It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I hope they can leave all this nonsense out of Bond‘s world. Bond not smoking is in line with Craig‘s interpretation and on-screen fitness and I am fine with that - but for the rest leave that character alone and how many many people like him to be. Go see some Disney movies instead if you feel „offended“.
Who is the core audience for Bond anyway these days? I like that I can show Bond to my kids for sure so not that big a need to have them all rated „R“ or so but I like that character for a reason. They updated the character from the 1950‘s very well to the 2000s ... leave it like it is, please.
Not the old classics, though. Those are too rough for these tender flowers.
Craig was outstanding in it.
But overall, I am disappointed with his era so far. They didn't make enough use of him during his prime (shame about those endless MGM problems) and "Skyfall" sadly is the kind of Bond film I really don't like - although I respect that most claim it a masterpiece, and as a movie itself it certainly is very well done.
"Quantum of Solace" and "Spectre" were forgettable. Craig will now do his fifth one. No Bond actor so far has made a great film after their third.
Will Craig end up by having two good entries? It took Timothy Dalton only two outings for that.
If B25 is great, then Craig will go down as having made 3 great movies, regardless of the debate on SF (I don’t love SF either, but it is well done).
So, Craig will still be behind Connery but well surpassing all others.
Connery-3 films
Lazenby-1 film
Moore-2 films
Craig-4 films
I personally will never see the Craig era as having surpassed the earlier classic era no matter how good B25 is, because I am more attuned to and prefer the style and approach of those earlier films.
Having said that, it is possible that B25 will be a decent film and allow me to look back on this era with more positivity than I have now. That in itself will be a worthy achievement.
I always believed that Sean and Rog brought a lot of themselves to Bond, and that's why they always seemed so effortlessly natural and authentic. I never once questioned their performances, which were extensions & projections of their own personalities.
The bad installments are easier to swallow knowing the next one is only two years away - three to four year breaks make it even more unbearable.
And, like you, I don't disbelieve their authenticity within the "reality" of their Bond films.
But it also showed, in other ways, especially with Sir Rog, their limitations as actors.
After Bond, Connery took many years to find his footing (part of that is because he was so damned good as Bond; another part: because Connery, and Connery-Bond, were that inseparable), it was his raw screen-presence that projected the rest of his career (he was never believable, say, as a Russian commander of a submarine (not with that Shhcotish accshent of hish), nor did he make a very good Irish cop (a Scottish cop I could believe), but we were mesmerized and swept away by the magnetism that is Sean Connery ...
Sadly, with Roger, outside of Bond, he didn't have that raw presence and faded very quickly after AVTAK (and I don't count that Spice Girls film)...
On another note, I have never doubted the authenticity of DC as Bond either-- especially in his first three (and-- I still think-- he handles himself well in his forth outing; to me, he was the least of the problems that persisted in SP). His performances may not be a complete extension of his personality (although I think it was his father who said he was quite a tough character growing up, and could handle himself in a fight; he also, reportedly, was a ladies man (see: Sienna Miller cheating on Jude Law (Dan's ex-flat-mate), to dance horizontally with Craig while they were filming LC , and after filming as well)); he's also seen as a bit of a private man), I see this in DC's Bond-- his undeniable physicality playing this role; his "outsider" personality; the way he has seduced each woman in his Bond films (outside of Madeleine), has been all class and male sexual virility/Id; so, yes, his DNA, as much as we know of the man, is in this role. Maybe not so overt as King C and Sir Rog, but this character is certainly alive with portions of DC-- and, on top of this, he's a fucking amazing actor (as seen pre-Bond, in Bond, TGWTDT, and even the fun supporting role he played in the lack lustre LUCKY LOGAN)...
King Connery had the magic-- this can't be taught in acting school. He could coast on, and be successful, purely on this presence (he made it look effortless, and that was his gift); outside of Bond, RM faded away once AVTAK debuted; I expect a long, yet different career from DC-- he has a magnetic presence, undoubtedly, in a body of the well-trained actor.
I agree that both Connery and Moore perhaps weren't as diverse outside of Bond as actors, although they certainly were able to fit the tone of the Bond films thrown at them during their respective long tenures. They are more 'stars' than they are actors. They command a room. As an example, Roger Moore is what I wait for when I'm watching Wild Geese, and I think he holds his own effortlessly next to renown thespians like Richard Harris and Richard Burton. Similarly in The Sea Wolves opposite Gregory Peck. Connery's screen charisma is of course legendary. It's less about the acting with them as it is about them.
I certainly agree that Craig brought an authentic self to his first three Bond films, although I think CR is where he was given the opportunity to best showcase his talents on account of the script and the sublime supporting cast to bounce off of. Of the Bond actors to date, I put him just below Connery and Moore in the presence/charisma stakes but believe he is probably the best actor to play the role. It's just that I think he is less comfortable with the icon and the 'projection' (he has said as much himself in an interview - it might have been the infamous Time Out one or the Esquire one), and that is what he is increasingly being asked to play as they transition his iteration towards the screen Bond we all know and love. I personally haven't been very convinced with his onscreen antics with the women though, despite his reputation/conquests in real life. It seems a little forced to me.
