SolidSnakeMGS said:
Perfectly manicured? Lol.
He was definitely suave looking in appearance, but he is nowhere near really being a pretty boy.
Oh, I definitely think so. He's beyond suave and in a whole category of perfectly-manicured, businessman-like look. Bond isn't a man who's so concerned with his appearance even if he does generally take care of himself (at least Fleming's Bond wasn't, which is the Bond I love the most).
Yes, he certainly did exude that masculinity. I think what your problem is that you're judging him by his movies, and not by him.
I judge his Bond by the movies he did. There's no other way to judge his Bond - everything else is purely theoretical. And frankly, he didn't even do all that much with the relatively shabby material he was given.
That's already one reason this new production has a strike against it; they not only denied Brosnan another chance, they treated him like crap and gave him a cold hard boot to the ass.
Whatever. Brosnan's Bond carried a ton of baggage with him. Could they have done a different kind of film with his Bond in it? Sure, but they wouldn't have the clean slate they have without him.
And honestly, the producers have every right to let Brosnan go if they feel like it. They didn't owe him anything - his contract was up and they chose not to renew. They could have treated him better, to be sure, but letting him go was hardly an immoral move on their part.
To me, he is the second best Bond after Connery. He had the good acting, the good looks, was tall, and could handle action (as the last fight in Goldeneye proved) perfectly fine.
If his movies and the Bond characterizations he was forced to portray weren't great, how can he be the second best Bond ever? Just because there was untapped potential?
Personally, of the attributes you mention, I find his acting okay. I don't think he always did the best with the material he was given even, and while he was often pretty good, sometimes he was also outright awful (I think THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH may contain the worst performance of Brosnan's career). If anything, it never felt like I was really looking at James Bond - I was looking at Pierce Brosnan pretend to be Bond (even Brosnan said he never felt comfortable in the role, and I think it shows).
I do wish Brosnan had been given better material because he was honestly capable of so much more, but even so, I never particularly wanted him for the role. I always thought he was too good-looking and too much of a bean-pole to boot. He also lacked the intense tough-guy hypermasculinity and presence that I think is crucial to the character. I honestly wish Sean Bean had been given the part in 1995, not Pierce Brosnan.
He looks like he's been dragged across a couple of hundred miles of concrete, not like a secret agent that relies on wit, charm and intelligence to get through a lot of situations.
Explain to me why he looks as if he lacks wit, charm, and intelligence, since those are characteristics that are tied to personality, not appearance. And frankly, I think Craig is more than capable of displaying all of the above, and has done so in clips that we've seen.
He looks like he's worked his way up through the ranks and is a tough character and killer - a guy who boxed in college (as Fleming's Bond did), served long in the naval forces and secret service, and is a natural killer. Bond is a hardened man who should have a hardened look.
This is supposed to be Bond's first outing but instead, we get this oldish looking dude who doesn't look like he could charm the breeches off of 75 year old hag.
I know numerous women who find him quite sexy (one magazine even named him the 8th sexiest man in the world, placing him far above Brosnan), so honestly, I think you're off the mark a bit.
Call me a superficial, but I'd rather have a more handsome charming guy as Bond. 
I predict a one film Bond career for Mr Daniel Craig.
