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
As for Crag being compared to Downey JR, that's a bit unfair as Diwney us a mega star, Craig is not even a super star. Just look at the body of work Craig does, they're mostly low key abd in some cases passion projects abd in general smaller films, flashback of a fool is a classic example of his post Bond work.
I think, the strangest thing you said is, that he is a poor actor. Maybe you are missing his subtle acting as opposed to overacting. I dunno, but it sure is strange considering the awards he won for his acting - even nominated for CR. But each to their own.
I sometimes feel that his screen performances are almost too low-key. He is a generous actor, in that he definitely allows his co-stars their space. However, with Tattoo for example, I didn't feel that he was driving the film or the narrative as required. I suppose you could argue that Lisbeth is the main character, and Rooney Mara arguably steals the film, but I still think it was a weak performance from DC.
This makes me wonder whether he has that 'star' quality that means he can command the screen when he wants to. I might be wrong. He certainly convinces as Bond, but playing Bond gives the actor a status that they perhaps would not otherwise be able to command.
Of course he does, it's why he's so popular right now.
I felt similarly. I left CR having enjoyed bits of it, particularly the Bond-Vesper relationship but in no way blown away by it like some people. However, what I did feel from the start is that DC was good casting. He seized the role by the scruff of the neck and as someone who was not a huge fan of his predecessor, I felt DC was a huge step in the right direction. For me though the producers have still not quite got a grip on storylines, scripts and directing. For me personally, the DC era looks good by comparison with the the previous 4 films, but not so good when compared to what came before that. As time passes my relief at having a good Bond actor is slightly overshadowed by a sense that the films just aren't as good as they could be. From what DC and Mendes have said, I think they probably feel the same way and that makes me hopeful that SF may mark a return to true classic form.
But has he done it in anything other than Bond? Playing Bond automatically conveys gravitas and you are carried by the history of the series to some extent. People even paid good money to see that dreadful ham Dalton remember.
That's how I feel about him right now. He's no Dalton but he's decent enough and he's done a good job with what he's been given. I'd put him 4th on my list of Bond actors.
But I hope he plays classic Bond for SF because I'm pretty sick of him playing the rookie Bond. If he's just the same as he was in CR/QOS for SF, then I'll think call he can do is the rookie Bond and won't like him that much anymore.
What do you mean?
I'll agree that Craig has probably had the most success as a "star" in Bond, compared to other films. I do remember a lot of people praising his performance in C&A (personally, as I said earlier, I thought Craig looked every inch the part but was upstaged a bit by Mr Ford).
Any way, what I'm trying to say is that people would probably go and see Justin Beeber if he was playing Bond. Obviously DC is better than that, but like everyone since Connery, he has benefitted from the history and heritage to carry him along. So, can he command and boss a film when he's not playing Bond? I don't think he's demonstrated he can. I know his defenders will say that's because he's such a generous, subtle actor, but I'm not sure.
I never said Dalton was a "bad" actor, just more suited to the stage :p
I think more people would pay to see Craig in a lead part than they would Dalts. Sorry but I have a feeling that's the case.
CR and QoS are by and large 1 continuous movie so I do think it's a bit harsh, although somewhat understandable with the, "sick of rookie Bond" comments. Anyway, Craig, Mendes and co are doing a good job convincing that they know what they're doing but we'll see.
An interesting question, although it won't matter too much either way in the end.
I think Craig has proven he can carry a big film, but like other Bond actors he will be quitting Bond in his mid to late 40s and will begin to slip in to character roles rather than lead roles. Like so many actors in that age group the more interesting and challanging roles are not always the lead role. The very top stars like Tom Cruise (who defies age anyay) can mix it up but always plays the lead, others choose different routes.
Craig will become a character actor for sure. But he will remain a big star, as Connery and Brosnan did before him. He will be in demand, guaranteed.
When Moore quit he was too old and too rich to bother, plus he had other things taking his time up.
Lazenby was more or less frozen out of the industry, and Dalton has become a jobbing actor.
Connery has also been brilliant, his performances in The Hill and The Offence, both Lumet movies, are truly stunning - and a million miles from Bond. Later in his career, I think Connery started to ever so slightly spoof himself in films like The Rock, but in character-based films like Finding Forester, he showed he could dig deep into a character.
For me it's a close shave between Craig and Connery, not just as actors, but also as Bond.
There aren't many actors left who's cv includes Alfred Hitchcock.
The Hill is one of those barn-storming roles which you can't help but be blown away by. It's my fav Connery role ever. Love the film.
But Craig has given beautiful, sensitive performances in films like The Mother and Enduring Love. And he's the only one of the actors to get a Best Actor BAFTA nomination for playing Bond, and in his very first go in the role, that's not to be sniffed at,
umm..its good but I think it is equally matched by Dans Layer Cake or Geordie in My friends in the north.
