Convince Me of Craig

RogueAgent007

I must be missing something. I just can't stand him. He is quite seriously #6 in my list.

IMHO, he's one dimensional, ugly as sin, a bore to watch, unconvincing, forced, poorly written, unbalanced, and lacks any of the suave gentility necessary to Bond

Add to that, I feel the whole reboot lacks any sort of direction and has been extremely difficult to follow. QOS was downright unintelligible, IMO.

What am I not seeing? I'm trying to like him. I really am! I watched CR 4 times and only found more problems each time. I've forced myself to watch QoS twice. Still don't understand it, and the camera work made me motion sick both times. Now I paid good money to see Skyfall and came away feeling like Macaulay Caulkin is now playing Bond.

Can some please explain what is so good about Craig to them? I haven't missed a Bond in the theaters since TLD. But this reboot is killing this fan!

raptors_887

All the Bond actors have their own style and Craig is more of a bad-ass. Your not going to see any Roger Moore like goofyness with him. He is strictly bussiness all the time. But I think he also has that charming and witty side that the others do as well. Like in Casino Royale when that guy tells him to park his car and he goes and slams it into a wall LOL. Overall I think he plays the Bond character really well and I hope he sticks around for a while longer.

Higgins

RA, while I found your intelligent analysis for SF hilarious, I am of the opinion, that you are falling a bit into the trap of clichees.

In the other thread, you are calling Connery threatening, Moore silly and Dalton hard-edged.
And from your reviews, we see that you are of the opinion, that Craig can't act.

That's too easy imo, because Connery was much more than threatening, Moore was much more than silly and Dalton much more (or less ) than hard-edged.

While having these labels in mind, you are searching for reassurance while watching the movies and in parts, you'll find that. But Craigs attributes are negative, so you are looking too much for negative assurance, which keeps you away from enjoying the movies.

BTW, I may be falling into the same trap with Dalton: I find him to be the the obnoxious kid who always wanted to be cool and therefore pretends to be cool but does not have the capabilities to be so.

Others disagree - but at the same time are calling Moore the "Silly Bond" - a clichee which does not give him justice because his performance was more than the 4-5 silly jokes in every movie.

Good that we all have our opinions and I am sure, that noone will ever convice me to like Dalton - like noone will be able to convince you with Craig.

I am waiting for an intelligent review for TLD and LTD from you btw. -{

BIG TAM

The Daniel Craig detractors will simply never warm to him, much as Roger Moore was still disliked by the pro-Connery brigade after seven films!
I'm of the opinion that casting against type is a good thing & in Craig's case has benefitted the series. On paper I concede Craig shouldn't work. He doesn't have the 'classic' fit. But he's committed himself to the part with great vigour. And as with Moore era, the films have changed to suit his style. One can't imagine Connery or Moore whisking dear old Bernard Lee off to the Scottish homestead any more than I could see Craig disguised as a Ninja in a hollowed-out volcano! Times simply change. The films have adapted & I think so should the audience.

Ens007

BIG TAM wrote:

The Daniel Craig detractors will simply never warm to him, much as Roger Moore was still disliked by the pro-Connery brigade after seven films!
I'm of the opinion that casting against type is a good thing & in Craig's case has benefitted the series. On paper I concede Craig shouldn't work. He doesn't have the 'classic' fit. But he's committed himself to the part with great vigour. And as with Moore era, the films have changed to suit his style. One can't imagine Connery or Moore whisking dear old Bernard Lee off to the Scottish homestead any more than I could see Craig disguised as a Ninja in a hollowed-out volcano! Times simply change. The films have adapted & I think so should the audience.

Excellent post.

Thunderpussy

Just as there are those AJBers who dislike, T Dalton or R Moore.
There will be those who Dislike D Craig.
I find myself swinging from Thinking he's very good in places, then
thinking he's really Bad in other scenes.
Although On the whole I do think he was good in CR and better in Skyfall.
( Playing the character More like Bond, a swagger in his walk.
If that makes any sence. )
So apart from his not looking remotely like Bond, I think he's OK.
Mabey not huge Praise, But who knows he might win me over with his
next outing. )
I do think he was very Intense in QOS with Skyfall he seems to off lightened up
a little and seems Now to be Enjoying the role. Even On Screen Bond seems to be
having some fun again.

Moore Than

Thunderpussy wrote:

with Skyfall he seems to off lightened up
a little and seems Now to be Enjoying the role. Even On Screen Bond seems to be
having some fun again.

