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
Since every actor brought his own take to the character throughout the franchise I don't see how it is possible to don't get one particular performance. Obviously it's normal to have preferences... but not accepting an actor, or taking decades to "get into" his work it's something beyond me. This is just the result of closed-mindedness and a fairly amount of naivety. I'm not talking about someone in particular, just throwing around thoughts. One Bond fan should already know that Bond, in order to survive, must evolve every x years and as a consequence also the take in the character should be affected by different takes. There is a difference between not liking and not accepting.
I'm happy for being able to enjoy both Skyfall and A View to a Kill. You just require an open mind. Saying that Craig doesn't look like Bond because he doesn't do things this way, he doesn't treat women that way, he doesn't say the lines that way is just ridicolous. Bond is not 100% set in stone. There are some principles but different takes on the character had always co-existed and Craig's Bond is as just rightful as Moore's Bond, for example. The only difference is that Craig's is more successful.
Exactly, @bondsum, nouveau riche is what I also feel Craig’s Bond can act like. Less of a man of the world and not quite knowing what savoir vivre is all about. The more robust way that he moves around doesn’t help much either. The other actors look as if they were born to wear a suit, Craig looks uncomfortable wearing one. The others appreciate luxury because they can differ the subtle differences between a quality product and a lesser product, Craig looks like he just wants luxury because it’s expensive and not because he knows what is best. Like that guy who orders an inferior but more expensive wine in a restaurant because he isn’t aware the second wine on the list is actually better.
Lazenby wasn't even an actor so what he delivered was a minor miracle, the film wouldn't be significantly revised and now reverred it he'd really been as bad as some had said he was. There are moments when he nails it and there are times when he not convincing as some but considering his non acting background and the film he got to play Bond for one and only time. The most emotional and real Bond film until CR.
Roger took till SWLM to cement his performance and then effortlessly played his Bond.
Roger like Sean had his take to a tee. No denying is comfortable confident air, totally believing he is who he says he is, comic timing spot on, selling the cheesiest of lines.
Dalton imbued the Fleming Bond like no other actor to that point but I felt like he never properly felt confident playing Bond despite nailing some of those characteristics and looking the most dangerous Bond since Sean.
Brosnan had a good stab at the role in GE, possibly if they'd had faith in him to continue down this brave new take on Bond instead of reset to making Roger Moore films, TND is like a SWLM remake at times. TWINE is a desperate attempt to give Brosnan his own OHMSS and DAD, well it's a nightmare.
Brosnan by his own words never nailed the character and just played an aproximation of Bond, a bit of Roger, an attempt to be Sean but failing and trying the Fleming danger of Dalton, a real mish mash and never suceeding in either particularly successful.
Playing Bond with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer.
Craig in contrast is a subtle actor instead of spelling in out in capitals. To think he gives a performance with no personality when you see the work he does in CR, no personality my foot.
Craig's acting is done a lot with his eyes and expression, he's got the best voice alongside Roger, clear authorative and confident.
You can tell he came from a character acting background, he approaches the role as a real person not some fantasy figure that isn't particularly believable.
Craig's interpretation might not be the kind that makes you want to be him but you live it you feel it, its real. Dalton has moments, although due to his films not willing to let go of the tropes that worked in the Moore films that don't work with him, you never really see what he could have been truly like.
I feel for Dalton because if he'd been Bond when the audience was ready for that kind of performance it might have been different. Although his stagey presence and awkwardness in moments, he might well of got their first but Craig nailed it with much more confidence and delivers the full article.
QOS for me is LTK done properly, no Moore hang up's that really do Tim's second film no favours, definitely some proper Fleming moments but undermimed by the likes of Q in the field turning up with the absurdest of gadgets to assist.
Craig only fell down when he's given the material he had in SPECTRE, trying to get him to be Roger was a big mistake, it's not where he thrives. I would say Bond 25 will pay to his strengths, Waller Bridge's humour is perfectly suited to Craig and he should do fine with what element she has bought to his character.
I look at Bond first the character his actions, his personality, the man, how he holds himself around others, the rest is window dressing, if the actor needs all that to convince you he's Bond then he wasn't Bond in the first place.
I would have loved to see Brosnan do CR as his first and done just like DC did, no Bond theme, no Q, MP, next to no gadgets and still convince us he was James Bond.
Craig did this and some, CR might have had it's critics, it's not perfect but almost the unanimous word was that Daniel nailed it. The press had to eat their words and critics in their droves called him the best since Connery.
Brosnan did receive great notices when he began but he had all the ingredients turned up to 11 by the time of his 2nd film, there was no mistake as to who he was playing, because every element screamed Bond at you on the screen.
