70 replies to this topic

[Dr.Mirakle32]

First off, this is a serious post, and I'm not trying to sound like a troll.

I was not sure about Craig when he was announced back in 2005, all I know was that he didn't have the Bond look at all. However, I was more than willing to give him a chance, and I saw CASINO ROYALE with an opened mind.

It turns out, CR is one of my all time favorite Bond films, and a truly great all around film. Having seen it five times, it gets better with each viewing.

However, the one thing keeping this from being the best Bond film ever for me, is Craig. He was phenomenal and appropriately brutal in the action scenes, but his interacting with other characters was too wooden, and he seemed to mumble too much. He did a pretty good job in a few scenes (When he tries to save Vesper, and when he pulls her lifless body out of the water,) but he really had none of the charisma, coolness or charm of the previous Bonds or even the Bond of the novel. Hell, Giancarlo Giannini as Mathis came of as lot more charismatic. It also doesn't help that Craig really doesn't have the classic Bond look.
Craig would be great as a furture Terminator star, however his first effort as Bond was weak.

I felt like I was watching a great James Bond film WITHOUT James Bond.
Had someone like Hugh Jackman (a very good actor in his own right, who has the Bond charm and look) been cast, or the script been tweaked and Pierce starred, it could have been THE best Bond film ever.

That being said, it was still better than all four Brosnan films combined, and the best 007 adventure since Licence to Kill.

Daniel Craig was alright but to me he wasn't playing Bond: Not Albert R. Broccoli's, Not Ian Fleming's (yes, I HAVE read the novels and I re-read CR the week before I saw the film.) I understand that his character is just "starting out," but as an actor, he could have done alot more with what he was given, mostly in his line-delivery.

He also brought nothing new to the role. Some could argue that he was the most human Bond, and he brought genuine feeling to the part. This is a bunch of BS since Dalton already brought it 17 years ago, after Lazenby did a terific job with the same material twenty years before.

Craig's Bond wasn't too bad, but I can't see why he is considered the best since Connery. I only have trouble thinking of where to place him on my Bond-ranking: He is currently at a tie with Lazenby for being my least favorite (at least Lazenby LOOKED like Bond.)

I just hope he does a better job in future 007 outings.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

While I disagree with you about Craig failing at being Bond (in my view, he carried himself with an arrogance and an authority that is a real contribution to depictions of our favorite hero) I agree with you that a lot of praises being sent Craig's way are WAY overblown. Perhaps I'm the only one who remembers, but a lot of people, probably the same ones who are going gaga over Craig now were hailing Brosnan as the second coming of Sean Connery not much more than ten years ago.

It's way too early for people to be putting Craig at the top of their "Bond actor's poll" or hailing him to extent that they are. Give him time. Hopefully he'll do a number of good films before he leaves the role.

[DaltonCraig]

I can understand your apprehension to accepting the change. But Craig played the part as the script intended. He is not yet the Bond we all know. As in all of the films I've seen Craig in, his acting is top notch. He bravely stuck with the plan and brought a great physical presence to the role that's really been missing since Connery left. I'm certain he will resemble the more suave secret agent we are familiar with in future films. The great thing about it is there's actually something to talk about again. The series has a clean slate and the future looks exciting again...

[Jim]

First off, this is a serious post, and I'm not trying to sound like a troll.

However, the one thing keeping this from being the best Bond film ever for me, is Craig.

interacting with other characters was too wooden

seemed to mumble too much.

Craig really doesn't have the classic Bond look.

Craig would be great as a furture Terminator star, however his first effort as Bond was weak.

I felt like I was watching a great James Bond film WITHOUT James Bond.

Hugh Jackman

Bond charm and look

he could have done alot more with what he was given

line-delivery.

At least Lazenby LOOKED like Bond.

Deja Vu, anyone? Not just in your cinemas.

Deja Moo?

[sharpshooter]

Craig is the man!

I can seriously take him as a spy, he looks like he has completed a gruelling training course and can hand you a beating.

[stamper]

Brosnan was never hailed as the second coming of Sean Connery, he was hailed as the second coming of Roger Moore, with a light Connery touch.

