Craig is John Rambo. I mean James Bond by Skywalker
When Daniel Craig was cast as James Bond, I like many others was
surprised by his appointment. Despite this I felt Craig could deliver
something different to the role. Die Another Day had been a bit of a
disaster (although not in terms of admissions) and had left an ugly
stain on the franchise. I was willing to give Craig a chance and looked
forward to his first outing.
I remember leaving the movie theatre with an extreme sense of
frustration. After so many great reviews and much positive feedback,
how could this be? Perhaps my own expectations were too high? The film
in my opinion tried too hard to be different, and the end result was a
totally different Bond film, more akin to the Jason Bourne series of
Back to the film itself and the start had me watching in awe. The film
opens up with a nicely shot black and white PTS, which I feel is a joy
to watch. The inclusion of this scene is to show Bond’s
initiation into the OO club. Two kills are required for Bond to attain
his licence to kill status. The virgin Bond is shown violently
dispatching an informant for Dryden (A rogue OO Agent) that
demonstrates Craig’s physical presence (I wonder if the
criticism had led to this style of Bond character?) and the tone for
which Craig’s Bond would continue. This scene culminates in
killing Dryden and delivering a nice one-liner.
The next scene containing Craig was the free running (parkour) scene.
From this point on the film went downhill. For me this whole scene
epitomised the desire for Hollywood (Jerry Bruckheimer) action, with no
real point or benefit to the film. Many people enjoyed it, but I just
felt this did not belong in a Bond movie. Why did Bond climb into the
demolition vehicle just to drive it into a wall? This is supposed to be
a top class operative, not a Rambo wannabee.
The free running itself was like an episode of Extreme sports, another
pointless part of the movie. Why did the villain decide to climb up the
crane when surely a hiding place or the nearest car would have been
better option? This whole scene makes me cringe and the site of Craig
running through walls is a joke. Yes Craig gave a tougher, more brutal
edge to Bond, something that was evidently missing in the Brosnan
years, but he seemed to me, to be a standard Hollywood action hero, in
the same way the film was full of stereotypical needless Hollywood
The poker scenes were steady at best and the annoying commentary simply
ruined any potential tension.
The inclusion of Dame Judi Dench was an extremely poor decision by EON.
As we all know, the Dame has played M throughout the Brosnan era and
was introduced as the replacement M in Goldeneye with Brosnan playing
the seasoned Bond. In Casino Royale it was a case of role reversal.
Dame Judi was playing an experienced M with an ageing Rookie Bond in
Craig. Are we supposed to accept Dame Judi is a different M to the one
she has previously played? Don’t get me wrong, I like The
and consider her to be a fine actress and a good M, but this role
should have been given to someone else.
All in all I feel Daniel Craig could be an excellent Bond if directed
correctly. When smooth and refined like at the start and end he showed
glimpses of the cinematic Bond that I am accustomed too, but this just
wasn’t enough to persuade me he is Bond as there were too
instances in the film where he looked too brash. This style of film
could have worked with a younger looking actor, not someone who clearly
looks his age. Daniel Craig is a fine actor but Casino Royale is
probably the most over-hyped Bond movie in years. In terms of true Bond
quality this film is lacking. Martin Campbell turns Bond into the
Terminator. Can anyone explain how the Bond most of us love has turned
into an uncuffed, uncool robot? Bond is supposed to be a former
Commander in the Royal Navy. If this is the case how do you explain the
lack of control, planning and overall level of professionalism in
Craig's version of Bond? In summation, DC could have been good. The
problem is he wasn't. This is partly to do with him but mostly due to
the feeble direction. There's no denying he is a good actor but the
problem is that I found DC's performance as 007 to be the most un-like
Bond I've seen. There are elements in his performance that are 'Bond
like'. The physical presence and the cold hearted killings are
commendable and appreciated, but the true essence of Bond is the well
educated, refined, cool under pressure, calculated professional that
has nurtured his skills from years served in the forces as an officer.
DC's performance had little of these elements.
I like to feel my opinion is my own and I won't jump on any
appreciation bandwagon just to be one of the 'family' and accepted.
Craig just seemed too old to play Bond the way he did. When you take
into account the education gained at University, the discipline and
control learnt whilst serving in the Navy and the expertise and
professionalism needed for the SBS, why was DC's Bond so raw? I admire
the fact he wanted to make the part his own, but surely even he should
realise the way he played it belongs to a much younger Bond. I admire
Brosnan for taking the best attributes of the two best and most
recognisable Bonds in Connery and Moore. I don't understand why people
find this annoying. If you were playing Bond wouldn't you try and take
the best bits of everyone who played Bond and adapt it to your style?
Daniel Craig has been hailed by many as the man to
revitalise/revolutionalise the Bond franchise. After the general
disappointment of Die Another Day, Casino Royale did a complete U-turn
and gave us something we had never witnessed before in 20 other Bond
films - A Bond film without Bond, as we knew him.
Some people claim that Craig is the best Bond since Connery. Others
claim he is better than Connery. My question is: How are these
assumptions made? What attributes does Craig bring to the table that
Connery had? With Connery I always felt he was comfortable with his
humour and it came natural. Craig had some good lines, but I felt he
did not feel at ease with the delivery. Connery, like Moore could
deliver his one-liners superbly. These moments are what makes a Bond
I went to see Casino Royale in its first week. I was looking forward to
the film and expected a lot after hearing nothing but positive
comments. Later that night I reflected about the film and Craig as
Bond. Something just didn't seem right. For the first time ever I
decided to go see the film again at the cinema. This time I started to
scrutinise the film and analyse all the scenes. This movie would be
excellent if Fleming had never written the novels and no Bond films had
ever been made. Unfortunately this is not the case. On reflection
Casino Royale failed to deliver the Bond magic, that 'je ne sais quoi'
that regardless of script or actor, each Bond film prior has had.
Casino Royale is a film that breaks from the Bond mould with a
performance by DC that is neither superb or likeable. For me Casino
Royale was a gamble that did not pay dividends.
I'm afraid he's here for the forseeable future and, ever the optimist,
I hope Craig delivers in Bond 22.