Craig by contrast had to rely on his performance alone, you could argue that Pierce might have pulled it off but evidence points to the opposite.
It's interesting so many cling to the thought of the film Bond as the snobbish man of the world type of figure, which he was in decades past. The world is changing and that image isn't what it was and that's where Craig is making it his own. Even when Brosnan did the casino scene in GE it seemed almost antiquated and forced. Just in the way the locations aren't as exotic as they once were because we have more access to them, the previous image with Bond in terms of style isn't necessarily the same.
We often talk about how the cinematic and literary Bond differ. Take into account how Fleming portrayed Bond often feeling like an outsider in that world, with the character calling himself a Scottish peasant.
I recall in SF's pretitles when Craig Bond comes through the train and straightens his cuffs with the audience cheering and laughing and personally cringing. This isn't his Bond and didn't feel right. It's the way he carries himself like in the boat coming into the casino in or on the moors in the suit outside the Aston Martin in SF that nail his Bond. The image of suave, well-dressed Bond is still there even if it's in a different way from his predecessors and just feels right in this era.
One of my favourite moments of the Craig era right there (even if I dislike the film). That's the Bond I like to see, taking the time to straighten his tie or cuffs.
Having been a Bond fan since '69 and seen the various interpretations fresh on release, I think it's fair and normal to have grievances. I also don't understand what's so closed-minded about not liking a particular rendition or portrayal when the performances and stories have been so varied over the course of its 56-year history. We're not all sheep that kowtow to whatever's put in front of us. Besides, there have been plenty of substandard entries that have been served up in that time. Bond evolving hasn't always been good for the series, either. TMWTGG, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, TLD and LTK all saw a significant drop in cinema receipts on their initial releases. Also, I wouldn't say each actor brought their own take. Clearly, they're all different actors so cannot totally be the same, but the one thing they all drew upon was Fleming's character, that's what they had in common with each other. It was only really Dalton that was vocal about getting back to his literary roots due to Moore having pulled away so much from how he first set out. Not so much Moore's take, but an inability to be as convincing as his two predecessors had been. The audience reaction to TMWTGG confirmed this when he was described more as a school-bully than 007. What would've been Moore's last contracted Bond had to make significant changes in order to be a success at the box office again, hence the midcourse correction of TSWLM.
I happen to understand @GoldenGun's own keen observations and pet grievances about Craig not showing any "savoir faire" the same way Connery, Moore, Lazenby and Dalton did in their respective movies. However, that doesn't mean I dislike Craig, I just don't think the writers or producers have been pushing this side of Bond's character under his tenure, and because of this Craig has fallen short of my own expectations. He hasn't really evolved that much since CR, and that's another problem I had with his character arc in CR. Bond was already a sophisticated man of the world before he got his OO status. He might have been a little too trusting and perhaps green, but he was already highly cultivated long before he stepped into that tuxedo. Craig's writers have concentrated mostly on Bond's emotional and psychological side at the expense of delivering a fully-schooled James Bond. For me, Craig's Bond is damaged goods. The only bit of Fleming they seem continually drawn to is "the blunt instrument" side and not the savoir vivre part that distinguishes him from all the other generic action heroes out there. When I say Craig comes over as more nouveau riche, it's because he doesn't demonstrate the savoir vivre of past Bonds.
I like this aspect about the Craig films, but I can fully understand those who aren't taken by it, especially those who really view Bond the same way Guy Hamilton viewed these films: as a good lark.
Not the same as going to a concert in Vienna, or knowing his beluga. Still...
Then, unfortunately, there was SKYFALL. Somehow during that too-long hiatus, Craig had forgotten how to be Bond and fell back on a series of poses and canned expressions, as if he had been directed to lean into the iconic nature of his character and supply little of substance. It doesn't help that the script makes him look stupid and weak. (So Bond decides to fake his death and go off to a beach to sulk for months without completing the mission and leaving other agents to die? Because his boss think he's expendable? What a spineless, self-pitying a**hole.) If you're not familiar with Anthony Horowitz's comments on this film, do a Google search for them. Horowitz was absolutely right.
I'm more forgiving of SPECTRE because there are a couple of truly amazing scenes (the boardroom meeting and train fight), and Craig seems more relaxed and tries to generate chemistry with his co-star. But the film is still poorly written -- the dialogue is embarrassing at times -- and takes off only sporadically.
