Now every time I watch the growing love between Bond and Vesper, I'll be
Imagining a theatre box off to the side with Gassy Man and Broadshoulder
Arguing over the emotion of the scene. ) like our own Statler and Waldorf . -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
There's more emotion shown on Connery's face in a single scene than in an entire movie with Craig.
:007) Thank you, GM.
I mostly agree.
Each actor has their strengths and weaknesses. Craig can do vulnerability, lust, attachment and anger very well, but not so much humor, vitality and charm. I think what makes the Craig films great is that Eon is aware of his strengths and plays the films to them.
Eon is aware of [Craig's] strengths and plays the films to them.
Very true, and something they have generally been good at- eg, TSWLM - AVTAK were tailored to Moore's portrayal of Bond, LTK was written specifically for Dalton to play, etc.
There's more emotion shown on Connery's face in a single scene than in an entire movie with Craig.
:007) Thank you, GM.
I mostly agree.
Each actor has their strengths and weaknesses. Craig can do vulnerability, lust, attachment and anger very well, but not so much humor, vitality and charm. I think what makes the Craig films great is that Eon is aware of his strengths and plays the films to them.
I agree -- Craig is fantastic with showing Bond's strength of will, which then contrasts sharply with what happens when he is emotionally wounded. It's the emotions in between that he is reluctant to show.
Each actor has their strengths and weaknesses. Craig can do vulnerability, lust, attachment and anger very well, but not so much humor, vitality and charm. I think what makes the Craig films great is that Eon is aware of his strengths and plays the films to them.
I agree -- Craig is fantastic with showing Bond's strength of will, which then contrasts sharply with what happens when he is emotionally wounded. It's the emotions in between that he is reluctant to show.
I agree. And I agree with your assessment of Craig's portrayal of Bond overall. Sometimes he shows great emotion, but he doesn't carry it through. For most of his movies he has the same expression. I just didn't feel any love from him in CR. I could imagine Timothy Dalton doing that love story very well. He wasn't a charmer, but he could show feeling. I have the hardest time picturing Connery showing love. I've seen so many of his films, and he never falls in love in his films. I think he does in Marnie, but shows it in a unique way. Moore doesn't often fall in love either, but he falls in love in one brilliant episode of The Persuaders when he wakes up and is told he is married to someone he hardly knew. Moore isn't the least bit thrilled, but then over the coarse of the episode quickly falls in love (but not deeply in love). He's quite heartbroken at the end of the episode. Moore and Dalton have great range, though Moore's isn't used often. Brosnan showed a pretty wide range of acting in Remington Steele, but he shows by far the least range in his Bond films. His relationship with Elektra was the best, but it could have been much better. I think Michael Apted is a great director, but he didn't direct Brosnan well.
He's good at deaths. But that was the only time he shows any emotion towards Vesper. I didn't believe that they fell in love from the way he acted toward and around her when she was alive. I thought Lazenby played the love story much better.
I'm inclined to agree. In all three films, Craig has not even shown half the range of the previous actors who played Bond.
Puts pair of glasses on Gassyman.
You're simply wrong, Gassyman. Try to find one film critic who agrees with you
I'm inclined to agree. In all three films, Craig has not even shown half the range of the previous actors who played Bond.
Puts pair of glasses on Gassyman.
You're simply wrong, Gassyman. Try to find one film critic who agrees with you
Why do I need to find a critic to agree with me? My opinion is my own -- saying I'm wrong doesn't simply make it so. It just means you have a different opinion. And I don't believe on this board or elsewhere I'm the only one pointing out Daniel Craig's limitations.
But, this review of Casino Royale, which was not particularly positive, deals with some of the same issues. While the reviewer says "Craig is always a charismatic presence," which I would not argue, he says absolutely nothing about Craig's ability to emote or to pull off the romantic scenes, a curious absence given how the romance is supposed to be critical to the film. At best, he says that Craig is good at showing pain during the torture scene but looks "dislocated" in other scenes because while he is trying so hard to play scenes straight, the rest of the movie seems fake because of it: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/05/filmnews.film That's not far at all from what some of us are saying here about Craig's need to operate on the extremes of emotion to be effective, despite the physical presence he brings to 007.
What's interesting is that when I perused the various reviews for Craig as Bond, I noticed a striking similarity. They all praise Craig's masculinity and intensity and his ability to show a Bond who can be hurt. What they don't often say -- if they say at all -- is his Bond's ability to carry off the romantic elements. They say he's sexy and vulnerable, but romantic is often missing from the reviews. When they note his emotions, the specifics are almost always "big" emotions rather than subtleties, and they generally agree that humor is not one of Craig's strengths.
