Bond, James Bond
Let's talk a little bit of Bond. That's exactly what the producers of the next film wanted by hyping the introduction of the latest actor to play James Bond. The next film will be based on Fleming's first 007 novel, Casino Royale. And the actor who will play him? Get ready. It's Daniel Craig!
Who?
Yeah, that's the proper reaction.
It gets worse when you see who it is. They picked a goofy looking blonde haired guy to play the handsome suave dark haired James Bond. At least he's English, so he should have no problem with the accent. You're most likely to recognize Craig from his potrayal of the bad guy in Road to Perdition with Tom Hanks and Paul Newman.
The director promises us a darker more serious 007. Ok. That worked out really well for Timothy Dalton when they tried to get more serious and contemporary with the Bond character. Excuse me while I hack up a sarcasm ball. Dalton bombed in every regard. If you adjust the box office receipts for inflation, his movies are at the bottom of the 007 performance list.
So why did they get rid of Pierce Brosnan? He was the actor Bond fans wanted for the role for years. Brosnan described being told he would be replaced as a kick in the gut, so he obviously wanted to do it again. No idea why the producers thought otherwise. Perhaps box office receipts. Die Another Day totally tanked. But Goldeneye and World is Not Enough are in the Top 10 Bond films when adjusted for inflation.
Who has the rest of the Top 10? Sean Connery. The only Roger Moore entry in the top 10 is Moonraker. Connery would be the best candidate to play Bond again even if he is 100 years old. And what about Moore? He's older than Connery.
Who do you think would've been better choices? The popular pick is Hugh Jackman. Other names kicked around include pretty boys Colin Ferrell and Jude Law. My choice? I would've liked to have seen what Jason Statham could do with the role. Yeah, I know he's bald. However, he's quietly become quite good at action and does so with a real subtle humor that would play well with Bond fans I think.
Who?
Yeah, that's the proper reaction.
It gets worse when you see who it is. They picked a goofy looking blonde haired guy to play the handsome suave dark haired James Bond. At least he's English, so he should have no problem with the accent. You're most likely to recognize Craig from his potrayal of the bad guy in Road to Perdition with Tom Hanks and Paul Newman.
The director promises us a darker more serious 007. Ok. That worked out really well for Timothy Dalton when they tried to get more serious and contemporary with the Bond character. Excuse me while I hack up a sarcasm ball. Dalton bombed in every regard. If you adjust the box office receipts for inflation, his movies are at the bottom of the 007 performance list.
So why did they get rid of Pierce Brosnan? He was the actor Bond fans wanted for the role for years. Brosnan described being told he would be replaced as a kick in the gut, so he obviously wanted to do it again. No idea why the producers thought otherwise. Perhaps box office receipts. Die Another Day totally tanked. But Goldeneye and World is Not Enough are in the Top 10 Bond films when adjusted for inflation.
Who has the rest of the Top 10? Sean Connery. The only Roger Moore entry in the top 10 is Moonraker. Connery would be the best candidate to play Bond again even if he is 100 years old. And what about Moore? He's older than Connery.
Who do you think would've been better choices? The popular pick is Hugh Jackman. Other names kicked around include pretty boys Colin Ferrell and Jude Law. My choice? I would've liked to have seen what Jason Statham could do with the role. Yeah, I know he's bald. However, he's quietly become quite good at action and does so with a real subtle humor that would play well with Bond fans I think.
2 Comments:
Whoa whoa whoa. WHO is Daniel Craig? Did you even WATCH Layer Cake? That alone should have been enough to give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe they are dying his hair darker for the role, and the press released photos of Craig holding the silenced PP7 that are circulating are badass. And come on, enough with the Dalton bashing. Everybody who thinks they are a James Bond fan thinks its cool to shit on Timothy Dalton. I'm not saying he was stellar or anything, but he blew George Lazenby out of the water. But noooooo, nobody ever talks shit about Lazenby. Moving on to Brosnan. Brosnan was great, I thoroughly enjoyed him. But you can't tell me that Tomorrow Never Dies or World is not Enough were better then Living Daylights with Dalton. Or can you? And COME ON with the Jason Statham vote. Didja take your meds today? He's fucking BALD. James Bond can't be BALD it just doesn't work like that. Look, I'd be as happy as anybody had they kept Pierce in the role. I loved Die Another Day, and I think he had another one or two good films in him. But I think that given Craig's body of work, we should at least wait and see what he brings to the role. Casino Royale is potentially the darkest and most "real" of the franchise. If you want to bitch and moan and worry about something, worry about the director. Its the guy who directed fucking Zorro. Sure I liked Zorro, but I don't think he's cut out to helm a 007 project. We'll see.
Layer Cake is a very cool movie and Daniel Craig was very good in it but that doesn't mean he will make a good Bond. Pierce Brosnan was born to be Bond because he had all the components needed to make the character breathe. Any actor that plays Bond needs good comic timing, sex appeal, rugged handsome features and loads of charisma. Connery and Brosnan had all 4, Moore had 3 of 4, Lazenby and Dalton both had 1 or 2 and after seeing Layer Cake I would say Craig has 2 or 3 but 3 does not a good Bond make.
I was right in there with BillyBob and John on the who is this guy express and then last night I watched Layer Cake so I know who he is, I just don't know if he's good enough to be carry the mantle of 007.
Road to Perdition although an excellent movie does not show the range and depth Craig can bring to the role so if that is the only thing you have seen him in, that is not enough to condemn him. You need to see Tomb Raider to do that, because he was terrible in that.
So we have one really crappy performance in TR, a decent outing in Road and a kick ass over the top cheer fest for Layer Cake, so what does that mean? It means we give the guy a chance (we have no other choice) and see what the box office says about it.
We may all be wrong or we could be dead on and he will be just as short as Lazenby and one movie will be it.
Post a Comment
<< Home