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
Craig actually made me laugh in that museum scene without even saying a word. Bond is sitting, waiting, and then Q sits right next to him. Literally. Craig's facial expression is priceless. He thinks it's some young perv invading his personal space, and he's not having any of it. It is damn hilarious.
I suppose to add to this, we're more likely to see Craig's Bond getting annoyed, impatient, or even sarcastic during certain situations. He's certainly extraordinarily collected and competent as Bond should be, but there's something funny about moments such as him urgently telling the shocked tube worker to open the door, or his 'I thought you might' quipping put on hold by Villers after impatiently claiming a bomb is about to go off in Miami airport. Making Bond ever so slightly less calm and polished can be quite funny in this sense.
It's funny, when I started reading you talking about his facial expressions my immediate thought was the word association test too: he's sort of wryly playing along and having some fun with the fun with the guy, and then when Skyfall is mentioned his expression barely changes and yet we can see a bit of steel come over him- like a shadow falls over his face. It's wonderfully subtle but very expressive all the same.
I always love that Craig, when he's in an action sequence or whatever, isn't doing that much with his face: he's being a professional killer in the moment. Whereas Brosnan is often pulling all the faces he can: I'm not bashing Pierce as he's a great star, but I know which of the two I believe more as an assassin and paid agent.
Craig’s the kind of actor very suited to film in that way (never seen him on stage admittedly, and I’ve heard he’s good, but those shifts in expression are impressive and gold when seen in close ups).
Yes, Brosnan’s a much more expressive actor I guess is the word, both on his good and bad days.
I'd say the same about Dalton, which can probably be attributed to his background in theatre. I like Dalton, although I must admit, there are times when his theatricality can be unintentionally amusing.
There's nothing wrong with expressiveness, of course. Al Pacino and Gary Oldman are great actors with a more exaggerated, 'scenery-chewing' style of acting.
Dalton's greatest moment is in TLD, during the fairground scene in which Saunders updates him.
The way in which he rebuffs the coffee served but is effortlessly polite to the staff.
As for comedy, I also liked the comedic style of the bar-room brawl in LTK. How he nods a thanks to Bouvier after she aids him.
A cool customer.
You can tell he really wants not to be seen as the 'serious Bond' in such scenes. His 'open the door' during the London Underground scene was also quality.
He strikes me as the type who spends many hours in the mirror, getting the look just right. Would not surprise me if it was all talent, either.
Connery is pretty similar I think: able to bring a laugh with just the slightest flick of his eyes, he rarely gives too much.
I think that's why YOLT is always seen as a slightly phoned-in performance: those little nuances and subtleties are gone and he's more just reading the lines and following the stage directions. He's still good because he's Connery, but the little magic extra touches aren't there.
That bit of coffee business annoys me a bit: it doesn't feel part of the scene- it's almost like the director isn't aware of it, it more feels it's just shoehorned in because the actor wants it in there.
With all of these posts I think Craig and Connery are more connected than I thought. I would actually put Moore and Brosnan to be kindred spirits. There faces seem to be expressive and at times over the top. Saida scene when Moore swallows the bullet. Bond when Onnatopp is squeezing him near the end of the movie.
I quite like it. It's not as if the film calls attention to it (I didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out). It's just a small acting touch and feels true to the character.
That entire scene is awesome, especially now (all these years later) we have seen what has become of Benicio del Toro.
In CR, Bond gets his car keys in Montenegro from reception in a manila envelope with some kind of note in it (I won't go into the tradecraft problems with that here). He walks out to the car, checks the glove compartments and then takes out his silenced pistol, stuffs it into the envelope and returns it to reception (I'm not sure, but I don't think we see him return it). Then, later, he gets the envelope back from reception and pulls the gun out in the elevator up to Le Chiffre's suite, much to Vesper's surprise.
a) Why? Couldn't he have just taken a gun in the train? Couldn't he have gotten one from Mathis? Couldn't MI6 somehow have had one placed in his room? Why the need to smuggle a gun into the hotel? Why leave it at reception instead of just keeping it in their suite, where he has much easier access to it? Is there a scene where his room is searched I missed or that got cut? He doesn't even get it into the casino, where the game takes place. (Which is another thing I never noticed: The Casino and the Hotel are two different buildings.) Wouldn't it have been smarter to keep it in the car, which is at least kind of in the middle between the two?
b) The receptionist 100% can feel that there is a gun in that envelope. Now maybe people who work in those kinds of Hotels have a very strict "Don't ask. Don't tell"-ethos. But it's kind of an unnecessary risk for Bond to take that the receptionist doesn't tell anyone. So even if the point of it is to have the gun somewhere only he can get it, but get it comparatively quickly, I don't think that's a very sensible way of going about that. Again, the car seems a much better place.
The windscreen is bulletproof.
Granny wasn't backing down and I suppose it would have been a bit gruesome for Bond to run her over (to be fair Bond doesn't put civilians in danger, and I suppose you could argue she's a civilian... maybe, I don't know...)
That and nothing bulletproof is completely immune to bullets, so it would have broken eventually.