Whose Bond movies were worse: Moore's or Brosnan's

[DerekG]

Now that 007 is cool again for the first time since, well, the '60s, let's take a journey through the Dark Times.

Which Bond era was worse?

The one with the smirking buffoon fighting midgets and Jaws and spacemen in feature length cartoons, or the one with the uzi-equipped metrosexual sprinting his way through needlessly convoluted plots with schizophrenic tones?

Pick your poison.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

1. Of course Moore's were worse. I rooted for the villain in every one of them.

Moore was too smirky / smarmy / catty. Yeah, I know Connery had the sarcasm and "dry wit" as well, but Moore was like Rex Reed with a license to kill.

[Swede]

2. Brosnan's Bond had depth.

The alcohol and womanizing was not played tongue in cheek,but as his escape from murdering people and letting friends die.

[baldguy]

3. Brosnan was consistent; but Moore had a greater range.

Moore was the very definition of suck, but Scaramanga was one one the best Bond villains ever.

[bikebloke]

15. The Man With the Golden Gun

I saw that again recently. It was one of Moore's better Bond portrayals. Unless my attention was diverted by Maude Adams and Brit Eklund.

[nickinSTL]

4. Moore, definitely

the ONLY thing he did well was deliver stupid one-liners.

Brosnan was decent aside from his complete inability to deliver those same stupid one-liners.

[MilesColtrane]

5. Moore's Bond was the equivalent of Adam West's Batman.

I'm not fond of brooding killers being given the camp treatment.

[Captain Hilts]

13. Brilliant comparison. nt

[hunter]

6. Ain't nothing worse than a hollow mountain full of space shuttle knock-offs...

...except possibly Moore's zero gravity sex scene.



NOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo...........

[zx_3500]

7. brosnan's

doesn't help that brosnan can't act

[hunter]

8. I can't hate Pierce Brosnan after Mamma Mia!

Brosnan's was a brilliant performance as a Frank Capra everyman struggling to maintain his dignity amidst superstars and shining youth.

[Captain Hilts]

12. But he didn't mug at the camera like Moore. nt

[Captain Hilts]

9. Moore's sucked out loud. Brosnan's were terrific. nt

[Common Sense Party]

10. Moore's.

[CBGLuthier]

11. Moore's They were just embarrassing

He made me not care about the rest until much later. Dalton was the next really good Bond.

[PVnRT]

14. Easily Roger Moore

Especially with the last three, when he looked more like Grandpa Simpson than a suave, dashing British agent.

[cemaphonic]

16. hmm, Moore was definitely the worse Bond of the two, and some of his movies were the nadir

(I'm looking at you, Moonraker and Octopussy)

OTOH, the Brosnan movies all seem interchangeable and unmemorable to me, while a few of the Moore ones had some decent plots and scenarios. And none of the Brosnan movies are anywhere near as good as "For Your Eyes Only."

[jobycom]

17. Connery's, probably, but they were still good.

I guess it's what you grow up believing, but Connery's Bond raped a woman to save the world (Pussy Galore, no less), treated women like pets (objects would have bee an upgrade), and, as Ian Fleming said, was little more than a stuntman with lines. I'm a Bond fan, and still like the Connery Bond movies (From Russia With Love is one of the best), but I have a much harder time liking them than any of the others.

Moore, who was Fleming's first pick to play Bond before Connery got the role, was great, but he had the worst Bond film ever (Moonraker--I'm not counting Never Say Never, or I'd have to say Connery had the worst). Brosnan had the potential to be the best, but the producers were stuck in trying to recapture the sci-fi stuff of the 70s and gave him some bad scripts. Goldeneye was one of the best Bond films, but "Die Another Day" was just half a step better than Moonraker. Still, I loved Brosnan's character, even if the film's were bland.

And Brosnan introduced Dench as M. That's the best move ever by the franchise. Even in the Brosnan flicks, she added a level to the films they had long lacked by portraying the cautious but sympathetic side of Britain, similar to the M in the books. Her role under Craig has been a masterpiece, becoming integral to the stories and bringing dimensions out of Craig's character so that the audience can relate to the human side of Bond (Ian Fleming's whole point in writing the novels, to show the human side of a secret agent) without Craig having to go all maudlin to do it.

My assessment. Judging by your thread title, you won't agree with it. :)

[Vidar]

18. Brosnan.

[Alexander]

19. Moonraker was so terrible that I have to say Moore just by default.

I mean, come on. A laser battle in space? In a James Bond movie?

Die Another Day was right behind it in terms of sheer awfulness, but then Moore also had A View To A Kill, which was not only terrible, he was way too old (58) to be playing a believable James Bond.

At least with Brosnan, they knew to give it a rest by the time he reached 50.

[Taverner]

20. Brosnan was a GOOD Bond, but the movies were horrible

Waste of a perfectly fine Bond...

[Moondog]

21. Moore was a self-parody. He sucked. n/t

[whistler162]

22. Connery!

Lazenby was the greatest Bond besides Sellers or Niven