Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:14 AM
I find the whole "He's not Connery" "He hasn't got the class of Connery" etc argument very pointless. Connery's Bond is the movie Bond and nothing like the Bond in the books. In the books he's more like Craig. He doesn't have class, he has a certain style. He spends most of what money he has on giving an appearence of class. He only has what he has through his job. As far as I can remember he never wears a tux.
Craig brings back an early Connery type of Bond, the type that was good in the first two films. You have to think back to why Connery gave up the role, because it was going away from what Bond was. The early films suited Connery as it suited the times the films were made. Connery's Bond was very British stiff upper lip and all that. In the books Bond, although tough, has a caring side, a side that you don't see in Connery.
Craig's Bond has a whole range of emotions, from cheekines to brutal, from caring to pure anger. You never had that with most of the other Bonds, only Dalton comes close & the reason for this is they are both good actors.
I like Craig as he is more like the Fleming Bond and I like to see that in a Bond film. IMO it's only happened a few times FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, LTK & CR.
So to me what makes Daniel Craig great is the fact he can act, he's got the chance to give us the real Bond,Fleming's Bond. Only the script writers can muck this up. It proves we don't need "Q" or Moneypenny. We don't need super cars or over the top gadgets. We just need a good actor who can play Bond.
I know it's not going to happen but I'd love to see Craig do the "Blofeld trilogy". Then we would see what Bond should really be.