Daniel Craig performance review
Agent_0010
Posts: 17MI6 Agent
This is the thread where we can say what we want about Daniel Craig's performance as 007.
In my opinion, he is the best Bond since Connery. No doubt about it. Im not just saying that because he's the new Bond and Im trying to hype him up. Craig surpasses Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and even Brosnan in my book. Craig played Bond as he has never been played before, and Criag played Bond as he is in the novels: egotistical, fearful, etc. Craig took Bond from being a "superhero secret agent" to being...a human. A human with an ego, fear...a Bond with feeling. Which I liked.
In my opinion, he is the best Bond since Connery. No doubt about it. Im not just saying that because he's the new Bond and Im trying to hype him up. Craig surpasses Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and even Brosnan in my book. Craig played Bond as he has never been played before, and Criag played Bond as he is in the novels: egotistical, fearful, etc. Craig took Bond from being a "superhero secret agent" to being...a human. A human with an ego, fear...a Bond with feeling. Which I liked.
Comments
I feel that they definitely picked the right man in Daniel Craig, and that the series is going nowhere but up from here.
Still, I am going to wait until the next film to pass total judgement because then we can all get a good view on where his version of the Bond character is headed.
Turns out I did have one movie in my collection that featured Craig ("Tomb Raider"). He's not in it a whole lot, but he seemed to have a Russell Crowe aura about him. I went to the video store and bought a copy of "Layer Cake". After seeing that, I figured out what EON had in mind when they signed Craig for their next movie. "Layer Cake" was a damn good flick, and Craig was excellent in it. I still watch it occasionally. All in all, I'm just glad they didn't go after Orlando Bloom. Then I would have just given up and waited for the next Bourne flick.
So, how did Danny Boy do in CR? I thought he was excellent. He did close to the impossible and made the role his. And he didn't try to channel Connery like all the other actors did. Connery was the one who created and broke the mold. Lazenby was just continuing what Connery did. Moore was the witty gentleman. Dalton was too serious and forced. And Brosnan, while adding quite a bit of emotional depth to the character, seemed a bit too squeaky clean to be a believable assassin. Craig seems more like a blue collar badass, the type of guy you would actually believe kills people for a living. On the credibility scale, Craig is definitely the one you'd most expect to be a top British assassin. He looks and acts the part. And he's the most physical Bond since Lazenby (though Lazenby looked somewhat goofy in fight scenes).
I'll have to wait until I can safely step back from what I think is one of the best movies of the entire series to really judge how he and the movie rank in the whole scheme of things, but he is definitely at least close to Connery's equal, if not higher. He reached this not by trying to fill Connery's shoes, but by getting his own pair and creating something totally different. And I'm sure he was fortunate to latch on when EON decided to reimagine the whole Bond thing. I can't wait until Bond 22 comes out!
"Looks like someone knows something I don't," he said as he folded his hand.
The announcement came, and I was taken not necessarily aback, just a little curious. I'd heard very little of Craig. Like a previous poster, I knew of him only from Tomb Raider. But I was early on to consider the possibility that he handed in an audition that said something a lot louder than the rest of the potentials.
I never jumped on the wagon to support Craig. My wagon's bumper sticker said, "Wait and see, then decide."
But now my decision is made. I very much like him as Bond, and I love his delivery and movement. His sneaking nuances, his wry character wit, his double entendres and his brute physicality make him quite memorable.
A new element of Bond in killing was brought out in this film. It shows Bond thinking a bit more about someone he has killed. I was impressed to see how a professional killer processes the work he's just done. He didn't approach it with panic. The world would never do well to receive a Bond that had guilt. It was like a large mathematical process going on. The end result was very rewarding.
I'm very impressed by Craig's performance. I'm feeling very good about the switch. When I watched the movie, Brosnan never crossed my mind once. I think that's a good thing. It reinforces in my head that this was never Brosnan's movie, and having him in it just wouldn't have worked.
I look forward to November 2008.
It's not really fair to compare the Bonds, saying who's 'best' or whatever because they're all setting out to do different things, and the fact that he is blond actually sends out a great visual signpost saying 'don't compare us as we're different'. It just comes down to personal taste as to what you prefer from your Bond; as it is I think he achieves what he sets out to do perfectly.
Oh you're so right. Casino Royale explains why 007 doesn't have a mortgage, is married with 3 kids or has a 9-5 job. He's vulnerable, caring and human. He's not immortal or loaded with super weapons, therefore he's much more true to reality - and I like that!
Plus - he looks absolutely gorgeus *drools*
Barman: Sir, would you like that shaken or stirred?
Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?
Great punch line that makes all other Bond's look vain!
Daniel Craig you ROCK!
Call me what you want, but I wasn't too impressed on Craig. I thought he was ok, better than expected, but still wooden and stiff in certain scenes.
I don't understand this fuss about "best Bond since Connery". He clearly wasn't, IMO. Maybe next movie will change my mind..