Craig makes me think of early Sean, though his facial features do not match those of Sean, he has similarities : the ears (coming a bit off), the big nose... of course, Sean, right from Dr No, was more classy and all the rest. But think of Craig as Sean as he was when the producers met him first time. I think the last scene shows a bit that this new Bond is emerging (thought it's not all over).

I also fails to see either Sean, Roger, Laz, Tim or Brozza being mistaken for a car valet and being credible, as well as damaging the range rover as Craig does just so that they can get some hidden info somewhere. Craig makes this schoolboy action looks a blast to everyone. That's his magic.

[B5Erik]

I liked Craig, but I, too, have a hard time accepting him as Bond, James Bond. He comes across as 007, hard edged assasin and spy, but he only hints at the charisma of James Bond.

Craig seemed a little cold and almost robotic at times - only in a few spots, but it was there. You can chalk it up to the script or the direction, or it really may have been Craig's interpretation, but it wasn't as good as it could have been.

I wanted Hugh Jackman as well, and I wish we knew what HIS performance would have been like - but we'll never know, so we're left with Craig's performance alone to judge.

Like I said, Craig was good, but it wasn't the unbelievably revelatory performance that some people say it was. Well, it was to them, but not to me. It was merely a different interpretation of the character that we've all known for so long, and a good performance overall. But not a great one.

It will be interesting to see the long term reaction to Craig. I remember the positive comments about Dalton and Brosnan, too, when their first Bond movies came out. Now some people are trashing both of them (for different reasons) and praising Craig.

History truly does repeat itself.

[pat006]

craig is a different bond , that`s what I love about craig!
the simple fact that he doesn`t looks like the previous bonds but never the less he has the look of 007 ,he is believeable in the role
but the most important fact that makes me love his bond is that if he can be bond I can be bond!! you don`t have to be an impossibly handsome male model to be 007 , you can be a tough looking craggy worn haggard handsome man as well!!!

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

I love Daniel's 007 because he did something different!

Granted Dalton was doing this in 1987, but he was fired...

But I think the Owners now realize that they messed up getting rid of Dalton.

Sean did his own
Roger did his own
Craig is doing the book which is his own.

[yolt13]

Not too long ago, I posted a thread entitled "The Dumbest Complaint About CASINO ROYALE" (which referred to the gripes about product placement). Let me humbly retract that topic title and reassign the designation to the notion that Craig is "wooden" and that his interaction with other characters was too cold and stiff. The interplay between Craig and Eva Green represents some of the best back-and-forth banter in the history of the series, and is as charming and memorable as Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. His love scene with Caterina Murino is as real and Connery-esque as any in the series. Craig is the first actor since Connery to come across as a genuine, old-school Hollywood movie star, a man whose performance is equal parts real emotion and larger-than-life persona. Those who only saw "brutal and dangerous" must have taken a lot of bathroom breaks during pivotal character moments in the film, because this Bond was as charismatic and playful and self-assured as any that preceded him.

Bottom line - if Craig had dark hair and rhynoplasty, no one would be complaining about his performance being too "wooden" or "cold".

And yes, there is something strangely familiar about the first post in this thread...

Edited by yolt13, 27 November 2006 - 04:28 PM.

[spynovelfan]

This is a new low for you, Mr Nestle. Not content with having been banned here 237 times (72 of them in the last 10 days), you are now writing the same gibberish but pretending that you loved the film!

Or did you secretly love the film?

Can you link to that clip of yourself as Johnny English again?

[annita]

Craig performance was wooden? I am not sure you were watching the same film then, Daniel Craig has to be one of the most charismatic actors I have seen in a very long time, because when he was on screen he dominated everybody else, that's what I called presence. One of my friends who is a huge Brosnan fan watched the movie and told me that she was waiting for DC to smile, but when he did, she said she was smitten. There was a reserved violence in Craig's performance, he was ready to explode in action at any moment, those eyes has to be the most expressive eyes.

I am not hailing him as the best Bond or anything, but his performance was so damn impressive.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I posted this on another thread, but it's applicable here.

I still have a wait and see attitude. Craig was worlds better than Brosnan on his best day. Maybe I'm a little stuck in the past. But I've always seen Bond as more of a shadowy assassin. Craig played it more commando style, which might be appropriate for today's political environment. The muscles also fit that interpretation. However, I felt Craig's Bond lost some of the tonier qualities, and seemed to take Bond from his more upper class background and turned him into a soccer hooligan.

