Daniel craig, winner or loser

James Suzuki

Is daniel craig fulfilling his job as being Bond, is he as good as Connery, Moore or Brosnan?

James Suzuki

I personally think he's mince, since when was bond blonde?, where's Q or moneypenny Bond isn't bond when craig is acting.

Number24

He is probably as good as Connery and better than Brosnan. Personally I care more about invisible cars than blonde hair.

Number24

:007)

thesecretagent

Get your head around the hair colour. RM is practically ginger in AVTAK. SC was bald and had a wig (or hair piece at least) from Dr. No onwards. Leiter is black, and he works well for me. M is a woman, and she's the best to date in my opinion.
Craig is a great Bond and has been an asset to the franchise.

walther p99

too me Craig is the best Bond even more so then Connery, so yeah he is.

Loeffelholz

Check my signature...says it all :007) No disrespect to Sir Sean; he'll always be the cinematic originator, and a great Bond. I see Craig as the second originator of the role...and closer to the spirit of Fleming's Bond than any others...but it's only my opinion.

walther p99

Loeffelholz wrote:

Check my signature...says it all :007) No disrespect to Sir Sean; he'll always be the cinematic originator, and a great Bond. I see Craig as the second originator of the role...and closer to the spirit of Fleming's Bond than any others...but it's only my opinion.

Great opinion :007)

ghost1

I don't think he's as good as Sean or Roger. I personally don't care for Brosnan but Craig is way better. Craig just seems very tough unlike Brosnan who seems to be grunting every time he falls, unlike like Connery of Craig.

Alex

Last time Craig hit Vegas I wasn't with him. No clue on winner or loser.

But I'd definitely want a person like him on the field in the fourth quarter.

zaphod

thesecretagent wrote:

Get your head around the hair colour. RM is practically ginger in AVTAK. SC was bald and had a wig (or hair piece at least) from Dr. No onwards. Leiter is black, and he works well for me. M is a woman, and she's the best to date in my opinion.
Craig is a great Bond and has been an asset to the franchise.

I agree with you. Surely most of us debated this in some heated exchanges 'back in the day' around the time of CR. Is he my ideal Bond ? (no) has he done a good job ? (definatley yes and to my surprise, I agree, he is an asset) Most importantly he is the current James Bond. 23 is going to be a troubled enough production without finding a replacement. Besides, there is a definate character arc here that I for one would like to see completed.

TonyDP

For me Craig is batting .500.

I would describe CR as a movie far too much in love with itself and how clever it tries to be. Craig's Bond in CR is a repeat screw-up with a perpetual chip on his shoulder who has to constantly be bailed out by his helpers and can only get by thru deus-ex-machina contrivances of plot. While he gets the physicality of the role he displays not a trace of wit, charm or sophistication.

QoS is a far better movie with a far better and more balanced performance by Craig. He actually figures stuff out on his own this time and behaves more like the professional that he's supposed to be. The film itself gives us a plot somewhat more in keeping with Bond adventures of the past (the stakes are higher than a poker game and the villain has bigger plans than merely saving his own skin) and happily jettisons most of the psycho-analytical BS that CR seemed to enjoy wallowing in.

As for all this stuff about Craig being more like Fleming's Bond, I don't pretend to be an expert of the literary Bond but I have read several of the novels (including CR) and to me he is no more or less Fleming-like than any of his predecessors each of whom bore some of Fleming's traits while also bringing their distinctive twists to the role. Yes, Craig successfully channels the toughness and world-weariness of Fleming. On the other hand, he really doesn't convey that fastidiousness, sophistication or educated upbringing of his literary counterpart. His relationship with M is also quite different.

Likewise the portrayals of other supporting characters are pretty radical in their divergence from the books: M comes across far too often as an over-protective, disapproving mother hen; Felix is a jaded cynic; Tanner is a complete non-entity who seems to have no friendship with Bond. Again, don't see much of Fleming other than the names.

Going forward, if Bond 23 ever gets off the ground and Craig remains involved I only hope that he'll continue to evolve the role and give us more of what we started to get in QoS: a little more humor in his delivery, a little more lighter in his overall demeanor, a little more enjoyment of the finer things and a little more appreciation of the fairer sex.