The Hill was one of the films that Connery wanted to escape his typecasting in the sixties. Its interesting to see when he stopped acting because he had his own bank and didnt need too. There are good roles in the seventies ie Zardoz and Robin in Robin and Marian. I will also say William of Baskerville in The Name of the Rose. He began to be a fine character actor.
Then 'The Untouchables' happened and he began to be at the top again. The roles he chose were from studios who could afford him. Which often meant action shit like 'The Rock' and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
In many ways his best performances were in the seventies when the ghost of Bond fluttered above him and he would try to stop the typecasting. Once he achieved this with an oscar he sort of went back to the ones which would pay the best.
The gods of mammon rule Mr Connery sometimes.
How can you put The Rock, one of the greatest action films of all time, in the same category as The League Of Extarordianry Gentlemen, which is just a big, crap, missed opportunity?
Connery did League Of Extarordinary Gentlemen because he'd turned down roles in The Matrix and Lord Of The Rings, which turned out to be huge successes. He didn't want to miss out again so I think he just agreed to do the film just in case it turned out big.
The Rock was great... at least great entertainment! The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was terrible. I remember I started to read LOTR because I read Sean Connery would be Gandalf but I didn't know he had turned out Matrix.
I think Craig is a great actor. He has been in some crappy films that are only watchable because of him. I don't think he is the least interested in being a star, though, and that counts a lot in the amount of people that will ultimately see a movie in cinema. He has been building quite a reputation throughout is career and it will pay off sooner rather than later. He has been working with the best directors in the past few years, let's face it!
Connery is great because he is a naturally-born actor. Dalton is great because he has a great stage background. Craig also came from the stage but made the jump to other forms of acting much more easily than Dalton. For me these are the 3 best Bond actors, each different but all great.
I'm with u, The Rock - rocks! But LOEG ended up as a mess, but Connery did have a big say in the final cut (make of that what u will), and he and director Steve Norrington had a HUGE fall out during filming. I have friends, both cast and crew, on that film who witnessed the RAW RAGE of a very disgruntled Connery - and ran for cover!
As for best Bond actor, well, some of them have done better in the role than others. I haven't really watched many of the actors movies outside of Bond so I can't really judge on range in other areas, but just because a certain movie(s) didn't make a big splash with the box office or popularity, doesn't mean that the actor didn't do particularly well in it. However, if Sir Rog says that Craig is the best Bond actor, then I'll take it. :P
Sorry, but its hardly Little Dorrit is it? Its a big dumb actioner. I like films with more meat on the bone.
Connery sleepwalked (as he does sometimes). Watch him act in The Name of the Rose and The Untouchables but not in The Rock.
Admittingly Connery plays a version of himself but he's clearly having a lot of fun.
Great film. Dont you DARE feature it in the same sentence as 'LXG' ;)
Sadly I haven't seen The Hill yet but I've heard only great things about it so should certainly give it a watch.
Whether it's great 'acting' or not is debatable but I think one of Seans most moving moments on film is when he starts singing on the bridge at the end of The Man who Would be King.
Is this part of the reason for Connery retiring after making this film and/or Norrington having not directed another film since?
That may have been part of it, but overall I just think the production was one big strenuous mess and Connery decided he was getting too old for that kind of madness. At the time a flood was giving the entire production in Prague a hard time and what should have been a nice & well-kept clockwork became an annoying assortment of hurdles, taking much more energy to negotiate than initially planned. It didn't help that LOEG's script wasn't all that great, too. But that alone wouldn't have disturbed Connery. Just think of that Avangers abomination he starred in.
Thanks for the information @6of1. I knew things were bad and that there were troubles during production, but I had no idea just how bad.
Craig looks much more natural with the deadpan humour and can sell it, Dalton is great if we are just looking for dark and deadly but as we know cinematic Bond is more than that also he's not too natural with the ladies. People want fully fledged Bond well if Craig does deliver that with what he's shown so far teasing these moments in CR I think he'll have no problem topping Dalton because he can deliver in all the departments Dalton does and more. I'm sure some TD fans wil try and argue his humorous moments are sarcasm, they are not they are Bond like humour delivered by an actor who at the time was not comfortable delivering humour.
Also for the criticism of QOS not being a Bond film and being more like Bourne (which I partially agree with) LTK without Q and the gadgets wouldn't be much like a Bond film, yes it was a refreshing change and yes we have elements of Fleming's LALD but it was far removed from TLD and was pretty much the QOS for it's time.
Anyway the proof will be in the pudding but I've no doubt even if Craig does deliver the rounded Bond, suave, deadpan humour with charm akin to Connery but with a contemporary Craig like spin, Daltonite's will still be sour about it and claim he's not as good even though their hero could never deliver the fully formed character.