Yes, Bond should be seen to be relaxed and having some fun from time to time, it rubs off on the audience. Daniel Craig looked more relaxed in Skyfall, but I would like to see him have a bit more fun in Bond 24.

The varying interpretations that each actor has brought to the role has been one of the series greatest strengths. Varying interpretations means by definition that some will be favoured more than others. I would much rather have it this way than have all the actors portray Bond in exactly the same manner.

Higgins

Moore Than wrote:

Yes, Bond should be seen to be relaxed and having some fun from time to time, it rubs off on the audience. Daniel Craig looked more relaxed in Skyfall, but I would like to see him have a bit more fun in Bond 24.
.

Really?

Can you please tell me which scene shows him relaxed and having some fun.
I must have been missing that totally because to me he looked like he has been partying with Charlie Sheen all night long and during the breaks :v for the entire movie....

Napoleon Plural

Thing is, there is a bit of misery loves company, you get what your face suggests, as the self-help books say. Craig doesn't look too happy, so all his stories have been a downer, and he doesn't really win or get the girl at the end, it would just go against the grain really.

RogueAgent007

In the other thread, you are calling Connery threatening, Moore silly and Dalton hard-edged.
And from your reviews, we see that you are of the opinion, that Craig can't act.
That's too easy imo, because Connery was much more than threatening, Moore was much more than silly and Dalton much more (or less ) than hard-edged.

Oh no, I agree that there is much more to each portrayal. I think Brosnan gave us the most complex Bond, but you really see Connery and Dalton struggling to maintain a civilized veneer while excelling at what is socially unacceptable - murder. Many have called Moore the "Silly Bond", not just me (it's mostly because of Moonraker, IMO). But even there, he struck a nice balance. I have no problem with Moore, and have 3 of his films in my top 10.

Bond to me is a ruthless, efficient assassin. We see that in Craig. HOWEVER, He is also smooth, suave, sophisticated, possessing taste, charm and style. He is a sexual magnet, with good looks and magic kisses that convince women to switch gas canisters and so forth. Bond knows what he is good at and, while eminently capable of taking a life, does so with the knowledge that he will carry that life with him for the rest of his days. Bond struggles with his own humanity, because he wants to do right, but his talents have lead him to a career where he must to do it in a very wrong way. He knows that he will save humanity, and do much good by his anti-social actions and therefore does them without hesitation, but he still hates himself a little for each one.

I struggle with Craig's portrayal because all I see as I watch him is a hard nosed thug. To play on the cliche bit, if Connery is threatening, Dalton hard edged, Moore silly, etc. the word I hear most often with Craig is Bad-A**. But unlike the others, IMO, Craig isn't overcoming the cliche.

I think the biggest problem I have with Craig is that he's turning Bond into just another action movie, while Bond has always been more than that. Bond has set the bar for so many years, now it feels like the Broccoli Machine is following someone else's lead. Now CR was, IMO, Craig's best and not the worst Bond movie by far(#18 IMHO). I am ambiguous about it. It felt like the director was taking cues from other action movies in places, but still maintained an attempt at a Bond feel. But it was followed by the Bourne Bond(Qos#23), and the Home Alone Bond(SF#22). Next, will we see a Die Hard Bond, an Expendables Bond or an Indiana Jones Bond?

Yes, Bond should be seen to be relaxed and having some fun from time to time, it rubs off on the audience. Daniel Craig looked more relaxed in Skyfall, but I would like to see him have a bit more fun in Bond 24.

Moore Than, are you really defending Craig by saying that it should take 4 movies to make a good one? Dalton was canned after two good Bond performances and Moore only took two mediocre ones to win over most with the third. I didn't see Craig looking relaxed in Skyfall, I saw him more tense than ever.

RogueAgent007

BTW BondToys, I'll be happy to give you a review of TLD in another thread, doesn't belong here. But what is LTD? Did you mean LTK?

Nick37

My only question with Craig is whether or not they're trying to do too much too fast. I liked the fact we saw Bond from the beginning, with Vesper, but it seems like they're trying to rush Bond into being a cynical, jaded individual. Someone asked if they were going to do an OHMSS update with Craig in another thread. I dearly hope not. It's not that I don't think Craig can act it, it's just that it's far too much for his Bond to have gone through. He's weathered the death of Vesper, and now M, and he was already getting tired of the 00 section before M's death. Losing his wife on the wedding day would just be way too much despair. Save it for the next guy, if you have to do it at all.