Napoleon Plural

Working my way through the second series of Rome, I must say Kevin McKidd reminds me a lot of Craig, and his storyline isn't dissimilar either.



That said, they do give the character a sidekick in Tito Pulo, who is a more amiable, light-hearted fellow with an eye for the ladies. ie a more Bond type who counter McKidd's dourness.

Number24

I think McKidd could play Craigs brother or Willie Garvin in a Modesty Blaise- film.

jamie007

Craig is, for me, the first Bond actor to be able to rival Connery in the top spot. He is kind of a modern Connery, bringing the same swagger and mashismo back to the series that been missing for too long.

James Suzuki

there's always a third one, and maybe Craigs third one will be his best just like Connery's Goldfinger and Moore's TSWLM

mediapig

The "Third One" theory is a bit of a conundrum for me, as I;m not sure how well it applies to Brosnan... For Both Connery and Moore, their third films more or less defined the direction of their series of films... even ones that departed from the set tone clearly did so on purpose, whereas the first two films in each series are rather different and unique beasts.

For Brosnan though, It seems like his second film pretty much defined his series of films, and they basically just upped the action and explosions for each successive entry. I mean, the Spy Who Loved Me is a VERY different film than say, The Man With the Golden Gun. But really, The World is Not Enough and Tomorrow Never Dies seem to follow similar beats, similar casting choices, they don;t really feel very different.

Double Oh Zombie

I think Craig is doing great as Bond. Not sure i would say he is equal or better than SC though. SC had a real coolness to him and Craig just seems a bit on the edge all the time like hes always one step away from going postal. I like Craigs toughness more than SC's but thats just a difference in decades i think.
CR was a great movie, i think QoS was a bit boring though. I always struggle to stay awake watching it.

007

I think Bond has been massively influenced post-Bourne realising what needed to be done to bring it up-to-date and they acted accordingly with CR.

I think Daniel Craig is brilliant - love CR, really like QoS too despite what a lot of other people think of it and can't wait for 23.

Better than Moore for me but Dalton was bad ass and is still probably my favourite Bond...

blueman

The Bourne thing is a bit of a meh, while Bond intially set a trend he started following others in the late 60s - YOLT felt like a film EON had to make to keep up with the Joneses at that point, definately a tail-eating escapade and not where one would think the series would've gone looking at DN or GF or even TB. Bond created a genre, and quickly became a slave to it.

Fast forward past a lot of lather/rinse/repeat Bond, and pretty incredible that Craig helped to redefine Bond the way he and EON did, love the focus on character in CR, then the leaner take that QOS had on the series, very excited to see the current Bond continue in 23.

DaltonFan1

xboy614 wrote:

Is daniel craig fulfilling his job as being Bond, is he as good as Connery, Moore or Brosnan?

Yes but he's not as good as Dalton, or arguably, Lazenby.

Loeffelholz

DaltonFan1 wrote:

xboy614 wrote:

Is daniel craig fulfilling his job as being Bond, is he as good as Connery, Moore or Brosnan?

Yes but he's not as good as Dalton, or arguably, Lazenby.

IMO, Craig is fortunate to have gotten better material with which to work than Dalton, who (to me) seemed ill at ease with some of the Moore-holdover material in the two John Glen-helmed pieces in which he starred. The Aston Martin on the frozen lake (still inside the shed ) in TLD, and his reaction to the stuffed swordfish attack in the bar in LTK come to mind. I really liked Dalton, who IMO would've been dynamite in the Current Era, but timing just wasn't with him. Too bad, really.

007

Loeffelholz wrote:

DaltonFan1 wrote:

xboy614 wrote:

Is daniel craig fulfilling his job as being Bond, is he as good as Connery, Moore or Brosnan?

Yes but he's not as good as Dalton, or arguably, Lazenby.

IMO, Craig is fortunate to have gotten better material with which to work than Dalton, who (to me) seemed ill at ease with some of the Moore-holdover material in the two John Glen-helmed pieces in which he starred. The Aston Martin on the frozen lake (still inside the shed ) in TLD, and his reaction to the stuffed swordfish attack in the bar in LTK come to mind. I really liked Dalton, who IMO would've been dynamite in the Current Era, but timing just wasn't with him. Too bad, really.

Spot on - fully agree with you here...