As other posters have noted, when the hype settles down and another actor is chosen to play Bond, people will see in the contrast Craig's strengths and weaknesses. I think he's terrific as Bond but limited in how he plays the role.
To put this in perspective, this article rather correctly sums up Brosnan's depiction of Bond, noting that what seemed suave at the time comes across as lazy now, which I actually said back when he was making Bond movies:
^ You're right. Hype always settles down. No doubt that people will realize Craig's flaws. With Brosnan, like the article said, his cavalier attitude in the 90's is seen as laziness today. But who knows, Brosnan's understated gentleman approach might come back in style.
Craig's Bond is in many ways, much more of an intense male power fantasy. Perhaps now we identify with it, but years from now, we may ridicule it as being too macho.
Isn't an angry-at-the-world, don't-trust-anyone, carry-an-AK47-took-tough mentality every Millennial man's fantasy? It's certainly mine.
Isn't an angry-at-the-world, don't-trust-anyone, carry-an-AK47-took-tough mentality every Millennial man's fantasy? It's certainly mine.
I'll take Connery's, Moore's or Brosnan's confidence any day over Craig's attitude. Bond never trusts anyone, but Craig makes it obvious (or other characters telling him he doesn't trust anyone makes it obvious).
People forget that each Bond Actor has added his own Elements to the Role.
For Instance, Moore injected some Comedy into his Performance. Whilst Dalton included some darker Elements.
I don't think anyone forgets that. That's what most people say, but it's much more than that. Connery had a lot of comedy too, but he delivered it much different from the way Moore did.
We also get the Bond that each generation needs. That isn't just what the actor brings to the role, it's also what the writers put in because it is what the viewers are experiencing.
Fleming's Bonds are clearly post WW2 and set in the 1950s cold war.
The early Connery films seem to be emerging from those days into more sexual liberation, technology, personal wealth.
Roger guided us through the fashion disaster that was the seventies and eighties.
Dalton's monogamy was arguably a reaction to the concerns about Aids.
Craig's Bond always seems to be me to be heavily influenced by Bourne. This is a more rough and ready Bond, surviving more on his wits and attitude than on his gadgets.
The fascinating question is what would happen if we could shove each actor in a time machine. Would Craig have been a better Bond in Dr No than Connery? And vice versa?
We also get the Bond that each generation needs. That isn't just what the actor brings to the role, it's also what the writers put in because it is what the viewers are experiencing.
Fleming's Bonds are clearly post WW2 and set in the 1950s cold war.
The early Connery films seem to be emerging from those days into more sexual liberation, technology, personal wealth.
Roger guided us through the fashion disaster that was the seventies and eighties.
Dalton's monogamy was arguably a reaction to the concerns about Aids.
Craig's Bond always seems to be me to be heavily influenced by Bourne. This is a more rough and ready Bond, surviving more on his wits and attitude than on his gadgets.
The fascinating question is what would happen if we could shove each actor in a time machine. Would Craig have been a better Bond in Dr No than Connery? And vice versa?
Connery was certainly right for all of his Bond films. He could have done most other Bond films well too, provided he was still in his 30s. I think Moore could equally well have done all of the Bond films up through the 80s, and he would have been the right age for all of them up to about Octopussy. I don't picture any of the Bond actors doing the kind of action that Craig does. For the non-action scenes in Craig's movies, I'd say Connery or Dalton would do a better job. Craig excels at the action in the Bond films because he's more fit than any of the previous Bond actors, though Connery was quite fit at the beginning. But I don't think he would be right for the character in any Bond film before his. He doesn't have Connery's or Moore's charisma.
But would you say that Craig is closer to Dalton in his Approach though?
I would not. I think he's very different from Dalton. Both are serious but in considerably different ways. Craig is very unique in his portrayal of Bond, and I wouldn't compare that to any other Bonds.
But would you say that Craig is closer to Dalton in his Approach though?
I would not. I think he's very different from Dalton. Both are serious but in considerably different ways. Craig is very unique in his portrayal of Bond, and I wouldn't compare that to any other Bonds.
Agreed
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
^ You're right. Hype always settles down. No doubt that people will realize Craig's flaws. With Brosnan, like the article said, his cavalier attitude in the 90's is seen as laziness today. But who knows, Brosnan's understated gentleman approach might come back in style.
Craig's Bond is in many ways, much more of an intense male power fantasy. Perhaps now we identify with it, but years from now, we may ridicule it as being too macho.
.
Sorry, but you are talking ****
There s huge different between Craig and Brosnan
Craig can act.
