craig is (a little bit) overrated

HASEROT

Getafix wrote:

I don't mean this as a heavy criticism of DC, as I like him as Bond and am looking forward to SF, but is it possible that he has been slightly over-hyped? I saw The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo last night and was underwhelmed. I didn't like the book either, which doesn't help, but I did feel DC is just a little dull. He seems to lack a little spark - charisma perhaps - that would make him truly excellent. His Bond is solid and has a nice mix of danger and physicality but I felt with both CR and QoS that something was missing. I put it down to the stories and the lack of humour, but now wonder if it wasn't DC himself? I'm almost beginning to feel he resembles Lazenby - looks good, convinces with the physical stuff, has a definite strong screen presence but is ultimately a little bit ome dimensional. Not bad, so much as not as good as he could be.

i dont he's overhyped, or underpraised at all.... he's right where he should be in my opinion - and thats right in the middle....

i personally love Craig in the role - right now, if he turns out another solid performance in SF, he'll be second only to Connery for me...

the humor aspect, and this is something that will never get fully agreed upon by everyone - i thought was just fine in CR, and I found more humorous quips from Craig in QOS than CR.. thats me personally - i found his delayed responses and dry deliveries hilarious.. they were quips that weren't lobbed up like softballs during the Moore and Brosnan eras... these were offhanded, throwaway lines - that you either got, or you didn't.... Bond isn't a comedian - so i dont need his character gallivanting about with a smirk and tie straighten every 30 seconds to let us know a joke is coming..

in terms of being one dimensional - i dont see it.... in both CR and QOS, Craig gives us a level of depth to Bond that I honestly haven't seen, ever - not even from Connery... he is anything but 1 dimensional..... when i think of 1 dimensional Bond, sadly i think of Connery - but is that a bad thing? no not at all... he owned that role, and still does - but it can be argued that his Bond is probably the shallowest in terms of character depth.

myworldisenough

All the Bond actors could be over-hyped by some or many, it depends on your point of view or what you consider to be the definition of 'over hyped' Craig is no different to any other Bond, he has his fans and others that are less interested in his interpretation but I feel he deserves the pludits for his performances so far. He doesn't have the Bond look I associate with previous Bond's but he is a very believable interpretation of Bond.

Univex

thelivingroyale wrote:

Craig is 3rd on my list (1st dalton, 2nd brosnan/connery in a tie)

You lost me there ;)
But I´m so glad you hated DAD.

I too find Craig to be a bit overated, but that is because I know he can do ever better; well, better than what he did in QOS anyway. And I do like him as Bond.

But no one beats Sean Connery. To me, the top three are 1. Connery; 2. Dalton; 3. Craig.

HASEROT

Univex wrote:

I too find Craig to be a bit overated, but that is because I know he can do ever better; well, better than what he did in QOS anyway. And I do like him as Bond.

in my opinion, Craig showed what he is fully capable of as 007 in CR - it provided lots of moments for him to grow..

QOS was a step down in that aspect - because it was an unfinished product.. i think Craig did all he could to salvage it, but he was fighting an uphill battle the whole way through.

commandbond007

anyone think the hate on Craig by some fans will ever stop........

SaintMark

commandbond007 wrote:

anyone think the hate on Craig by some fans will ever stop........

There is a difference in hate & disliking a performance.

And for your information there is a lot of bashing on any performer that has played 007, Brosnan perhaps is the main one to be hatefull about. So Craig hasn't got it that bad.

O:-)

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Samuel001 wrote:

BAIN123 wrote:

It's interesting to note that both DAD and QoS had quite heavy re-writes during the production process.

Samuel001 wrote:

The difference is Die Another Day was constantly changing though, and it was never, even as shooting got underway, agreed to be one thing or another.

That's a great point. There was no writer's strike going on for DAD that I can remember, and they had an extra year to get it right.

Samuel001 wrote:

For better or worse, at least Quantum Of Solace had a good idea of what it wanted to try and be. The execution was just very off.

Except for the Bourne-like way the action was filmed, I thought everything else was very well executed. The problem was that there needed to be more scenes to tie it all together into a complete package, rather than a work where you have to fill in the blanks yourself to do that. Again, the writer's strike did more damage to this film and while Forster and Craig are obviously the easy targets to blame for the script's deficiencies because they had a hand in trying to make an incomplete script work, they and the producers had little choice but to pitch in and make it as good as they could in the period of time they were allowed. They aren't professional screenwriters and have never pretended to be. I feel this criticism is very unwarranted, the people who should shoulder the blame are the screenwriters and their union, although it is hard to blame even them for standing up for what they felt was right for their union.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

LeChiffre wrote:

IMO QOS= > DAD, DAF, AVTAK, MWTGG. In other words, while far from great, defo not the disaster alot of posters have claimed. Glad to hear that the film has grown on people over time though, both on this site and elsewhere.