Yes, Craig doesn't seem to be having much fun in his films, but on the other hand, it's hard to blame him. He's rapidly becoming the Jessica Fletcher Bond. Everywhere he goes, someone close to him dies.

GoldenEye85

I think I tend to agree with what some of my friends have said about 007 before the reboot. While I like really, really like the older movies, James Bond was becoming.....for lack of a better term, comical, too many cheesy one liners, too many far out there gadgets, and the CGI for Die Another Day was a bit too much. As much as I love DaD I have to agree with some of these points.

Daniel Craig brought the character back down to earth and made you realize that he is a person...a person who can be hurt in more ways than one and we see a few examples of this in Casino Royale. Someone who doesn't have to rely on gadgets to complete his mission. He shows us a realistic version of an otherwise fictional character. While Quantum of Solace was a bit bland, the more realistic version of Bond continues and for that I do give it some credit. Skyfall even though we see some of the recurring characters return, I don't think we will see DC's Bond go back to the comical styles of the first twenty films, but even Skyfall continued this portrayal.

All of this is simply me and my friends opinions, but Daniel Craig's style of 007 was a much welcomed addition to the series.

To each their own and this one is mine.

Nick37

"Daniel Craig brought the character back down to earth and made you realize that he is a person...a person who can be hurt in more ways than one and we see a few examples of this in Casino Royale. Someone who doesn't have to rely on gadgets to complete his mission. He shows us a realistic version of an otherwise fictional character. While Quantum of Solace was a bit bland, the more realistic version of Bond continues and for that I do give it some credit. Skyfall even though we see some of the recurring characters return, I don't think we will see DC's Bond go back to the comical styles of the first twenty films, but even Skyfall continued this portrayal.

All of this is simply me and my friends opinions, but Daniel Craig's style of 007 was a much welcomed addition to the series.

To each their own and this one is mine."

100% agree. I think they had the right idea when they brought Dalton on, they just didn't know how to effectively do it. While I consider his films my all-time favorites, TLD is somewhat disjointed. We see Dalton showing he's got the props to do the serious Bond, especially in the scenes where Saunders dies, and the scene with Pushkin, but then they mix it with the scene where he slides down the hillside in the cello case. Dalton pulls it off, but it doesn't quite match with other elements of the film. LTK eliminates the humor, but at the time, audiences weren't ready for it, so Dalton, while he tried, became a lost opportunity for the franchise, IMO. One I still regret they missed out on.

CR and the other Craig's are definitely firing on all cylinders, the drama, humor is well blended and the CR and Skyfall scripts were excellent. Probably the best in the history of the franchise. I had minor reservations about Craig and believe it or not, CR was the very first Bond film I saw in theaters. I was old enough in the Brosnan years, but I saw them on video. Anyway, CR blew me away and put Craig in my top three Bonds.

Also, the franchise deserves props for making it cool to be in a Bond movie. in the 60s and 70s especially, you almost got a sense it was a stigma to be in a Bond movie. They snagged some quality actors, but Christopher Lee is probably the highest profile from Moore's 1970s films. Actors like Yappet Kotto, Louis Jordan, Topol, and Julian Glover are familiar to me, but they either weren't as well-known at the time they were cast, or weren't as popular as other actors. Sean Bean and Christopher Walken are also some bigger names, but for the most part, the villains in earlier films have lesser-known actors. Even Robert Davi, a very recognizable character actor now, was just making his mark in 1989. They started getting bigger names in the Brosnan years, like Jonathan Pryce, Robert Carlyle, and Judi Dench, but scoring actors like Jeffrey Wright and Javier Bardem is a major accomplishment. I don't think they'd have gotten an actor of Bardem's calibre for the 60s or 70s Bond films.

alphaagent

I enjoyed the reboot and I think it was to a degree necessary, but I am over the Craig era, time to move on to someone a bit more suave, woman friendly, sophisticated but...with some of the more realistic and hard physicallity which has been missing since dalton. I think that was the problem till the reboot, the action lacked and had become too silly. But wether it is the acting, writing or Craig's interpretation, I cringe at the end of Quantum... "yes" "No" or worse even in skyfall when he says "you know the whole story".

