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
With all due respect @TheWizardOfIce, I think your otherwise normally very reliable judgement is totally off the mark on this one. There's a lot of hype around Craig, but he's a decent actor, not a great one, and as you seem to acknowledge, is not a 'star' in the old school sense of the word.
I've enjoyed watching him in supporting roles in other films but generally speaking when he's cast in a non-Bond leading role the film flops/underperforms, and he is the reason why. He drains any suspense or tension from the screen in Dragon Tattoo. Perhaps the only film I've seen which he successfully carried outside of Bond is Layer Cake, which is effectively a version of his Bond character.
Also, it's an easy put down to say Connery "plays himself". By this I assume you mean he effectively portrays the character of a milkman from the working class end of Edinburgh? So he can't do accents?! Who actually cares (the answer has always been 'no one').
The fact is the man can act, and at his best, he frankly wipes the floor with Craig. Any one who claims otherwise is a victim of Craig hype.
I'm with you @Wizard. I don't understand all the love for TB. Sure there are some good lines ("But not this one") but the plotting is poor at times. SP has some good lines, too ("You're a kite in a hurricane." "Mexico City rang a distant bell"). Pretty much every Bond film does, even something like TWINE ("I never miss").
I still think the first half of YOLT is far superior to the second, and I chalk that almost entirely up to Aki. She's the only actor who seems to be trying (although I find Karin Dor amusing in an OTT way), and Aki's "sacrificial lamb scene" is perhaps the best in the series.
When he tries to be 'ironic' as he suggests, or does the 'quips' that he did in SP or even in SF (Circle of Life), he just falls woefully short of Moore and Connery to me, and looks like he's acting and trying too hard. It's not as effortless to my eyes as the other two...where it seemed like a natural extension. I think he's naturally better when he's being dramatic and actually acting. For humour, I think sarcasm suits him best, like during the Q intro in SF.
Yes, the lowest form of wit. We can all do that.
Well if we're discussing who can deliver a one liner with the most aplomb there's no debate - it's Sir Rog.
But I thought we were debating who is the best James Bond and I class that as Flemingesque which is why a greatest hits of Sean and Rog tribute act like Brozza isn't part of the discussion.
Craig in SP is the first to equal (but in no way surpass) his take.
That Dalton is my personal favourite Bond does not mean I cannot be objective here.
I'm certainly not going to argue that point.
When an English or Americn cast of actors play 'foreigners' they often just use their own regular accent. Nationality is conveyed through other means - context, costume, dialogue or whatever. That's a convention that is widely accepted in cinema. It means Daniel Craig can depict a Polish Jew in Defiance and speak in an English accent and no one thinks anything of it.
But if Connery speaks English with his own Scottish accent that's somehow 'wrong' or out of place.
The other convention is that everyone speaks English but does so with a put on accent. This m reminded again of Dragon Tattoo where the entire cast apart from Craig speaks with some kind of Scandinavian accent. And yet that's somehow acceptable. I personally thought it was odd.
Any way, it seems Connery isn't the only one who can't do accents - Craig can't either.
A good amount of the time when the actors speak English they speak almost perfectly, it's quite astounding how their accents sound, Sidse Babsett Knudsen who plays the main role in the excellent Borgen speaks quite a bit of English in the series and without the native accent.
Craig said he had friends in Sweden who spoke English with cut glass accents and also said he didn't want sound like the Swedish chef from the Muppet's.
The difference is that Craig can do accents and has tried, he does more than a passable geordie accents in the masterful Our Friends In The North and for the record Connery has never delivered a performance of that standard in his whole career no other Bond has. Craig is yet to best it in his career and possibly might not get to that level again.
He's certainly not Gary Oldman or Day Lewis when it comes to delivering accests but he at least has and does try unlike Connery who has never. Which is fair play he gets away with his charisma and presence but don't try and say he's a truly great actor because he isn't.
As for Connery for me he perfected it in FRWL, this is his best entry and for me is best Bond performance. I'll confess to preferring TB to GF but the performances don't seem much difference in those 2 films.
YOLT is the one that markedly shows a deterioration and as for DAF some say he was having fun but he looked nothing like Bond and clearly by this point was just playing Sean Connery.
Craig has delivered the most range in the role and while is entries might be of an up and down quality he himself has never slummed it, he gives his all. He disappears into the role and unlike Connery & Moore doesn't resemble the character he plays in anyway whatsoever in real life, it's called acting.
I think the way his interpretation has changed the character they won't be looking for the next Connery they'll be looking for the next Craig, I think it will be a long time before you get EON wanting another Roger Moore style Bond in the series whether it reboots or not.
I can fairly confidently predict that Craig will not have a post Bond career to match Connery. He doesn't have the star quality or charisma. And he doesn't have the acting range or ability to make it as a great character actor either.
There is a reason why he no longer appears in anything other than Bond and it's not just that he's too tired.
I like Craig as Bond, but as with Dalton and Moore I'm not that bothered about seeing him in anything else.
The only actors I actually am interested in outside Bond are Connery and (believe it or not) Pierce.
Craig will never give us anything to match The Hill, The Name of the Rose, Last Crusade, The Untouchables etc.
Craig might try and give us some worthy 'proper' acting but it will bore our socks off. He's neither the charismatic star, nor the captivating character actor that people make him out to be.
:P
Very true. It's well know they only give them to non actors.
As for Sean Connery, he was an exceptional James Bond. The benchmark, even on his bad days...just effortless.
