This sets off a new Bond era

Rating: Null/10 (28 December 2006)

Nobody has ever mentioned the fact that DC had already led an already-formed actor career, able to pull off real dramatic situations, at the moment of taking over the James Bond role while Pierce Brosnan, even though with a career also, would be considered a "star" -with the whole of its negative connotation- rather than an actual actor. I still remember how Brosnan had struggled all the way to get the role: believe it or not, he was no first choice at all even before Timothy Dalton.
It might be the first time EVER a real actor and not just a mug poser is cast in a Bond movie. And yes, many other Bond features look awfully dull compared to the one presently into question. But we should also take into consideration that, along with Batman Begins and Superman Returns, this film intends to settle the way how a well-known character is and why he would become what he did or why he would trust no one besides running for shelter when it comes to real emotional attachments -and that's why he comes into a seashell towards the very end: this stands for James Bond's vulnerability, fact which had been kind of put aside over the very large number of years of Bond's character development. That is what, I guess, makes the difference. I don't think Pierce Brosnan would have possibly or successfully pulled this off. Seriously.