Can we finally acknowledge that Craig wasn't that good of Bond - No Time to Die (2021) Discussion

[–] Guitar King (4893) 3 years ago

Agreed. Craig was always a Jason Bourne wannabe with no charisma.

reply

[–] enriquesingh (1810) 3 years ago

+1

reply

[–] OvertonPendulum (4026) 3 years ago

+2. Some of his movies weren't bad this, but he's no Pierce Brosnan.

reply

[–] ivankyazze (182) 3 years ago

The Craig films feel more like Jason Bourne than the James Bond we know and love. I hope with Daniel’s successor they make Bond fun again. 2015’s ‘Kingsman: The Secret Service’ proved that a Moore Bond film still works in this century so no excuse

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 3 years ago

Kingsman was unwatchable, I couldn't finish it. But if artificial looking fight scenes, compiled in computer is your cup of tea, then go ahead, knock yourself off.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

This is a really good point.

And in a timeline that wasn't co-opted by Clown World politics, we would be getting a replacement for Craig of the Scott Adkins variety (properly groomed with acting coaching and emotional range to accommodate his skills), so we would have a Bond that's handsome, charming, physically fit, and can ACTUALLY fight.

It would be the first Bond since the Connery days where we have someone who doesn't mind throwing a serious punch and having a serious punch thrown at him. With someone like Adkins in the role, his Bond films could center around his acrobatic and physical prowess, with his acting being the backup anchor to add some weight to character development/growth, or they could do like the Moore films and have him paired with local law enforcement/regional agencies and foist the dramatic acting on his co-stars to hide Adkins' handicap in displaying range.

But we won't be getting that kind of Bond. We will get a feminist replacement in 2022 (it would be a blessing if Bond is still a straight male, and it would be a literal miracle if he were still white) and sadly a bunch of artificial CGI fight scenes the likes of which fans find themselves unwitting employers of eye-rolls and groans.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

LMAO...I LOVE SCOTT ADKINS...BUT COME ON.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

His biggest flaw is his emotional range. But he showed a good bit of it in Avengement, which to me is still his best film to date.

If Hollywood can waste millions of dollars and months training actors to do sub-par choreography in a two-minute fight scene, why couldn't they spend a little bit of money giving someone like Adkins a bit of coaching on range and emotional nuance for his performances?

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Adkins can't act. He can fight, but actors don't need to fight. They just need to pretend to fight. But actors need to really act. Craig was a pretend fighter but a real actor. Adkins was a real fighter but a pretend actor.

Even Keanu Reeves act better than him. Hell, other real fighters like Jason Statham or Joe Taslim (both were real athletes, no less) act better than Scott Adkins.

I'd rather cast Connor McGregor as Bond. And he would most probably beat Adkins in real fight as well.

reply

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

I'd rather cast Connor McGregor as Bond. And he would most probably beat Adkins in real fight as well.

Connor got beat by his own ankle, I tend to doubt he would do much damage to a guy practically twice his size and with more traditional training across martial arts. People tend to forget that UFC features fighters trained in a particular discipline to fit the rules of the UFC, not the rules of a REAL fight. Two completely different things. I would bet all day on Adkins whipping Connor.

Adkins can't act. He can fight, but actors don't need to fight. They just need to pretend to fight. But actors need to really act.

As I said, it's nothing some acting classes can't improve. Also, keep in mind that Adkins DID act quite well in Avengement, especially after the turn of events that turned him into a maniac. I mean, they had to bring in an acting coach for that lame louse they got for Solo: A Star Wars Story, so I don't see why they couldn't do the same for Adkins.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Yea I said most probably, but it was a hypothetical fight anyway. I guess we'll never know.

Did you not see what the acting coach for Solo actually do? The coaches. They do nothing!

Ironically, the actor that played Solo in that movie, I forgot his name, was actually the real life version of his character in Hail, Caesar. That's why he was so convincing in Hail, Caesar... because it's just him no need to act at all.

https://youtu.be/G629a_3MkkI

Anyhow, acting coaches don't work. It would need years of training to train basically non talented people to act. Just like it also need years to train martial arts to be as good as Adkins.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

The first Kingsman film was way better than any of the Daniel Craig "Bond" films I saw.

The second one veered more towards the ridiculous. Having said that I read this latest Craig effort features nanobots so maybe it too has shifted towards the absurd.

reply

[–] pjl69 (2647) 3 years ago

This is why I have stopped going to cinema in recent years. People with no taste have conquered the scene. The last movie I saw in theater was Joker in 2019, covid or not.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

Sorry, ambiguous - You mean NTTD's nanobots?

Did you think Joker was a good film?

