MovieChat Forums > Daniel Craig Discussion > Worst bond ever or Lazenby is still it?

Worst bond ever or Lazenby is still it?

posted 6 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
40 replies | jump to latest

I like Daniel Craig as an actor. He was awesome in Munich. He is actually a great thug playing bond. So I don't blame him for the poor rendition of Bond in his movies. I blame the choices made in pre production, thinking they needed a new realistic Bond to rival Bourne (who's a mediocre spy character anyway) and to steer away from the hyperbolic atrocities of Die another day. But Bond is not a thug.
With that poor choice we have the worst Bond ever: he's not funny, not suave, not cool, not good at seducing nor f***ing. He's not interesting.
On the contrary, he's mean, nasty, rough, he's always one step behind the bad guys, and his spying abilities are subpar.
I think even Lazenby was a better Bond than this. At least he wasn't blonde, for f*** sake!

[–] ThrillerTalk (1118) 6 years ago

Uh, ok then you enjoy your favorite Bond and others will enjoy theirs. I had no problem at all with them doing something different and more realistic with the Bond Franchise, and I loved Craig in the role. Especially in Casino Royale but each their own.

[–] doomydoomdoom (34) 6 years ago

I would say Craig. I really can't get into him as Bond and he's been in the worst movies of the franchise. Lazenby was great, the reason people hated him was because he replaced Sean Connery (and made a fourth-wall breaking joke about it) and because his movie had a downbeat ending.

[–] hyperjet (719) 6 years ago

Yeah Craig doesn't really fit. He could have been a great villain, though. I think Lazenby was a great bond and it's a shame he quit at one movie. The 'this never happened to the other fellow' line and the downbeat ending helped make OHMSS my favorite 007 film.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

That's like the opposite way I feel about Lazenby, it's the "other fellow" joke, and above all the loser ending that totally ruins it for me. As I wrote in my other reply, if you think about Bond in general, would you characterize him as somebody not only to get married but to also lose his wife like that?

[–] doomydoomdoom (34) 6 years ago

Well, the events of OHMSS are part of Bond's character arc as Ian Fleming originally wrote it. You could argue that it worked better in the novels because we were inside Bond's head and could read his emotions, something that obviously isn't possible in a film. I think the way his romance with Vesper Lynd was portrayed was far more out of character. I find it harder to believe Bond would act so vulnerable as to tell a woman "whatever's left of me, whatever I am, I'm yours," which sounds like a line that belongs in a Twilight film or Nicholas Sparks novel and definitely wasn't in Ian Fleming's novel.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

I agree with you on everything you wrote.
About Lazenby, if you think about Bond in general, would you characterize him as somebody not only to get married but to also lose his wife like that?

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Craig is a great Bond.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Craig is a terrific Bond!

The worst ever was Roger Moore, who made Bond into a joke rather than a badass. And not a good joke either, but a feeble double-entendre delivered with an indifferent smirk.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Well I guess I grew up with Roger Moore's bond so my view is a bit askew, but his lighter tone made Bond what he is: it's not gritty nor realistic, it's a fantasy spy with a punch line, who is better at bedding ladies than savagely beating up foes.

Look, Bond is an Aston Martin with champagne inside, not a Camaro with spinning rims.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I grew up with Roger Moore too, and "Moonraker" came along just about the time I was old enough to go to the movies myself. It turned me off James Bond movies for a couple of decades, I only got interested again when Pierce Brosnan came on board.

Not that Brosnan was great, but his Bond Films were actually more like proper Bond Films. Craig, IMHO, revitalized the genre, his films were never perfect, but they were gritty and action-packed, with the throwaway humor in its proper place, and a MAJOR badass front and center.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Otter I get what you are saying, but my point exactly is that he is an awful James Bond: he would be a great thug of a spy in some other series with no humor and lots of violence. That's pretty much the last 3 movies in the series.
But Bond has always been sarcastic and full of puns or double entendres, not grittyness. Do you wanna tell me you know of some real person named Pussy?
Or that Goldfinger is not proper 007? I think Casino Royale is not. And yes, Bond drinks his vodka martini, it's part of his character. And he does NOT play poker.
Again, that's all camaro stuff.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Look, I'm usually the first person to sign up for goofy humor and a fantasy setting, but Craig and his team have made me realize that Bond films work better when they're... semi-realistic. These are action films and not comedies, and IMHO the action is more exciting if you think a punch feels like someone's fist in your gut, and not a slapstick punch out of a Roadrunner cartoon.

Of course the Bond humor and fantastical settings have to be there, but IMHO so does a certain degree of believability.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Ok, fair enough.
I agree that action is more exciting when realistic. So is porn. Bond is like playboy, but now they want it to be hard core. That's why I don't like the spin they wanted for Craig: he's not Bond. He's somebody else (Bourne, unfortunately).
I have to take your exact thought and apply it to my experience: Craig and his team have made me realize that Bond films work better when they're... semi-realistic. Not hyper realistic: I'd rather be transported in a spy world ruled by one man because he's cooler than the rest. I don't need to feel the violence or belive it's an accurate depiction to be engaged.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

OK, fair enough.

Because while we agree to some extent, the disagreement is IMHO a matter of individual preference. My preference is for a greater degree of realism in order to give the action... punch, you prefer a bit less.

IMHO the Connery films got the balance between realism and fantasy almost entirely right. A punch felt like a punch in that world, even if that world wasn't much like ours in general.

[–] snepts (11123) 6 years ago

Don't blame Roger Moore for doing what he was asked to do. There are DIRECTORS you know ! They sort of shape the direction of a movie? Put another actor in the same role, do you think you get a better movie?

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Oh, I don't blame Moore for the scripts, much of the problems with the series during his run were absolutely not his fault, and you are correct to point that out.

No, I blame Moore for giving some pretty terrible performances, for staying on after he was clearly over it all, and for playing Bond as effete. Effete, for fuck's sake! That's as wrong as wrong can be!

[–] janelsenor (2044) 6 years ago

The only options for that are Moore and Brosnan....

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

Moore was the perfect Bond for that era.
Pierce gets trashed nowadays, but he was saddled with poor writing and casting decisions outside of Goldeneye.
Despite the financial success of Die Another Day, Bond films were in a bad place, getting way too out of hand, Craig brought the movies to a grounded, realistic style. To me, he doesn't act like James Bond. He's movies brought great financial success to the franchise and brought in a new audience. In the end, like Moore, Craig was the perfect Bond for the era he is in. Movies are dark and gritty these days.

[–] janelsenor (2044) 6 years ago

I agree with your take on Brosnan and feel he would have fared better playing a more serious Bond. He wanted that and it shows. That said, we got what we got.

Moore, on the other hand, had his best Bond moments when directors forced him to play against type.

Craig is more like the literary Bond. It's different, but I like it. I just hate how they connected all his movies in Spectre.

At the end of the day, I hate using the term "worst." I prefer "least best" because I still enjoy all the Bond actors for what they brought to the table.

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

Pierce had said while during film of DAD, that the gadgets and stunts, CGI, were going too far. He wanted to be in a serious movie, the Casino Royale re-boot, but of course it made sense to get a new Bond w/ a reboot. Dalton was the closest to the book Bond IMO. Agreed that connecting all the Craig movies was dumb. Having that step brother relationship to Blofeld was stupid as well.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Hey LordBAElish and janelsenor, you both did a good analysis. It's true that the frenchise changed direction many times, or it wouldn't be the most succesfull one in movie history. I have a question for you: since Craig is down to the last one (thank god!) where do you think it's gonna go next?

My take is, other than the obvious Black Bond, I hope they'll go for something less predictable and DICTATE the trend this time, instead of FOLLOWING it like they did with Craig, with some new concept for the movies themselves (like, something newer than "Bond saves the world" - maybe "Bond destroys the world"?).

[–] janelsenor (2044) 6 years ago

I have no idea. But my preference would be for them to reboot (you know they're going to anyway) and do a 5 film period piece of Bond films set in the 50s.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

That's brilliant!

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

Go back to having stand a lone Bond films that are connected to each other. Continue with the movies having a realistic, gritty theme, but have a more traditional looking and acting Bond.

[–] ArmadilloKnight (456) 6 years ago

"He is actually a great thug playing bond."

Maybe that's why he is my favorite. He is the only one that I can fully buy as a cold stone killer, and at the same time providing the smoothness that the Bond role demands.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Ok with the cold stone killer part, but providing smoothness he ain't.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

People who want to think of themselves as mature latch onto the grittiness and machisimo and false maturity because they lack those traits they worship.

Now if they just realized that fantasizing sbout traits actually holds them back. They are their own worst enemy.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

Yes, I agree with your analysis.
It's kinda like 12 years old ashamed of their toys throwing them away to show how mature they really are...

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

I'll be a heretic and say Connery was the worst. He was horrible in YOLT, DAF and NSNA. He was cloddish in general. He was not sophisticated ; we were just told he was.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

I see what you mean about Connery, but he pretty much invented or laid down all the other traits that we identify with Bond (starting with coolness). So, he pretty much inherinently CANNOT be the worst bond.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 5 years ago

The others improved on the prototype. It's all just opinion, actually..

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

If his Bond laid down a succesful pattern, and the others were just "improving" it, by definiton HIS way is the original correct way of doing it, or the others would have just done something completely different.
If he was THAT bad nobody would be copying his style. Quite the opposite actually, so, how can somebody who is considered the basis for any Bond after, be the worst bond?

[–] BillySlater (4241) 5 years ago

The prototype was the character from the book, not from Connery´s version of Bond.