I've enjoyed all the Bond actors in various films and think they've all brought something to the role (yes, including Brosnan).
He would soon do Bed and Breakfast and Bullseye. I wish I still had that interview on tape.
The next week Good Morning America did a 2 part segment on the currently filming Licence Revoked.
And, during the same period, Connery was only two years younger than Moore and bald, (f***k, don't I know about being follically challenged-- the two things I share with King C: we were both born on August 25, and we both have "more head to love") but, cool as he was, he was not Sly, or Arnold, or Willis (products of this time), but he was about to enter a career renaissance.
EDIT: and what was amazing; in most cases, Connery would be playing the leading man again for the the next decade and a half!!
RM's career was unwinding and, one is to assume, unwanted.
Re: DC: the discomfort you speak of; forcing him to play what is to be expected of this character, IS against the organic characterization he started with-- he was freer in CR and QoS; but even when he was more heavily directed in (in a "director"'s film), SF ( a film I love), he still embodied what he did before, but added the new elements they were asking of him ( IMO a sign of a very talented actor).
SP is the hiccup. Just the thought of trying to make DC Bond into RM Bond is ignorant. It's a crashing plane, even before it takes off (but, in my opinion, even with what was asked of him, I think DC came off moderately well-- the film has way more big story issues they should have dealt with; but, yes, one of them should have been knowing DC had created his own niche. Trying to change that radically in SP ran afoul).
Re: sexual appeal: SC-- don't have to say a thing. He has the "IT" factor-- no matter what they dressed him up in (one-piece terry-cloths, a pink tie in DAF), he was ALL man and all SEXUAL (even when he was pale, hairy and dumpy-- I could still see him with Tiffany and Plenty-- his eyebrows alone could wiggle off their clothing and get them in bed with him); RM, had man-boobs in LALD and I could NEVER see him with Rosie and Solitaire; to me, his only real conquests (more to do with story than depiction): XXX and Octopussy.
DC with Solange, Vesper, Fields, SF lover, Severine, Estrella, and Lucia are all sexy and believable. But that's just me.
The following is personal conjecture: I think DC captured his own Bond and traditional Bond (with HEAVY doses of Fleming), in CR and QoS and SF. SP is the weaker brother (pun intended).
Now that Mendes is gone, I think Boyle will go back to the strengths of what made DC's Bond special (yes, he may be older, but his vision of the character was always a little different than what came before).
My own, personal bias, is that Boyle is a more visually and less-constrained director than Mendes ever was/is, and, although we may have an older Bond on our hands, we may see this Bond set free again, truer to the characterization that DC depicts (using age as part of the characterization (and, no, not copying X-Men Logan tropes either)
In Roger Moore's case, at least from what I can tell, he did start to age a lot after AVTAK, and I think a lot of his appeal rested more on his boyish looks and youngish charm, which wasn't the case with Connery who always looked older than he was in contrast. So once that attribute faded, Moore's relative appeal faded too.
Lazenby - 1
Moore - 1
Dalton - 1
Brosnan - 1
Craig - 2
As for Craig's era of Bond... I think CR is a perfect reboot as well as a perfect Bond film. The era couldn't have started any better, and gave the series the breath of fresh air it needed after DAD. QOS was a really decent follow up that has grown on me a lot lately. Not as good as CR of course, but still a fun, action-packed ride.
SF is a modern Bond classic - kind of like the modern day GF. It works both in Craig's continuity and as a standalone film wonderfully. As for SP... it's the first of Craig's films that is sort of a letdown in several ways, primarily in the story department. It felt so tired and uninspired compared to his first 3. It has some really good stuff in it, but it's definitely his weakest try.
This means that I really like/love 3 out of his 4 Bond films, which definitely counts as a success. SP may have been a bit disappointing, but that doesn't mean Bond 25 can't be way better! Even if it's not, Craig's first 3 have already solidified him as a great Bond in my eyes. On my full ranking list, the films are ranked as:
CR - #1
SF - #5
QOS - #13
SP - #20
#13 may not seem the highest for QOS, but one must keep in mind I like or love the majority of the EON Bond films. Bond 25 could higher or lower my overall opinion of the Craig era, but I think he had 2 all-time greats, a very good one, and a meh one, which is overall a very good score and far better than what poor Brosnan ended up with (which, IMO, is one great one, two mixed-bag entries, and one poor one).
Surpass Connery? Now I have heard it all. Craig was good in SF, I'll give you that. But so often he comes off as stiff and unnatural in the role. I never got this from Connery, even when he didn't want to be there.
I agree. Too bad he didn't, or choose to get, more time to develop his version of Bond.
Connery in TB ?!
I happen to be much more of the opinion that his bandwidth as an actor is simply much more limited than with SC and RM.
I don't think limited as an actor, just not right for Bond, and certainly not the Bond he got to play (rookie Bond in CR/QoS and Moore Bond in SP). As someone else mentioned a few weeks back, Craig never got to be himself in the role, except for a few brief moments in SF. Perhaps, if nothing else, Bond 25 can finally deliver on that front, we'll have to see.