Distorted Humor

The funny thing is that while Moore is noted as the "Funny Bond" he has some of the most memorable kills in the series (kicking the car, and questioning the man holding his tie and then taking the tie away for a death and a one liner), I watched Bronsen in Goldeneye and forgot how funny he was, and I can always watch the subpar Connery bonds for me (OYLT and DAF) and get a reality check that he could be awful in them as well.

While I love CR, I thought Craig was only "servicable" in it, but in Skyfall he has started to grow on me as he showing a bit more roundness, a little bit more suave, a little bit of humor, ect. Of course, he starting to look old, so who knows where that will lead to.

Blackleiter

You make some very good points here and provide an excellent synopsis of the positives of Craig's Bond. -{

Nick37 wrote:

"Daniel Craig brought the character back down to earth and made you realize that he is a person...a person who can be hurt in more ways than one and we see a few examples of this in Casino Royale. Someone who doesn't have to rely on gadgets to complete his mission. He shows us a realistic version of an otherwise fictional character. While Quantum of Solace was a bit bland, the more realistic version of Bond continues and for that I do give it some credit. Skyfall even though we see some of the recurring characters return, I don't think we will see DC's Bond go back to the comical styles of the first twenty films, but even Skyfall continued this portrayal.

All of this is simply me and my friends opinions, but Daniel Craig's style of 007 was a much welcomed addition to the series.

To each their own and this one is mine."

100% agree. I think they had the right idea when they brought Dalton on, they just didn't know how to effectively do it. While I consider his films my all-time favorites, TLD is somewhat disjointed. We see Dalton showing he's got the props to do the serious Bond, especially in the scenes where Saunders dies, and the scene with Pushkin, but then they mix it with the scene where he slides down the hillside in the cello case. Dalton pulls it off, but it doesn't quite match with other elements of the film. LTK eliminates the humor, but at the time, audiences weren't ready for it, so Dalton, while he tried, became a lost opportunity for the franchise, IMO. One I still regret they missed out on.

CR and the other Craig's are definitely firing on all cylinders, the drama, humor is well blended and the CR and Skyfall scripts were excellent. Probably the best in the history of the franchise. I had minor reservations about Craig and believe it or not, CR was the very first Bond film I saw in theaters. I was old enough in the Brosnan years, but I saw them on video. Anyway, CR blew me away and put Craig in my top three Bonds.

Also, the franchise deserves props for making it cool to be in a Bond movie. in the 60s and 70s especially, you almost got a sense it was a stigma to be in a Bond movie. They snagged some quality actors, but Christopher Lee is probably the highest profile from Moore's 1970s films. Actors like Yappet Kotto, Louis Jordan, Topol, and Julian Glover are familiar to me, but they either weren't as well-known at the time they were cast, or weren't as popular as other actors. Sean Bean and Christopher Walken are also some bigger names, but for the most part, the villains in earlier films have lesser-known actors. Even Robert Davi, a very recognizable character actor now, was just making his mark in 1989. They started getting bigger names in the Brosnan years, like Jonathan Pryce, Robert Carlyle, and Judi Dench, but scoring actors like Jeffrey Wright and Javier Bardem is a major accomplishment. I don't think they'd have gotten an actor of Bardem's calibre for the 60s or 70s Bond films.

Kent007

I think Craig is the right Bond for the three films he's done and the three films are right for the time they were made! He's not my favourite Bond but he's not my worst

davidelliott101

I do like Craig as Bond and sorry for the over-used comparison to Connery, but he seems very Connery like in his gritty portrayal. BUT he doesn't physically fit the Fleming description of Bond. Blonde hair, thuggish exterior... he lacks the very look of Bond. He PLAYS Bond pretty well, but really, the Bond franchise to me has lacked that certain "something". I've complained about the gunbarrel set at the end of the last 2 films and for me, that has made the last 2 Bond films feel not quite right.

While Skyfall is allegedly the "best" Bond film (aren't ALL the latest Bond films the "best"?) this year, and I like seeing Bond "the man" rather than Bond "the super-hero", the overall tone of the Craig films just feel (to me) more of the generic action hero film we have seen of late (except Casino Royale, which we are supposed to see "the beginning" although the non-Fleming parts feel generic, so sorry).

It's not his fault, I suppose... maybe I can't convince you of Daniel Craig being James Bond... but I take his films for what they are... a product of the times. He also appears to be a fan of the Fleming novels and I think he tries to bring that to the screen, so I can't fault him at all... to me it's a production standard over him as an actor.