Also with the casting of Craig they are continuing to cast Bond with heavily chiseled faces. For a reinvention he's a little too familiar. Even his hair color seem to vary from scene to scene looking more blond in daylight, and more brunette in darkness. They made the ending less tragic than in the book. I won't go into any more detail on that so as not to spoil the ending for those who haven't seen it yet. Also in the book, there was not indication that it was his first assignment, only the first book. There was no evidence of an agent burning out in the movie as in the book.

[yolt13]

However, I felt Craig's Bond lost some of the tonier qualities, and seemed to take Bond from his more upper class background and turned him into a soccer hooligan.

I've heard this before, but Vesper hits it right on the head during their first meeting. Bond is from an upper crust background, but it doesn't entirely suit him. He's more rugged and independent than the company he has kept most of his life. Sounds exactly like Fleming's Bond to me.

[Stephen Spotswood]

That was in a line of dialogue not in the book, although admittedly I haven't read it in a while. This is part of the revisioning.

[zencat]

I think he just has an innate sense of coolness about him. I’ve said many times that he reminds me a lot of Steve McQueen. I also think he's just a fascinating actor to watch. He's so authentic and utterly believable is everything he does. Add all this to the fact that he's playing James Bond in a James Bond film...it's just a gift for a Bond fan.

[Zorin Industries]

Get with the plot for God's sake...!

Daniel Craig is not a wooden actor in parts of CASINO ROYALE or indeed anything else. He is the first "actor" put into the part instead of a face for hire (even Dalton got early Eon consideration in the late 1960's because he was screen crumpet, not the accomplished actor he later became).

Right now Daniel Craig is the future of the Bond film franchise. Criticising him to the point of neurosis (not that the original poster in this thread is doing that) is signing a "petition" to end the series. I say this because there is not one actor who could pull off what Craig does in CASINO ROYALE. He will be hard to replace. However, replacing Daniel Craig may not be on the cards (read into that what you will).

[echomusic]

When Craig was announced as the next Bond, based on what knowledge I had of the books at the time and his performance in Layer Cake, I knew we were gonna be alright.

He played Bond as M described him 'a blunt instrument' not yet formed into the sharp dagger he will become.

In that sense, he nailed it. He had the arrogance, the brutality, the viciousness and the charm when needed. He was a man who was very in control of his environment, even when it seemed he wasn't -- all qualities you would want in a 00 agent.

Even though I loved Brosnan in the role, I felt the movies outshadowed the attempts for Bond's darker side he was trying to bring to the films. We get slimpses of it in World Is Not Enough and even Tomorrow Never Dies. But I feel by the fourth film, he gave up somewhat, realizing he was never going to get his wish to return to the books for tone.

That said, I enjoy the Brosnan films.

But I think Casino Royale may very well be the best Bond film based on tone and connection to the books. Craig stepped up to the plate and knocked it out of the park.

I look forward to several more with him in the driver's seat.

[yolt13]

That was in a line of dialogue not in the book, although admittedly I haven't read it in a while. This is part of the revisioning.

Didn't say that line was in the book. I said that line sums up Bond as depicted in Fleming's novels, which hardly makes it revisionist. Just read CR about two months ago myself, and no actor has come closer to nailing Bond as originally written than Craig does.

[lafemmefantome]

So what makes Daniel Craig so great? Well for one thing, he can ACT! I've seen CR 12 times and each time it does get better. There are so many things that he has brought to the role. He brings the often mentioned sense of ruggedness. I don't feel his acting was wooden. I think it's more a question of sometimes seeing "between the lines" as it were such as the part in the movie where M asks him something about leaving his emotions out of it (in the Bahamas) and asking him if that's going to be a problem. His one word answer of, "No" accompanied by the way it was delivered seemed to fit the character well. He is a blunt instrument, direct and to the point. Further conversation was not needed.

I also loved the interaction he had with Vesper. The scene with the tux had me laughing and the audience everytime time I go. I would loved to have seen more to the love story but I do know that in a Bond film, the action must continue. Therefore I welcomed the short break before the finale.

