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 disagree but I don't think it is controversial as Waltz's performance is not exactly universally praised.
Controversial opinion: the Bond girl may be the hardest character to write and cast.
I don't think Walz's failure has anything to do with how good Bardem was or not. To me he plays it much too close to Ledger to be considered remarkable.
I don't think she is any less wooden in MI, which leads me to assume that's probably all she can. Where Walz is concerned, doesn't he always do the neurotic/sardonic type? Problem is that's simply not enough to play an iconic nemesis.
Actually quite a few people I know consider the first hour of CR an action movie and the second half the Bond part ( of which quite a few think it drags too much for their liking )
--
She was pretty wooden in MI-GP, but Cruise was smart to use her in an essentially non-speaking capacity, which is where she's best. If I'm not mistaken, I think it was Waltz who recommended her to Mendes.
With Waltz, I sometimes get the feeling he's a one trick pony, and he gave us everything he could give in his first two Tarantino performances. Nowhere to go but downhill from here on out.
Perfectly put.
Completely agree, you've nailed it. Ironically the marketing gimmicks and padding of the first and third act are what people remember the least about this film. If they hadn't held back with the rest of the film, and not bottled it at the end by throwing in another action sequence where it wasn't needed, then Casino would really be the masterpiece we're supposed to believe it to be.
He's the best actor to play the role.
If range is what makes a great actor he is clearly not.
He's superb. Always makes me laugh when I see people trying to take him down.
Definitely. Don't think he's the best Bond, isn't my favourite anyway*, but in terms of actual acting talent? He shits all over the rest of them.
*speaking of, am I the only one who finds ranking the actors really hard? I can rank the films fine but I think every actor has been perfect for the time they were cast and played their own version of Bond brilliantly, so I find it really challenging to rank them. I know Dalton is without a doubt my favourite. And I've always had a soft spot for Brosnan so he'd probably be 2nd. But past that I can't do it because I always feel bad putting any of them low down on the list.
Interestingly (and perhaps tellingly) you ignore the range part.
See - Logan Lucky.
Have you seen it?
Controversial opinion: the forth act of CR is among the best in the series-- I love seeing Bond falling in love, then the cold splash of betrayal, then battling through a battle he's already lost...
The trailer is proof enough that Craig has undebiable range.
It's proof someone dyed their hair and put on a funny voice. Until we've actually seen the film we can't judge the performance. It should go without saying, really.
To me, that's just being deluded. I suppose that's my controversial opinion for the moment.