I've looked at Brosnans CV and there is no theatre acting there. Its a big blank. Craig hauled himself up with one thing to his credit - he can act. Those who denigrate his acting have no idea what good acting was about. There was a reason Brosnan got kicked out - his acting was subpar. That doesn't change. You get far far more out of Craig then you do with Brosnan.
I've seen Craig act. He was at the national youth theatre. I've seen him do Shakespeare. So all those will realise that his films will stand the test of time. Casino Royale will outlive Die another Day. Because the films are special. He gives James Bond a special quality
And I truly believe the person who gets the role is going to be found wanting..
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
So all those will realise that his films will stand the test of time. Casino Royale will outlive Die another Day.
Well that's an extreme example. I could equally say that Goldeneye will outlive Quantum of Solace (which was example of Craig getting dealt a bad hand, in the same way that Brosnan did).
Because the films are special. He gives James Bond a special quality
They all do because each of the 6 actors are unique.
Because the films are special.
No, because Casino Royale had good writers and directors and Die Another Day, not as much.
And I truly believe the person who gets the role is going to be found wanting..
It was hard for myself, and many others, to believe that Brosnan could be easily replaced just as much.
Brosnan is by no means an incomptent Actor though. I think he did what he could with the Scripts he was given. Even in DAD.
He's an adequate actor
He is caught between those two powerhouses - Dalton and Craig.
Have you seen Remington Steele? Brosnan shows quite a wide range in that show. Other films like Butterfly on a Wheel and The Matador show Pierce Brosnan doing far more than he did as Bond. I haven't seen Daniel Craig do Shakespeare, but acting on stage is not the same as acting on film. Some actors are great at both, but many are not. I'm guessing that he may be a better stage actor than film actor. Sometimes I get the impression that Daniel Craig thinks James Bond is beneath him and may not be giving the role the attention it deserves. Similar to Sean Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, it's not something Daniel Craig wants to be doing either.
Just my opinion but Brosnan is a good actor, sadly at the time he landed
the role. They were making almost comic book, copy and paste Bond films
So he had little acting to do, just look good and say the odd quip convincingly.
Not his fault. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I do wonder with some of the films Brosnan has done lately.
November man and Survivor, is he in a way trying to show that
He could have been a much darker 007 ?
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Connery (king sean) >>> Pierce (prince charming) > Moore (hit or miss) > Craig (thank Eva Green) > Dalton (awkward)
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Imagining a theatre box off to the side with Gassy Man and Broadshoulder
Arguing over the emotion of the scene.
:007) Thank you, GM.
I mostly agree.
Each actor has their strengths and weaknesses. Craig can do vulnerability, lust, attachment and anger very well, but not so much humor, vitality and charm. I think what makes the Craig films great is that Eon is aware of his strengths and plays the films to them.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Very true, and something they have generally been good at- eg, TSWLM - AVTAK were tailored to Moore's portrayal of Bond, LTK was written specifically for Dalton to play, etc.
I agree. And I agree with your assessment of Craig's portrayal of Bond overall. Sometimes he shows great emotion, but he doesn't carry it through. For most of his movies he has the same expression. I just didn't feel any love from him in CR. I could imagine Timothy Dalton doing that love story very well. He wasn't a charmer, but he could show feeling. I have the hardest time picturing Connery showing love. I've seen so many of his films, and he never falls in love in his films. I think he does in Marnie, but shows it in a unique way. Moore doesn't often fall in love either, but he falls in love in one brilliant episode of The Persuaders when he wakes up and is told he is married to someone he hardly knew. Moore isn't the least bit thrilled, but then over the coarse of the episode quickly falls in love (but not deeply in love). He's quite heartbroken at the end of the episode. Moore and Dalton have great range, though Moore's isn't used often. Brosnan showed a pretty wide range of acting in Remington Steele, but he shows by far the least range in his Bond films. His relationship with Elektra was the best, but it could have been much better. I think Michael Apted is a great director, but he didn't direct Brosnan well.
You're simply wrong, Gassyman. Try to find one film critic who agrees with you
But, this review of Casino Royale, which was not particularly positive, deals with some of the same issues. While the reviewer says "Craig is always a charismatic presence," which I would not argue, he says absolutely nothing about Craig's ability to emote or to pull off the romantic scenes, a curious absence given how the romance is supposed to be critical to the film. At best, he says that Craig is good at showing pain during the torture scene but looks "dislocated" in other scenes because while he is trying so hard to play scenes straight, the rest of the movie seems fake because of it: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/nov/05/filmnews.film That's not far at all from what some of us are saying here about Craig's need to operate on the extremes of emotion to be effective, despite the physical presence he brings to 007.
