Craig's supposed to be a younger Bond in this film. Considering that 'Casino Royale' is his first mission as a 00. And yes, it will kick ass. It'll make up for Die Another Day ten fold. 'Cause...god that sucked.
Hey. As long as Judi Dench is still M, I'm on board.
I've heard rave reviews so far for Craig as Bond. I was a little skeptical of him at first, but lately after seeing the trailers I'm excited. I never took to Brosnan, cause he seemed more pretty boy than fighter, so Craig is looking to be a refreshing change.
i saw the film last night and whilst i enjoyed it and i think daniel did a pretty decent job as Bond i am still not too sure that he will be able to carry off the sauveness or sophistication of Bond in future movies,he was fine in his first outing as portraying Bond before he becomes the 007 we have grown to know but wether he will be able to develop the other charecteristics that Bond has in future outings still is unclear to me,i still think connery and brosnan have an edge on him.
I agree with Ogami Itto I've just seen the film and whilst I'd still say Connery is the best Craig is 2nd. Its more fitting with the character of Bond as he was written. He is cold blooded, he is disconnected from his feelings and he is rutheless. Whilst a lot of the old Bond's are all about gadjets and toys I think its a refreshing change of pace that hey for once we're not going to rely on plastic explosive hidden in a tube of tootpaste or whatever else daft we do.
Here's the way I see it, Bond is a spy. He kills for his country, he gets information out of people by any means nessecary and as such this rougher and somewhat meaner Bond is more realistic than the others in my eyes.
__________________ Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by thee; and the child of little understanding that makes a play of the deeds of his father may do so without without thought of mockery, but because he is the son of his father.
I think Daniel Craig was really good as James Bond. I was happy with the choice when he was announced as the part last year. I missed Peirce Brosnan as Bond, but I guess nearly everything needed changing in the end. After the not so great, but good Die Another Day, the producers would of tried to carry on with that same success with pushing Bond in the wrong direction (DAD haters will know what I mean), but luckily they didn't . Although the actors in Casino Royale were cast well and acted well, I think the film lacked something, which is probably why I couldn't get into it as much as I did with, say, DAD, but I guess that's because the whole Bond formula has been left out. What I recommend with people who have yet to see Casino Royale, I would say go into the cinema not expecting a Bond film, pretend it's something completely non Bond, then afterwards come out and say "that was fantastic".
It took me a while to accept Daniel Craig as Bond but he pulled it off. I'm willing to forgive how different he is from the rest because this is a prequel. That goes for the whole movie, it was different than the previous Bonds in quite a few ways. But it was forgivable because it's supposed to be Bond's first mission as a 00 Agent.
Gender: Female Location: The Dream World...somewhere
The change was inevitable, Bond movies became more unrealistic as they had to challenge themselves to make the movies more impressive in the visual scenes and all. I liked Roger Moore but he changed Bond and played Bond as he did 'The Saint' with all the incredible things happening around. The other films afterwards were much like Moore's formula putting aside the brawling and more down to earth spy portrayed by Sean Connery. The only film that Timothy Dalton did that was good was the living daylights and the 'Moore Formula' was somewhat tuned down but still remained and the scripts for both Dalton's movies weren't very good. George Lazenby's was...who's george lazenby? lol(horrible movie). Brosnan came in too young for the part and the whole Remmington Steel atittude remained in him while playing Bond, and he grew to fit the part in TWINE, and then DAD became just too incredible and the script lacked the touch of TWINE. But then the producers were faced with the dilemma that now with Brosnan out and all they needed a better film to once again approach fans and attract other people that weren't that into JB. The character had become obsolete and totally relied on his gadgets and his ability with them to get the job done, which in the real world we know is not a reality. If SEALs get martial arts training it is only natural to think that agents would get that training and even far more advanced CQC. The Bond so far lacked it all, although Sean was a brawler and a good one at that, Bond simply did not measure up to the agents to date. So Daniel Craig is picked, out of all the options he was the only English actor, note that while the other candidate were infact from Britain or Australia, the only one from England was Daniel Craig (and Jason Statham though he wasn't nominated and I would have nominated him, he could pass as anything). I guess that like barand1 said: go into the cinema not expecting a Bond film, pretend it's something completely non Bond, then afterwards come out and say "that was fantastic".
Please note that I'm not saying Daniel Craig is bad or a bad actor, it is just that for me like many others, when we think about the image of Bond, we see Sean Connery holding his gun at the hight of his waist with a grin in his face and his eyebrow raised.
Having finally seen the newest James bond film.I stil say that I really wished they had just simply stopped making anymore James Bond films after Roger Moore retired especially since that horrible actor Brosnan took over.I will say though even though I dont like Craig as the choice for Bond since he doesnt even look the part,I can at least tolerate the Bond movies now because unlike Brosnan,he can at least act.