparing the other films, in which the character is fully formed, with Craig's two films is a bit unfair, as Craig is playing an entirely different Bond, much as we are not the same person we were twenty years ago. We learn things, and develop new habits. And so it must be with Bond. Let's revisit Craig after another four films.