Indeed, I am a proud member of the reformed QoS club! We just got buttons in yesterday. ;)

I'll have one of those please. I like QOS more and more every time I watch it, unlike certain other Bond films. It does great as a companion piece to the immortal Casino Royale than unto itself as a standalone movie. Those who look at Diamonds Are Forever and say one should ignore OHMSS should remember that this was a much better sequel in that aspect and might enjoy QOS a lot more if they treat it that way. Just my honest opinion...

Signed_By_RogerMoore

Craig is good for sure.

But it just comes down to personal preference...I just prefer Roger Moore, Sean Connery and Timothy Dalton to him. Though I respect CR as a film and think it's good, I just prefer and prefer watching DAF/MR/AVTAK and that. It's as simple as that.

Univex

You prefer DAF, MR and AVTAK??? What a combo that one ;) Not my personal favourites.

Signed_By_RogerMoore

To me, they are just more enjoyable and "better" than the Craig films. I do love them 3 films for sure, just some absolute great moments. CR is a good film, those are just better Bond movies imo. Two hours of fun and enjoyment, none of the emotion and Dench. There's no such thing as a bad James Bond movie imo either. It's disappointing when people hate on them and other Moore era movies. Simply put, without these films, the series would have died and certainly, the Craig era would have been very different.

Univex

I know what you mean. But I can´t say I love them all. I hate DAD and DAF. All the others are good as far as I´m concerned. I just can´t bring myself to liking DAD or DAf. Believe me, I tried. But I do agree with most of your point about all films being important in the franchise. Afterall, I´m not even sure there would be a CR if it wasn´t for DAD.

echo

Craig overrated? No, he's underrated. He singlehandedly held QoS together.

The_Reaper

Say what you want about QoS, most people and even critics that didn't like it, thought Craig was one of the best things about the film. I like it the way it is, it's a nice follow up to CR and Craig is amazing. There are high expectations for SF but he'll knock it outta the park, methinks.

thelordflasheart

HASEROT wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I don't mean this as a heavy criticism of DC, as I like him as Bond and am looking forward to SF, but is it possible that he has been slightly over-hyped? I saw The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo last night and was underwhelmed. I didn't like the book either, which doesn't help, but I did feel DC is just a little dull. He seems to lack a little spark - charisma perhaps - that would make him truly excellent. His Bond is solid and has a nice mix of danger and physicality but I felt with both CR and QoS that something was missing. I put it down to the stories and the lack of humour, but now wonder if it wasn't DC himself? I'm almost beginning to feel he resembles Lazenby - looks good, convinces with the physical stuff, has a definite strong screen presence but is ultimately a little bit ome dimensional. Not bad, so much as not as good as he could be.

i dont he's overhyped, or underpraised at all.... he's right where he should be in my opinion - and thats right in the middle....

i personally love Craig in the role - right now, if he turns out another solid performance in SF, he'll be second only to Connery for me...

the humor aspect, and this is something that will never get fully agreed upon by everyone - i thought was just fine in CR, and I found more humorous quips from Craig in QOS than CR.. thats me personally - i found his delayed responses and dry deliveries hilarious.. they were quips that weren't lobbed up like softballs during the Moore and Brosnan eras... these were offhanded, throwaway lines - that you either got, or you didn't.... Bond isn't a comedian - so i dont need his character gallivanting about with a smirk and tie straighten every 30 seconds to let us know a joke is coming..

in terms of being one dimensional - i dont see it.... in both CR and QOS, Craig gives us a level of depth to Bond that I honestly haven't seen, ever - not even from Connery... he is anything but 1 dimensional..... when i think of 1 dimensional Bond, sadly i think of Connery - but is that a bad thing? no not at all... he owned that role, and still does - but it can be argued that his Bond is probably the shallowest in terms of character depth.

Agree completely with Haserot - Craig in CR gave the most three dimensional performance of any actor playing Bond IMHO. Part of that was the script, but most of that was Craig. All of the previous Bond actors have been given the chance to really stretch their acting muscles - Connery telling Domino that her brother is dead, Lazenby proposing to and then losing Tracy, Dalton discovering Felix's "body" in LTK, Brosnan in pretty much every one of his films. Craig surpassed all of them by finding layers of complexity in his performance (he wasn't nominated for a BAFTA for nothing). And add to that a great dry sense of humour that harkened back to Connery.

As for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo I quite liked Craig in it - I thought it was a good example of a "star" dialing back their performance to match the material.