I like Craig's approach to Bond. He can appeal to the male audience and probably gather more female fans as well. I am very curious to see what they do with the next film. The bar has been set high.

lafemmefantome

[Jim]

So what makes Daniel Craig so great? Well for one thing, he can ACT! I've seen CR 12 times and each time it does get better.

12 times?

Twelve?

...wow

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Who's Mr Nestle?

[JimmyBond]

Who's Mr Nestle?

Several people respond (with well thought out posts, to boot) to your thread title, and all you can say is "Who's Mr Nestle?" Yes, we can see you really care what others think

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Take it easy, I appreciate the comments and I look forward to reading more, however what is there for me to say? You guys are giving good responses, even I personally don't agree with most of the positive opinions you folks are giving about Craig, I still find it interesting what you think about him.

Now who is Mr. Nestle?

Edited by Dr.Mirakle32, 28 November 2006 - 02:17 AM.

[tdalton]

I was particularly impressed with the arrogance that Craig's Bond showed throughout Casino Royale. He also handled the humor extremely well, which was the one real concern I had going into the film. Combine all of this with the physical presence that he brings to the role as well as his top-notch acting ability (he's easily the best actor to take on the role, IMO), to me he really is the complete package as far as what it takes to be a great Bond.

[medrecess]

dark dark dark n looks really ugly when he smiles.
Amazin bid though.great actor.

[jaguar007]

Craig oozes charisma. He is a perfect balance of the macho, cocky swagger of a young Sean Connery with the intensity of Timothy Dalton. I can't see how anyone can think of Craig as being wooden.

I also read an article last week (i think it may have been on boxofficemojo) that Craig and CR are attracting more female viewers than most of the past Bond movies.

Edited by jaguar007, 28 November 2006 - 05:48 AM.

[Harmsway]

I was particularly impressed with the arrogance that Craig's Bond showed throughout Casino Royale.

Oh yeah. It takes a lot for an actor to make a character arrogant, brutal, and cold, but get the audience to like him at the same time. Craig pulled it off. Not only was he intensely tough, but he was cool and charming. Fantastic.

He also handled the humor extremely well, which was the one real concern I had going into the film.

I wondered about that too. In the end, he was hilarious. I laughed a lot during CASINO ROYALE.

Combine all of this with the physical presence that he brings to the role as well as his top-notch acting ability (he's easily the best actor to take on the role, IMO), to me he really is the complete package as far as what it takes to be a great Bond.

No scene is a better indication of Daniel Craig's talents than the torture scene. It's simultaneously horrifying and hilarious - that's a balance that is almost impossible to reach, and it's entirely due to Craig's performance. He sells it.

[tdalton]

No scene is a better indication of Daniel Craig's talents than the torture scene. It's simultaneously horrifying and hilarious - that's a balance that is almost impossible to reach, and it's entirely due to Craig's performance. He sells it.

Absolutely. That scene alone should warrant some attention for Craig come award season. I never thought that it would be possible for anyone to bring two extremely opposite emotions to the forefront in a torture sequence, but Craig did it. I expected it to be a horrifying sequence, and that was accomplished. But, I did not expect it to be one of the funnier, if not the funniest, scenes in the film. The fact that he could strike this balance and not have it be wildly inappropriate shows just how good of an actor Craig is. I doubt that there are many actors who could have done that scene even a 1/4 as well as Craig did. Brilliant stuff.

[Marquis]

First off, this is a serious post, and I'm not trying to sound like a troll.

However, the one thing keeping this from being the best Bond film ever for me, is Craig.

interacting with other characters was too wooden

seemed to mumble too much.

Craig really doesn't have the classic Bond look.

Craig would be great as a furture Terminator star, however his first effort as Bond was weak.

I felt like I was watching a great James Bond film WITHOUT James Bond.

Hugh Jackman

Bond charm and look

he could have done alot more with what he was given

line-delivery.

At least Lazenby LOOKED like Bond.

Deja Vu, anyone? Not just in your cinemas.

Deja Moo?

Genius!

Moo Moo - would like to post your Bond video again so we can all see how Daniel Craig's line delivery should have been?