What's interesting is that when I perused the various reviews for Craig as Bond, I noticed a striking similarity. They all praise Craig's masculinity and intensity and his ability to show a Bond who can be hurt. What they don't often say -- if they say at all -- is his Bond's ability to carry off the romantic elements. They say he's sexy and vulnerable, but romantic is often missing from the reviews. When they note his emotions, the specifics are almost always "big" emotions rather than subtleties, and they generally agree that humor is not one of Craig's strengths.
As other posters have noted, when the hype settles down and another actor is chosen to play Bond, people will see in the contrast Craig's strengths and weaknesses. I think he's terrific as Bond but limited in how he plays the role.
To put this in perspective, this article rather correctly sums up Brosnan's depiction of Bond, noting that what seemed suave at the time comes across as lazy now, which I actually said back when he was making Bond movies:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/apr/14/james-bond-pierce-brosnan-007-goldeneye
In the end, though, whether one agrees with me or not, I still maintain that he is more limited than Connery.
Craig's Bond is in many ways, much more of an intense male power fantasy. Perhaps now we identify with it, but years from now, we may ridicule it as being too macho.
Isn't an angry-at-the-world, don't-trust-anyone, carry-an-AK47-took-tough mentality every Millennial man's fantasy? It's certainly mine.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I'll take Connery's, Moore's or Brosnan's confidence any day over Craig's attitude. Bond never trusts anyone, but Craig makes it obvious (or other characters telling him he doesn't trust anyone makes it obvious).
For Instance, Moore injected some Comedy into his Performance. Whilst Dalton included some darker Elements.
I don't think anyone forgets that. That's what most people say, but it's much more than that. Connery had a lot of comedy too, but he delivered it much different from the way Moore did.
Fleming's Bonds are clearly post WW2 and set in the 1950s cold war.
The early Connery films seem to be emerging from those days into more sexual liberation, technology, personal wealth.
Roger guided us through the fashion disaster that was the seventies and eighties.
Dalton's monogamy was arguably a reaction to the concerns about Aids.
Craig's Bond always seems to be me to be heavily influenced by Bourne. This is a more rough and ready Bond, surviving more on his wits and attitude than on his gadgets.
The fascinating question is what would happen if we could shove each actor in a time machine. Would Craig have been a better Bond in Dr No than Connery? And vice versa?
Connery was certainly right for all of his Bond films. He could have done most other Bond films well too, provided he was still in his 30s. I think Moore could equally well have done all of the Bond films up through the 80s, and he would have been the right age for all of them up to about Octopussy. I don't picture any of the Bond actors doing the kind of action that Craig does. For the non-action scenes in Craig's movies, I'd say Connery or Dalton would do a better job. Craig excels at the action in the Bond films because he's more fit than any of the previous Bond actors, though Connery was quite fit at the beginning. But I don't think he would be right for the character in any Bond film before his. He doesn't have Connery's or Moore's charisma.
I would not. I think he's very different from Dalton. Both are serious but in considerably different ways. Craig is very unique in his portrayal of Bond, and I wouldn't compare that to any other Bonds.
Agreed
Sorry, but you are talking ****
There s huge different between Craig and Brosnan
Craig can act.
I've looked at Brosnans CV and there is no theatre acting there. Its a big blank. Craig hauled himself up with one thing to his credit - he can act. Those who denigrate his acting have no idea what good acting was about. There was a reason Brosnan got kicked out - his acting was subpar. That doesn't change. You get far far more out of Craig then you do with Brosnan.
I've seen Craig act. He was at the national youth theatre. I've seen him do Shakespeare. So all those will realise that his films will stand the test of time. Casino Royale will outlive Die another Day. Because the films are special. He gives James Bond a special quality
And I truly believe the person who gets the role is going to be found wanting..
8-)
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
He's an adequate actor
He is caught between those two powerhouses - Dalton and Craig.
Have you seen Remington Steele? Brosnan shows quite a wide range in that show. Other films like Butterfly on a Wheel and The Matador show Pierce Brosnan doing far more than he did as Bond. I haven't seen Daniel Craig do Shakespeare, but acting on stage is not the same as acting on film. Some actors are great at both, but many are not. I'm guessing that he may be a better stage actor than film actor. Sometimes I get the impression that Daniel Craig thinks James Bond is beneath him and may not be giving the role the attention it deserves. Similar to Sean Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, it's not something Daniel Craig wants to be doing either.
But Mama Mia is a different Story
the role. They were making almost comic book, copy and paste Bond films
So he had little acting to do, just look good and say the odd quip convincingly.
Not his fault. -{
November man and Survivor, is he in a way trying to show that
He could have been a much darker 007 ?