We'll argue all the others until the cows come home....to no agreement.
Like Halle Berry.
I never said Connery can't act I just said Craig is a better all round actor, no Craig hasn't got his level of charisma but Connery hasn't got or has ever had Craig's skills.
Have you ever watched Our Friends In The North?
The exception in the recent past was CR, and that is where Craig really......and I mean really shone.
Since then, I've found him ok, but he hasn't come close to that level of genius again because the scripts have not called for that kind of performance from him. Certainly not SP.
So, if we're talking about run of the mill Bond films, then I personally will take Moore/Connery any day of the week and twice on Sunday. They make it look all too easy.
If they go dramatic again, then give me Craig all the way, or even Dalton.
There are a lot of much better all round character and dramatic actors out there than Craig.
There are not many better old school movie star actors than Connery.
Admitedly they're different, but I've always found the way people respect a moderatley talented character actor more than an incredibly talented leading man 'star' type actor strange. It implies the latter requires no talent, which I think is nonsense.
I'd put Moore as a personality actor in comparison to Connery but Connery will of course appear more of a personality actor himself compared to a more chameleon like actor like Craig. Well like Craig used to be prior to Bond.
I'd agree that Connery is more an old school actor like Niven, or whoever we may else choose to give as an example. Largely himself in each role but his talent lies in his charisma and commanding presence rather than his range.
Connery is perhaps putting on a performance in DN and some parts of FRWL but his screen persona is sealed in GF and has been his bankable quality ever since. It's like when some people debate if Connery would have been better than Lazenby in OHMSS. I've no doubt Connery had the acting chops to play a more emotional, and later on upset, Bond but don't actually think there was an audience that would want to see Connery or a Connery Bond behave in such a manner.
Then there is Laz and Craig in that order.
The rest - good effort but not quite but thank you for your fine efforts and excellent films.
You really did walk into that one @Getafix old son!
Maybe it's not that Sean is a worse actor just that he never really took any parts that stretched his range?
For DN and FRWL he was sublime but by GF he had perfected playing Sean Connery and that was enough for the rest of his career.
There's only The Hill and The Offence in which I really see him pushing himself and to be honest it's a bit odd because you're so used to him just being Connery.
Craig doesn't have anywhere near enough charisma to just play Daniel Craig. When he walks into a casino I am concious he is thinking to himself 'I am James Bond' whereas Sean had that swagger naturally.
Actually perhaps that charisma factor is more important than acting ability when playing Bond?
Instead of playing the FRWL seduction scene in auditions they should just have contenders walk into a casino and see if they own it.
Sean could, Laz could, Rog could, Tim not so sure, Broz could (whatever his faults he always looked the part) and so can Dan - but Dan is probably the only one who has to act it.
But by the same token there's only really Dalton who I think could have sold the scene in the mirror in CR to a comparable level to Dan.
I can understand perfectly how people may prefer very talented actors like Brando, De Niro, Craig, etc, but it is quite a feat that Sean and Rog played in the most Bond films and had careers that lasted decades, and by never even having to make a single effort, absolutely nailed all of their roles and became cinematic legends that still thrill millions of children 50 years later.
IMO Connery and Moore show more charisma, star power and sheer magnetic presence in simple interviews than even the most talented actor in his best role. Not an insult to that actor, but Rog and Sean are so far above everyone else in the charisma department it's not even funny.
Craig wo
And I don't think the release of SP to mixed reviews helped this, @Getafix. For weeks now I've seen SP beaten to a pulp over things that I think SF was just as guilty of, like the references to the past. In SF it was all A-okay, but in SP it suddenly became a movie "holding on to the Bond films of old without creating an identity of its own." I'm annoyed at how SP is getting all the dirt kicked in its face when quite a few things in it strike me as far better than SF.
In fact, I've never seen two Bond films that share such a list of the same drawbacks, which is no doubt because they share a very similar team. My main issues between the two have been related to the score, the wasting of high class acting talent (Berenice in SF and Monica and Andrew Scott in SP) and some forced one-liners (infinitely improved in SP, by the way).
I'm actually not adverse to Mendes hanging up his director's hat for Bond. While I like how thematic he makes his movies, SF being a great example of depth/substance, I've had the same issues with SP that I had with SF, and he doesn't show any sign of wishing to change them. Berenice for the entirety of SF's press tour was blown up as THE Bond girl of the film, then we see the actual film and she gets about as much treatment as Fields did in QoS, which was a shame as Severine was beyond fascinating. Now the same thing has been repeated with SP, where Monica was given equal treatment, only to be given even less time than Berenice in the movie before she's tossed away. I know many here had her on their Bond woman wish lists over the years, and to have her wasted in such a way was beyond disappointing when so much promise presented itself. If she wasn't talked up as such a big part of the movie it wouldn't have been so upsetting, but there you have it.
Mendes is great at roping together a wonderful cast, but in using these talents he and his team fail. Monica and Berenice were embodying troubled, complex and mysterious Bond girls who captivated most audiences, but then they got binned. Whereas Severine had an ending that suited the story and added some tension and emotional weight to the film's narrative in its characterization of Silva as a cold psycho, in SP Lucia is just taken off into an uncertain future, with no concrete details beyond that. Her leaving serves no greater purpose or aids in the clarity of the story whatsoever. It's great that they didn't go the obvious route and kill her off like has been habit, but did they really have to shaft her in such an uncreative fashion?
Anyway, I don't want this to get off topic; I just wanted to share my viewpoints on the SF vs. SP "battle."