Craig -- with the help of a script and story that gives 007 some depth, and, yes, Craig-haters, his untraditional "Bond looks" -- is the first to move beyond the Connery template and play Bond, James Bond. And he did it brilliantly, with physicality, toughness, charm, wit and a hint of vulnerability. In my mind, the title of Best Bond Ever is shared by Connery and Craig, with Connery first among equals.
That said, Craig went beyond delivering the goods. Based on his initial outing as 007, I think he'll become the Bond by which all others are judged. Connery was brilliant, but Craig has made the character human.
Of all the actors to accept EON's license to kill, Craig is the first to portray Bond as someone to actually fear. Brosnan, while I liked him, was too much of a pretty boy. Moore was too likeable. Connery was, perhaps, just a tad too smooth. I enjoyed Dalton's short-lived turn, but thought he drained too much humor from the character.
Craig's Bond is somewhat rough around the edges and armed with a dry wit. His performance is a wonderful tribute to Fleming's literary creation. I hope the producers -- and Craig -- keep the franchise heading in this new direction. They've once again turned Bond into a character I care about.
NOTE TO WADE AND PURVIS: See how good a Bond flick can be without the childish innuendos and moronic sexual chatter?
That's my hope as well. My biggest fear is that Eon will take this exciting, imperfect and complicated Bond who has feelings and makes mistakes, and smooth out all the rough edges, dust off the moronic jokes, the incredible gadgets, the stock characters and scenes(Q, Moneypenney) and megalomanical villains and turn him back into the old Bond.
Connery really didn't get into his stride until GF, although he did have some great moments in FRWL.
Let's see how well Craig does in the next one, but if his performance in CR is anything to go by, plus couple the fact that back then he was filled with doubt on how he would be accepted, whereas now he knows he has silenced his critics, and won many fans over, I think you can expect a more ****-sure performance than his last one.
Bond 22 could be the performance that once and for all puts to bed any claim that Connery can not be beaten.
Exciting eh! I can't wait....B-)
I'll sign off on all of the above, GM. Including the praise for Lazenby.
Wouldn't that be fourth?
I think he did a stunning job, really creating Bond in his own image rather than trying to fit what was already existing (which, though I enjoyed his films a lot, I always thought Brosnan did- he was a sort of 'greatest hits' package of Sean and Roger; and of course George did this too, just trying to do a Sean impression). He's dangerous and very much believable as a real fellow. What he really nails is Bond's supreme self-confidence; and the script showed that it's not always well-placed!
That said, he's not perfect. I'd like to see a little more charm from him in the next film: I think he could sparkle a little more.
I agree with that. He did have his tough Connery moments, his nod to Moore humour moments, but also added a vulnerability and emotion that was not evident in Connery or Moore. It was hinted at with Lazenby, but his strengths (or weaknesses) as an actor prevented him from really displaying this fully. He also had nods to Dalton with more serious, sombre moments too.
Overall, it did leave a lasting impression as a `Greatest Hits' Bond performance not seen with any of the other actors. But there again, this in itself is unique, ironically.
The one thing I never really got from Brosnan though, was inspiration from the character Fleming wrote. Brosnan was really embodying the cinematic version that we have become used to over the past 40 years, rather than returning Bond to his roots, or going back to the source for inspiration.
Each new actor playing Bond (with the exception of Lazenby, who didn't know really what to do with it) has brought new elements to the mix to make their portrayal unique. Moore played elements that were not really evident in Connery's performance. Dalton played elements that were not really evident in either Connery's or Moore's. And Brosnan decided to give us a mixed bag portrayal, showing a combination of what had gone before.
Craig has taken the role one step further by really making the role his, and with no nods whatsoever to what has gone before. It really is as though we are seeing a new James Bond for the very first time.
This is why I think by the end of his tenure, he will be even more irreplacable than Connery was, and will have finally laid the ghost to rest that Connery's Bond was the greatest. We have yet to see the best of Craig's Bond, and yet already he is being hailed as the best thing since Connery from all quarters (fans and critics alike). Brosnan never receievd this amount of global recognition. True, he had his fans, but not like this. The Craig phenomenon has just started, and by Bond 22 will take us back to the glory days of 1960's Bondmania, when James Bond ruled!
That's because we are seeing a new James Bond for the first time. In Casino Royale, he's not the fully refined experienced agent that we were previously accustomed to. If DC had played the role in the same mould as his predecessors then something would have been seriously wrong.
DC was given the opportunity to portray an inexperienced rough round the edges Bond, and backed by a quality script he did an impressive job. What happens to DC's Bond and how his character develops in the next two films will certainly be of great interest.
As much as I normall disagree with your opinions Supes, the fact that you hold Connery in such high esteem means I am agreeing with you.....for once! :v
Completely different animal, this one...but I do like it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yeah; that's a fair point.
I didn't always like his 'cryin' Bond', but it did work sometimes and was all his own.
Looking forward to what comes next :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM