I'm sorry but, no amount of acting skill will save you if you simply do
not look right for the role.
I personally like Daniel Craig's skills, but he does not look the part.
A better choice for Bond would have been Christian Bale. He's tall,
he's dark, he's handsome, and he's British.
Whatever the case, I am really worried for the franchise because
casting Craig as Bond will kill it.
They're already making plans to make a second movie, but I seriously
doubt anyone will go watch. I personally want to give the man a chance
for a few reasons;
1) He's 38 years old and this is his first, and probably
only, big break.
2) I'm in my mid 20's, just graduated college, so I can
totally relate to his situation.
In other words, it would be largely a "pity viewing." Now
for a second; a "pity viewing" From an unemployed joe like
How humiliating is that!
You want to know why Daniel Craig was cast? If you haven't done so,
watch a trailer for "Casino Royale." Ignoring Craig's presence, the
movie looks highly stylish, the action sequences are superior to "The
Transporter" and on top of that, it has French hottie Eva
The movie looks damned expensive. More expensive than any
movie, even adjusting for inflation. I personally think the reason they
hired Craig is because he is cheap. He does not exactly posses looks
that would stir me to envy, but hell, the man can act. Of course,
acting skill does not make him worthy of the role of Bond, nor does it
make him worthy to have an onscreen siren like Eva Green act along side
Eva Green is a Bond girl throught and through and she would look
fantastic acting alongside Christian Bale. In fact, I can not imagine
two actors having more onscreen sexual chemistry than Bale and Green.
As Bond and his girl, they would set the screen on fire. I think Bale
was approached for the role, but he turned it down. Maybe he might
change his mind, and we might see Bale playing both Batman AND Bond.
Of course, it is not going to happen because - well - Craig will kill
Bond. An ugly actor will do what no megalomaniacal villain with an I.Q.
of 245 and or superhuman strength managed to do: to kill James Bond.
James Bond has become for the British people, I feel, a sort of "uncle
Sam" cartoon. In the same way in America we have a cartoon rendition of
an old man in a red, white, and blue suit named "Uncle Sam," James Bond
has, I think for all intents and purposes, replaced John Bull.
John Bull does not represent the British; James Bond does. Eerie how
they have the same initials.....
Whatever the case, how is James Bond in effect, an embodiment of the
British people? Well, for one, his courage. The British take great
pride in the legendary courage which destroyed the first Roman legions
which invaded Britain, the same courage which led Britain to become a
world spanning Empire. James Bond is often in situations in which
"British courage" is his only weapon. Another thing the British take
pride on is the ability to use brains, not brawn, to overcome
ridiculous odds. Americans will land in a country, and
everything. Land, shoot everything, and then when the smoke clears,
declare victory. That is the American way of doing war. The way the
British did it was through strategy, insidious cunning, and in some
cases, cold-blooded cruelty. Just like James Bond.
James Bond has had to do a lot of things to achieve his objectives.
Same with the British throughout history. James Bond has found himself
in hopeless situations. Not seemingly hopeless; hopeless. And yet,
inexplicably he wins.
Another aspect of Bond that represents the British is his
sophistication. The British are stereotyped in America as having
"class" and "sophistication," obviously throwbacks to another era. In
many respects, the most important one actually, James Bond represents
the ideal British gentleman.
His "amoral" and philandering behavior with women often has more to do
with fulfilling his objective than genuine desire. In fact, 99% of the
female spies Bond has bedded he wasn't even attracted to. He said it
himself in "You Only Live Twice." That is just the nature of what he is.
For all intents and purposes, though he exists in entertainment, James
Bond is a caricature of the British people much in the same way Uncle
Sam is a caricature of the American people.
No conservative in America would radically alter Uncle Sam's appearance
because it would be considered artistic vandalism.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you will try to petition to
remove Daniel Craig as James Bond, do it for Britain because, over the
years, James Bond has BECOME symbolic of the British.
Even though he is fictional, even though his purpose is at times
comedic, he has come to represent Britain far more than John Bull and
is therefore almost a sacred icon. An icon that should be represented
by an actor, not necessarily British, but, who nevertheless looks that
part and can come across as being James Bond.
That actor is not Daniel Craig.