Nicky and I finally watched the new Bond last week. After all the hype from everyone else on this one I expected it to be excellent. As it was, I was glad I didn't go to the cinema to see it. Disappointing...
I was right in my opinion before watching it, Daniel Craig is just not Bond material. He is not sophisticated enough, and he just does not look right.
So the list stands as all time best = Connery, second best = Brosnan.
They made the wrong choice in Craig, and the film was not action packed enough.
There, I've said it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As a random reader of a differing opinion, I'd like to stand up for Daniel Craig a little here. Part of the idea of this movie is a reboot of the character, starting from a less sophisticated, more reckless Bond. I can also understand him "not looking right", as a. he's blond, and b. he has a much different facial structure from the others (more Steve McQueen than Pierce Brosnan). But appearance aside, this film was intended as something that would appeal not just as a Bond film, but with a good overall balance and dispensing with the gadgets and cheesier behaviors characteristic of the other 20 Bond films.
And for action sequences, it drags near the end, it's true. But the first half of the movie is plenty action-packed. 6 minutes of hopping around on cranes + 10 in the airport + stairwell fight + etc.
I understand your argument, and accept that it's true. But I would give the movie a chance with criteria other than the ones dating 40 years back. Try reading some of the positive reviews, even if you disagree, to see the things that people have been hyped up about despite the obvious changes. As is obvious, I'm a fan of Craig, but I'm not trying to blindly argue. I just would suggest giving it a second chance.
Post a Comment