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
Exactly!
I like Kermode but he is no Bond fan. He has gone on record that the only one he likes is OHMSS because it has a romantic character arc. He tore TND to pieces in one of his newspaper columns.
It is perfectly reasonable to like Craig but not like the Bond genre. And I expect Bain if the man had ripped GE to pieces you would be crying into a bucket.
TND - nah (although it is sort of fun in a guilty pleasure way - watching it now actually) but GE probably :))
I do like the review he gives here though. As I said I think he's a bit harsh but there is a certain element of truth to it.
I really agree with what you say. Craig captures a style of relaxed confidence, even arrogance, in CR that made me think of Connery. And the great thing is that it never tipped over into being "smug" or smarmy which I found to be a problem with Moore and especially Brosnan. The fact that Craig's Bond evolves over CR is not a weakness but a huge strength to the film IMHO.
I'm assuming that Craig will recapture that playful, almost menacing, sense of fun that he had in the beginning of CR. It won't be quite the same as Connery - he had a way of diffusing situations with raised eyebrows and a "What did I say/do?" look on his face which was very funny - but I can see Craig in SF being more like he was in the first half of CR.
welcome Jason19, can you please define what is "bond look and style"?
Then it might be an idea that you give it a miss. The doubletaking pigeon and inivisible car days are not happening under Craig.
You have to realise that.
Oh Dear!
Good post. Can't argue with that. I might add that Rog was close, but he lacked the menace. But I agree, Laz IMO is the ony Bond that has really come close to what Connery put down.
Will Craig ever be allowed to play Bond with the relaxed mix of menace and charm, that Sean established, or will he always be asked to play a troubled Bond? Craig may actually prefer the latter. We'll see with SF. Personally I don't think Craig is as good an actor as Sean. Sean has a larger screen presence. Craig simply may not be able to do what Sean did.
That's rather obvious isn't it. It's there in the first 5 films, laid down for the those that have followed.
First of all welcome to MI6 :) .
Lazenby certainly looked like the Bond Fleming described, which was actually pretty inconsistant from novel to novel telling me that it wasn't the most important detail to Fleming, but suffered from one fatal weakness. That weakness being there were scenes were it seemed as if he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Give me a less conventional looking Bond who can make me invest in the character over a male model any day. With that being said actors like Connery and Craig stand as the best to me while pretty-boys and male models like Brosnan and Lazenby are the worst.
I don't any actor can be like Sean Connery at all. Daniel Craig & other Bond predecessors have their own way play the James Bond role. But Like in the different way of Sean Connery Daniel Craig is well as 007.
Craig is not as good an actor as Sean? that's debatable my friend. Only two actors in the series who i think is a capable actor they were Dalton and Craig. Connery without Young guidance, would be still rough diamond.
So every actor must follow that "style" over and over again kind of mandatory to play Bond?
He is not short, he has average hight to begin with, yes, he IS blonde and no, he certainly doesn't have a round face and what puts your post down as just a hater is describing his voice, which is one of his best traits, as light.
Someone else asked, what woman might see in him. I can answer that - he has charisma and presence in spades and body and voice left aside, he has the most interesting face, that some describe as gorgeous and beautiful and others as downright ugly. Add a great smile/laugh, which lights up that face in an incrdedibly appealing way and you have the attraction for many. Plus he has a great personality, which is not always obvious in the way he treats the press etc., but its still true, as I can say after 6 years.
Also, I don't think Bond is about looks but about how the actor, who portrays him, gives that character all the traits Bond has. I agree on the lightening up. He showed, he has perfect timing in his one-liners and does the humor quite well. He just wasn't allowed too much of that by the scripts. So - lets hope, this will change. They said, it would...
"Sean was a tough guy; he set the tone," Wilson said. “[Roger] played it more comic. Roger was lighthearted. Timothy brought it down to earth and Pierce brought a touch of charm and touchiness. And as for this George Lazenby person - never heard of him."
:D
As for Dan Craig, I love the guy, but his look is all wrong for Bond. The look does matter. The look is tall, dark, lean and handsome. After that ,the actor has to find the right mix of menace and charm. 5"10 is too short for Bond. Sean was 6'2 and that was 50 years ago, when men were a tad shorter on average. Craig's lack of stature is very apparent in the films. That said, what's done is done. I wish Craig the best, and as long as the films are making money and keeping audiences happy, I'm happy to have him around, but as a Connery purist; I say next time, insist on the classic look.
You can hold out for both - both the look and the performance. There is no need to compromise or trade-off.
He was lucky enough to be cast as "the first James Bond" , his testament is not his acting ability my friend.
Oh please. I am so sick of hearing all this wish wash about how Sean is only considered the best because "he was first". That is utter tripe, and unfounded. Sean helped form the character. He was a perfect mix of suave, cold with his gaze, ruthless in his actions, and deadly in appearance in the field. He set some of the best aspects of Bond that are hardly used anymore. His Bond checked the hotels he stayed in for bugs, he enjoyed fun brakes between missions, and his Bond felt the pain and hurt. He is the greatest because he led the craze of Bondmania, and played the role to a tee, the most exceptionally as of yet. Not because he got the role first.
When did I say that about Lazenby? I don't remember saying anything about Lazer's acting abilities. I actually think he was a fairly good choice and am a big fan of OHMSS. The guy who looks (and acts) like a catalogue model is Brozza.