Jump to content

Bond vs. Moneypenney


friendofsheila
 Share

This topic is 5936 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

I opted out of keeping up with James Bond after the first Brosnan movie, whatever it was called. So I've missed out on how Bond & Moneypenny have evolved if at all.

 

I remember they'd become more sparring partners, pretending to flirt, pretending to be serious but not serious, in that movie. I kind of liked where the previous Bonds had just nuzzled up to her to get on her good side, but things change I suppose.

 

So what has their relationship become?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brosnan never really "pulled it off" for me. Other than his accent, he never really projected the "Image" of J.B. as the One and Only did... Sean Connery!

Now he is Pissed, after for along time saying, Probably No More J.B. FOR ME! (Contract Negotiations)

They hired a "Hunky" Sexy Actor, to replace Skinny and he is so upset! LOL :+

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: Bond

 

I always thought that Lois Maxwell played a great Miss Moneypenny within the Bond franchise. She had a tremendous rapport with both Sean Connery and Roger Moore in their respective eras of playing the main lead. In the upcoming film " Casino Royale " which happens to be one of Ian Flemmings earliest novels revolving around the character of Bond, the producers of the film project have decided to axe both the characters of Moneypenny and Q, but the character of M will still remain and offcourse Dame Judi Dench will be reprising the role most probably one last time.

 

I always felt that Pierce Brosnan really did a fantastic job in playing James Bond. He brought back that level of intensity to the character that had been somewhat largely lacking during Timothy Dalton's run. With all due respect to Mr Dalton himself, there was never an edge to his two performances within the franchise. It couldn't have been easy for him knowing that he was entering the franchise just on the heels of Roger Moore. From a story point of view, it certainly didn't help that both " The Living Daylights " and " Licence To Kill " were just plain crap. After the summer of 1989, the Bond franchise went into a tailspin for three years. Partial blame went to Timothy Dalton's portrayal and a little bit went to the producers. In the end MGM decided to take a break and give the franchise a good rest.

 

Around early 1993, MGM decided to have another crack at the Bond franchise and offcourse the press reports were buzzing as to which Hollywood actor would play the lead role in " Goldeneye ", in the end it really boiled down to Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan. The main reason why the studio took Mr Moore into account is that he expressed interest in wanting to play the role one more time and offcourse the audience could identify with him. As opposed to Pierce Brosnan, whose only fame had come on television in the role of Remington Steeele. For MGM and the producers it was a tough choice, in the end they went with Brosnan, not because of Roger Moore's age, but rather due to his inflated salary demands. I think going with Brosnan turned out to be the wiser choice. Offcourse six years after the debacle of " Licence To Kill ", the 1995 film " Goldeneye " had a lot to prove artistically and the box office. The movie proved to be a hit with critics as well as movie audiences. The follow up in 1997 with " Tomorrow Never Dies " solidified Pierce Brosnan, even Sean Connery praised him, which he had never done for both Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton.

 

I think it's a good idea for the franchise to take on a new face. Looking at Pierce Brosnan's last throw in as Bond in " Die Another Day " which came out in 2002. I thought it was a really good film, the casting of Halle Berry proved to be a wise choice, particularily as she won an Oscar for her role in " Monsters Ball " and it made people pay attention to her role in Bond, mainly cause of her body, but that's life. As for Brosnan, he should be proud of his four films and it's a great way to go out of the franchise, he will always be remembered as the actor who saved the film franchise in the 1990's. Now that the Bond will be taking on a new face in the form of Daniel Craig, I hope he turns out to be great in " Casino Royale ". I thought his performance in " Layer Cake " was really good and if he's able to bring build on what Brosnan brought to the role, if he's able to maintain an edge to the main character and if the story turns out to be dynamite at the box office, he'll be vindicated and probably carry on for a good 7-10 year run.

 

Every actor has been subsequently compared to Sean Connery, and Daniel Craig will be no different. We'll find out in 2007 just how successful or unsuccessful Mr Craig will turn out to be.

 

Rohale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...