519 replies to this topic

[dinovelvet]

Gentlemen. Soon you may come to see as I have…

…DIE ANOTHER DAY is probably his best Bond film.

There's no "probably" about it, old boy. Make yourself a mojito, put on your best Robocop costume, and sit back and enjoy the show. DAD is a rollercoaster of fun, thrilling action, some truly terrible moments, and pure spectacle.

[Dekard77]

Neeson has his moments but I do believe you when you say he is rather bland but was terrific in Taken. He is a very good actor but don't know how well he'd be Bond. When I said step back meaning when Brosnan took over the mantel it was more or less forgotten by the audience then and the whole typecasting of Bond would have scared him off. Star Wars expectations were much higher when he took the role and I must say the actor looked thoroughly bored.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Joel Silver seemed confident that he could have gotten Mel Gibson to do the role when Silver was pursuing the film rights back in the early 90's (when, apparently, Cubby quietly put them up for sale, though I don't recall whether EON has officially elaborated on that or not).

I can actually picture Gibson as Bond in the early-80s. In "The Year of Living Dangerously," he came across as quite Bond-like, playing a reporter named Guy Hamilton, no less. But by the time the 90s rolled around, he was too associated with the "Lethal Weapon" films to take on the role, though - to bring this thread back to Dalton - in some ways I think "Lethal Weapon 2" is a better, and more Bondian, film than that summer's LTK.

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 12 August 2009 - 09:08 PM.

[Judo chop]

There's no "probably" about it, old boy. Make yourself a mojito, put on your best Robocop costume, and sit back and enjoy the show. DAD is a rollercoaster of fun, thrilling action, some truly terrible moments, and pure spectacle.

Yeah. But it’s that particular catch above that continually takes me back to “probably”.

Oh… <sigh>… I just don’t know.

Do I want to sit at home in a comfortable chair, at a comfortable temperature, with a glass warm water reading 10th grade text books (GOLDENEYE)?
Or do I want to go to an amusement park and get tossed about on exhilarating roller coasters and plunging water rides all day in the blazing sun with a gerbil in my pants periodically biting my nutsack (DIE ANOTHER DAY)?

You of course see the dilemma.

[Turn]

I've never understood how Neeson could even be considered for the role. He had, and still has, a rather bland look. I remember thinking at the time that if Neeson were hired I would quit the series. I don't think he was even seriously considered, was he? Just about every Brit, Aussie, Scottish, or Irish actor at the time was probably "considered", but I don't think he even screen-tested. Furthermore, 007 would not have been a step-back for Neeson; certainly no more so than being in THE PHANTOM MENACE.

I quite agree, I've never seen much to Neeson to convince me of his being Bond. I can't see him pulling off the Bondian charm, the gleam in his eye or being with a man women find irresistible. I did think he came off better than I thought he would in Phantom Menace, though.

Although, I haven't seen Taken, but Neeson seems to be rather convincing as an agent in that from the little I've seen of it. But never as Bond.

[SpaceAgent]

I'm also on board with TND as Brosnan's best. Overall I think GE is the better made movie, but I think Brosnan was more convincing (and seemed to have more fun) in TND. TND is missing character development, but the movie on the whole, is Brosnan's most entertaining Bond movie.

I also think TND is Brosnan's best, and one of the most entertaining Bonds in a long time when it came out. Sure, Goldeneye was a good film too, but I disliked that nearly every scene ended with some sort of explosion. It was overkill, IMO. The last two Brosnan films have always been disappointments for me.

As for Dalton, I thought (and still think) Living Daylights was one of the best in the entire series, but that LTK was a disappointment. I saw LTK again very recently, and my wife - who is a Bond fan in her own right and quite knowledgeable too - said it seemed like a generic '80s revenge thriller, the sort which would have starred Jean-Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal. Given the popularity of those actors in the late 80s, that angle must have come up in production discussions.

[Safari Suit]

Neither of them were particularly popular in the late 80s. Seagal had only made one film when LTK came out, and Van Damme was still making fairly bog standard kickboxing flicks with middling box office returns. There may be similarities, but their films weren't an influence.

[Dekard77]

I guess the influence was Lethal Weapon, Die Hard,Rambo and Miami Vice. Van Damme and Seagall were mostly a video hit stars at that point .

[Stephen Spotswood]

I quite agree, I've never seen much to Neeson to convince me of his being Bond. I can't see him pulling off the Bondian charm, the gleam in his eye or being with a man women find irresistible. I did think he came off better than I thought he would in Phantom Menace, though.

Although, I haven't seen Taken, but Neeson seems to be rather convincing as an agent in that from the little I've seen of it. But never as Bond.
[/quote]
____________________________________________________________________________

Because:

http://2.bp.blogspot...ndlers-list.jpg

I understand even he was considered:
http://top-people.st..... Fiennes3.jpg


And toward the end of the Moore years he was floated:
http://thegoodparts....eremy-irons.jpg

[Dekard77]

My vote at the time was with Ralph Fiennes but am glad it didn't work out. I am not quite sure he could have pulled off the action.