Napoleon Plural

He is not too far from Fleming's Bond, but if Moore or Brosnan is your template, he's a lot further.

Read the first three books to get an idea of how he sort of fits, albeit with a bit more churlishness.

Halcon

cant help you in convincing you of Craig.

It's too bad because Craig is a really good actor, and he's poured himself into the role. He also comes across as a very humble guy, nice guy, down to earth type, you can't help but like the guy a lot. Thats all nice.

The problem is that he isn't Bond.

Take a look at the cover art for the 50th anniversy Blue ray collection. They had to make Craig taller, leaner, with more hair to make him fit in with the silhouettes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even what's his name. (i seriously just forgot.)

When you have to 'alter' your Bond actor to fit in...

RogueAgent007

alphaagent wrote:

I enjoyed the reboot and I think it was to a degree necessary, but I am over the Craig era, time to move on to someone a bit more suave, woman friendly, sophisticated but...with some of the more realistic and hard physicallity which has been missing since dalton. I think that was the problem till the reboot, the action lacked and had become too silly. But wether it is the acting, writing or Craig's interpretation, I cringe at the end of Quantum... "yes" "No" or worse even in skyfall when he says "you know the whole story".

Now that I can agree with, as I have no problem with reboots. I think it was a wonderful idea for Star Trek and Spiderman. But they each have a clear direction and reason for the reboot. Star trek is an alternate reality for instance. But there is no clear direction for the Bond reboot. It is wallowing about like a Carnival cruise liner.

Nick37

"Take a look at the cover art for the 50th anniversy Blue ray collection. They had to make Craig taller, leaner, with more hair to make him fit in with the silhouettes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even what's his name. (i seriously just forgot.)"

'Ol George Lazenby.

And I'm happy they've gone with a shorter guy with less hair for Bond. It means me at 5"11, with Dalton's hairline has a shot now.

raptors_887

People are always going to like the older way of things. Can you imagine if Roger Moore was the Bond today? He would have a sea of haters saying he's turned Bond movies into a comedy and how it just doesn't feel like a James Bond movie anymore.

Halcon

Nick37 wrote:

"Take a look at the cover art for the 50th anniversy Blue ray collection. They had to make Craig taller, leaner, with more hair to make him fit in with the silhouettes of Connery, Moore, Brosnan, Dalton and even what's his name. (i seriously just forgot.)"

'Ol George Lazenby.

thanks buddy! )

And I'm happy they've gone with a shorter guy with less hair for Bond. It means me at 5"11, with Dalton's hairline has a shot now.

I know you are kidding, but when Craig did Bond it DID seem refreshing and it felt like 'any guy' now could play Bond and do it well. Now I just wish we had an actor that actually looks and behaves like Bond.

Petty complaints I know since I should be happy that we have ANY Bond to begin with. Oh, well..

chrisisall

Nick37 wrote:

And I'm happy they've gone with a shorter guy with less hair for Bond. It means me at 5"11, with Dalton's hairline has a shot now.

You're a good bit taller than Craig...

always shaken

I like DC ,and what he brings to the part of JB,
with that slightley brutal edge to the character.
After all if all JB actors played the part in the same style
it would have got boring years ago.He can say a lot in his facial
expresions with out uttering a word , Wether he goes down in history
as the best Bond only time will tell ,but for now im glad he got the part

Nick37

"You're a good bit taller than Craig..."

Not sure about that. I think he's 5'10". I can't imagine he's much shorter than that.

always shaken

Various agents have mentioned DC height,
the height requirements for the UK secret services
are not as critical as the old police forces ,even they are
lower than they used to be ,in the old days you would not even get considered
a post with the City of London police unless you was 6 ft plus
now going back to DC height a operational officer would need to be low in the air
to blend in youd hardly expect to follow somebody if you was 6-3
and not get noticed like Russian tank drivers the shorter the better

chrisisall

Nick37 wrote:

"You're a good bit taller than Craig..."

Not sure about that. I think he's 5'10".

That's what they said about Stallone. )

alphaagent

I'm all for Craig retiring and Scott Adkins taking over he has it all looks like Bond, fights like Bond should (would wipe the floor with craig anyday) charming like Bond and is young enough to carry the franchise forward in the right direction.

tp://media.comicvine.com/uploads/7/71152/2685503-scott_adkins_stars_premiere_expendables_2_gszg9eow1aml_super.jpg