I like Craig as a person (he's great fun in interviews, especially when he loses his patience), but looking at him on the set of BOND 25, it seems like he's of an era that has passed. To me he resembles Moore in AVTAK, obviously not as old (although he looks ancient next to Ana de Armas) but long past his sell-by date. I'll see the film, of course, but I'm not expecting much from Craig, and pointless shots of him walking around Jamaican nightclubs doesn't get me excited.
Skyfall- Playing home alone on an abandoned lot? Lame. Honestly the film had a lot of potential and they screwed it up. Great for a standalone action film but not a great Bond movie.
Spectre- Horribly edited. Craig looks bored. The script/lines were really bad. Waltz was just thrown in there. Color grade was also bad in most of the film. Car chase sucked.
I do really like the Blofeld lair torture + escape. The opening was fantastic.
I just think after Quantum of solace they screwed up badly. SF and SP still made a combined $2B I believe but either way for the Bond franchise they are turning more into Jason Bourne type films.
Bond 25 looks like it might bring us back to the OG Bond feel.
It's QoS that looks and feel more like a Bourne type of film. That's exactly why Mendes decided to go back to basics in SF. Because Bond started to look too much like his imitations...
Completely agree, @Shardlake
Watching SF last night, Craig's acting is wonderfully subtle. He makes Bond a flesh and blood human being. Great acting in all his Bond films although he was badly let down by the material in SP.
He was no rookie anymore. He wasn't driven by anger. He wasn't suffering both physical and emotional breakdowns. He was just, for the first time, at the top of his game (except for the SF PTS). Yes, Craig had less "dramatic" material to work with but he portrayed a confident Bond with a slightly lighter tone that after the previous three movies felt right to me.
This is true, but I like to think that even if he clearly respect Mallory since the SF events he was still working for the late M, which for him is still an higher authority than Mallory.
Bond. James Bond.
And Craig doesn't truly embody that, but I accept many people don't agree or don't care. The world has moved on from Cubby/Harry/Terence Young's original conception of the cinematic James Bond. Barbara Broccoli knew that back in 2005. I guess what I'm saying is if you moan about Craig not being like the previous Bonds (even Dalton's less flamboyant interpretation) that's the whole point - he's not meant to be the same, but some fans have never accepted that or fully come to terms with it. They're stuck in the past. I was stuck in the past until QOS came out and I accepted the new Craig era. Anyone still moaning about Craig, well, it's almost 15 years on, time to accept it!
It's all a matter of perspective
I must admit after watching Spectre, that film felt like a step backwards for Daniel's Bond, which is how I felt about Die Another Day with Pierce. They both broke so much new ground up until that point, then relied to heavily on the "Bond formula" and it just felt run of the mill. I don't believe Daniel does classic Bond as well as he does say Casino or Skyfall, where he is the only Bond I could see capable of doing those movies out of the 6 actors.
Regardless of anything else, I'm really happy he became Bond when he did, because to my mind, he has been the best Bond (at least since Connery) and more importantly he made Bond relevant again when it was needed most
To be fair the dialogue in that scene was woeful. Especially when Bond first meets 'C' and we get that cringeworthy back and forth.
Nothing makes sense in that scene. The immediate belligerence seems based on nothing unless Bond knows something we don't. (Was C wearing a spectre ring or something like that?) And "No, I think I'll just call you C," is not a particularly strong or impressive line.
Andrew Scott got Falco'd in SP. I thought it fascinating that this man got cast and I had some hopes for something memorable, but like Madsen, Scott never received a good story arc, even as a B-character.
Agreed @Birdleson. I always thought the term "narrow-minded" was mostly applied to those not willing to listen or tolerate other people's views. I like Craig as Bond, but at the same time, I would say I'm not entirely satisfied with everything that he's done as Bond, either. I thought the purpose of these forums was to offer a critique, not unwavering loyalty and fawning over someone just because they were lucky enough to play Bond. It seems a bizarre concept to me that we must like everything just because it's a Bond movie.
His run as Bond was supposed to be about a more grounded character, yet his films are full of plot holes and fantastical elements. 'Skyfall' is peppered with "poetic" touches, yet logic takes a back seat. So, aside from my gripe with Craig as Bond, his run has felt directionless and uninspired. During the Cubby era, you knew what product you were getting, whereas now, you literally don't know what you're getting/watching.
Bottom line is that everyone has their preferences and should be entitled to them. Not caring for Craig’s performance doesn’t mean there is something wrong with you or that you are “wrong”. I still maintain that Connery at his worst and most bloated is still better than Craig at his best. Just personal preference. And it’s a perfectly legitimate opinion. Craig just can never hope to possess that special something that Connery possessed. Or Moore for that matter. Or even Brosnan.