Daniel Craig as James Bond? - Mania.com

Movie Review

Maniac Grade: F-

7 Comments | Add


Rate & Share:


Related Links:

Daniel Craig as James Bond?

November 20, 2006

© N/A
Sounds more like they did a serious deconstruction and revision by putting Craig in the role. Craig does not have the charisma to embody James Bond. Mick LaSalle (of the SF Chronicle) calls him an "ape in a Tuxedo" in this movie, that's James Bond? Craig seriously is missing the "It" factor, can't manage the humor (Connery was absolutely disarming in this regard) and looks stunningly silly kissing a pretty girl.
The producers have missed the boat for the last 30 years with this franchise from the downright silly movies of Roger Moore, to the unbelievable cartoon antics of Pierce Brosnan. Kudos to them for wanting to finally make Bond more real, believable and gritty, however, in the James Bond realm, the embodiment of his image is ignored here, P Diddy wants to play the part, I guess chosing him would be equally valid? Danny DeVito as Harry Potter? Danny is a much better actor than Daniel Radcliffe so Potter movies with him in the starring role would be better right? Craig's image is of a bad guy, a punk from the streets, this is the Sid Vicious James Bond, the runt of the litter. A facet of this character has to be the "thinking man's" part of it and Craig will never have that.

Click here to read the staff review by Mania.


Showing items 1 - 7 of 7
chirop1 11/19/2006 9:27:46 AM
I couldn't disagree more. I really have nothing else to refute your statements, I just really liked Craig as Bond. The beauty of the internet is that as an argumentative technique, I suppose I could throw in some snide remark about your parentage and then bash your education... but I guess I'll just leave it at a simple "Meh, you have your opinion, I have mine." ;)
hfc7036 11/20/2006 5:32:41 AM
Someone didn't see the movie, or maybe they just looked at the screen, butI was watching, and I couldn't stop if I tried. Craig was AWESOME and he always is. He put 007 where it should go. Into the dangerous category, not just a suit toting gadget guy.
wasradone 11/21/2006 12:53:38 AM
Yeah, I think it's important to have actually have seen the movie before submitting a review. The previous Bond flicks were pretty cheesy and something seriously needed to be done. Here is the fix. A
silversurfer 11/21/2006 10:31:52 AM
I saw it and thought it was just what the franchise needed....it was begining to become too passe on what to expect....and it was good to see Bond be more physical and edgy....I liked the fact that Craig handled it with the bad-boy attitude that he had....it was perfect Like the rest of you I couldn't take my eyes off the screen... A
stoverkill 11/21/2006 3:02:52 PM
This is retarded. You should actually see the freakin movie if you are going to post a review. If you want to hate on D-Craig, go pal-around with the lame-o's at craignotbond.com. Double F- on your review, weredork
jonniej1017 11/21/2006 5:46:05 PM
I did like the movie a lot, but then walked away and thought to myself, "was that a bond movie or just another really cool action movie?" I guess because Bond didn't have any of those cool gadgets, never ordered a matini "shaken not stirred" and they never played the James Bond theme during any of the action scenes. What gives? Am I the only one who thnks this, but would Clive Owen make a better James Bond?
joyer3215 12/14/2006 6:52:14 AM
Simply stated, you're a @#$%ing idiot. Do me a favor and never watch another Bond movie again.


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.