Sandy

thelordflasheart wrote:

HASEROT wrote:

Getafix wrote:

I don't mean this as a heavy criticism of DC, as I like him as Bond and am looking forward to SF, but is it possible that he has been slightly over-hyped? I saw The Girl With The Dragon Tatoo last night and was underwhelmed. I didn't like the book either, which doesn't help, but I did feel DC is just a little dull. He seems to lack a little spark - charisma perhaps - that would make him truly excellent. His Bond is solid and has a nice mix of danger and physicality but I felt with both CR and QoS that something was missing. I put it down to the stories and the lack of humour, but now wonder if it wasn't DC himself? I'm almost beginning to feel he resembles Lazenby - looks good, convinces with the physical stuff, has a definite strong screen presence but is ultimately a little bit ome dimensional. Not bad, so much as not as good as he could be.

i dont he's overhyped, or underpraised at all.... he's right where he should be in my opinion - and thats right in the middle....

i personally love Craig in the role - right now, if he turns out another solid performance in SF, he'll be second only to Connery for me...

the humor aspect, and this is something that will never get fully agreed upon by everyone - i thought was just fine in CR, and I found more humorous quips from Craig in QOS than CR.. thats me personally - i found his delayed responses and dry deliveries hilarious.. they were quips that weren't lobbed up like softballs during the Moore and Brosnan eras... these were offhanded, throwaway lines - that you either got, or you didn't.... Bond isn't a comedian - so i dont need his character gallivanting about with a smirk and tie straighten every 30 seconds to let us know a joke is coming..

in terms of being one dimensional - i dont see it.... in both CR and QOS, Craig gives us a level of depth to Bond that I honestly haven't seen, ever - not even from Connery... he is anything but 1 dimensional..... when i think of 1 dimensional Bond, sadly i think of Connery - but is that a bad thing? no not at all... he owned that role, and still does - but it can be argued that his Bond is probably the shallowest in terms of character depth.

Agree completely with Haserot - Craig in CR gave the most three dimensional performance of any actor playing Bond IMHO. Part of that was the script, but most of that was Craig. All of the previous Bond actors have been given the chance to really stretch their acting muscles - Connery telling Domino that her brother is dead, Lazenby proposing to and then losing Tracy, Dalton discovering Felix's "body" in LTK, Brosnan in pretty much every one of his films. Craig surpassed all of them by finding layers of complexity in his performance (he wasn't nominated for a BAFTA for nothing). And add to that a great dry sense of humour that harkened back to Connery.

As for The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo I quite liked Craig in it - I thought it was a good example of a "star" dialing back their performance to match the material.

I completely agree with you. I think Craig basically carried the Dragon Tattoo film on his back! He was absolutely perfect in it.

And I completely agree with previous opinions that Craig has delivered a complete, 3D Bond. There is nothing superficial in the way he plays Bond, everything is studied to the infinite detail and the result is brilliant.

LeChiffre

.He's gonna be one tough act to follow in the years ahead

4EverBonded

LeChiffre wrote:

.He's gonna be one tough act to follow in the years ahead

True. It makes me happy to have such an interesting, highly watchable actor as Bond. I do hope there are two more films from him as 007.

Germanlady

Its nice to see people recognize that he had to scale downhis Blomkvist to let Salander shine. Not many actors these days would be willing or able to do that. He is always thinking of the product rather then of himself...make of this whatever you want...

007RogerMoore

I don't Craig is very overrated, I like him. But I do think that CR is extremely overrated.

forgotmyusername

Germanlady wrote:

Its nice to see people recognize that he had to scale downhis Blomkvist to let Salander shine. Not many actors these days would be willing or able to do that. He is always thinking of the product rather then of himself...make of this whatever you want...

how about a chicken coup?


Silly question is DC overrated? Each Bond for each era. Of course we can say SC or TD is better...but why bother? Sure we all have our favourites but we really embrace each Bond and their time as Bond. I've even grown to like all of Roger's films now.

DC is a great Bond for our time, I do think the CR was overrated but never DC, he's been the best thing in both films so far.

Sandy

I completely agree that CR is overrated. It's a great film but... there are things in it that I truly hate (some scenes that is). But there is a lot good in it too, a lot of memorable scenes counterbalance the bad ones. Craig is one of those good things and ultimatly makes me watch it and enjoy it.
It's funny that each time I watch QoS I enjoy it more and more. Thing is, in a pure mathematical way, there are less things I dislike about QoS than CR! Still, Craig is the best thing about both films, that is for sure.

doubleohdad

I think that Bond as his core should be a thug in an expensive suit, and to me Connery and Craig fit that bill. Craig's been in one really good Bond story, and another that's not so good, but he's a very good Bond. I'm not a fan of the overly swave Bond to the point that Brosnan and Moore took the character.