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Joker was the best movie of 2019.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

I never really made my mind up if it was an elaborate joke.

i.e. The guy who made Starksy and Hutch, Due Date and the Hangover films has a bet with one of his mates that he could make a critically acclaimed movie if he wanted to. No way cries! his mate, you've got a deal...

He then takes the Joker, puts the DK favoured dark spin on it, shots it Scorsese style and boom! Bob's your uncle he has that critically acclaimed smash!

So yeah, it was good but was it really good or played for effect in exactly the same manner as a Colin Firth vehicle works for ladies of a certain age?

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

So yeah, it was good but was it really good or played for effect in exactly the same manner as a Colin Firth vehicle works for ladies of a certain age?

What do you mean? What Colin Firth has anything to do with?

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

Well if you look at the likes of Colin Firth and Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia you can see they were cast simply to appeal to a certain demographic.

If you look at Joker - by the director of the Hangover I, II AND III! - he took the disenfranchised character and had the film shot in a gritty style identical to Scorsese's films of twenty years plus before. It very much appeals to another demographic.

Interesting yes but did he really suddenly catapult himself into the sphere of the Hollywood great directors from nowhere or did he play for a willing audience? (Not that I'm necessarily saying there's anything wrong with that just that it's hardly original or in any way groundbreaking)

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Isn't making movies for a certain demographic is what moviemakers always do? I mean, how else would you approach a project?

Even the so called artsy-fartsy movies (ahem, "films" if they prefer) are also made for a certain demographic: the artisan demographics.

So I don't see how it's not a given for 99.9% of movies, really.

The only movie I think it was not really intended for a certain demographics was Parasite I guess... because it was a hodge podge of various styles. Not only that, but it actually switched genre mid-movie (which I hate about that movie, loved loved the first half!)

IMO, Parasite didn't deserve best pictures of 2019. Joker was certainly better.

reply

[–] ivankyazze (182) 3 years ago

Funny enough the first ‘Kingsman’ came out the same year ‘Spectre’ was released. And yeah I agree. The first ‘Kingsman’ is better than Spectre

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Anything is better than Spectre.

reply

[–] ebhaynz (3688) 3 years ago

Good point, I probably like the first Bourne movie better than any Bond flick.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75537) 3 years ago

SECOND BEST...AFTER CONNERY.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

I acknowledged that after watching Skyfall. Left the cinema seething at what I'd witnessed and vowed never to watch a Craig "Bond" film again.

From what even Craig fans seem to say about Spectre and now this, it appears to have been a good decision...

reply

[–] mtxmind (3296) 3 years ago

I've only seen 2 Craig Bond films (Casino Royale & Skyfall) but judging from those two alone, I wasn't very impressed with his take on Bond either.

I will say, however, that Skyfall had one of the best opening (pre-credits) sequences of any Bond film, & one of the best title songs ever. The rest of the film beyond that is a total clusterf**k.

To me, Connery will always be #1.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

No, Pierce Brosnan is #1.

reply

[–] mtxmind (3296) 3 years ago

Eh.....I'll admit he was pretty good & better than Craig. I'd put him in a close tie for #2 with Moore. But, as I said, I have only seen two of the Craig films, so it's probably not fair to judge his overall performance in the role given that I have not seen the majority of his films.

I'm in my late 50s, so for me it's all about Connery & Moore, & IMO I have to give the edge to Sean.

reply

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Brosnan is James Bond AND Remington Steele combined. Nothing tops that.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1843) 3 years ago

And Taffin!

"maybe you shouldn't be living heeeeere!"

https://youtu.be/vIjppgnkknE

reply

[–] Zinger (2335) 3 years ago

For a real spy, Connery and Dalton were best.

For an entertaining spy romp, Moore made movies that everyone could enjoy.

Craig slightly bored me. And though I liked Brosnan at the time, in hindsight, I think he's a little flimsy.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

For an entertaining spy romp, Moore made movies that everyone could enjoy.

Exactly. The Moore films are peak Bond but unfortunately seem to have become bashed for being exactly what they were supposed to be and not the soulless garbage we've landed up with now.

Hopefully in time, as more and more people come to realise the low quality "realistic" (although DNA nanobots? 🤔) nature of the Craig films, these will be subject to a positive revision.

I always say you can watch the Moore films over and over again for the brilliant set piece stunts and the laughs / Moore eyebrows / etc but really - Who's pulling out QOS for example and going "Yeah, let's give this another watch!"...

reply

[–] Quint (957) 3 years ago

Moore Bond movies are just bashed by dumbheads which dont get what Bond is for mentally stable humans: a fairy tale for grown ups. It never was anything else. Bond is an idol saving mankind every now and then. Doing Bond movies in any other way means you are going into the territory of the incredible boring and bad aged Fleming books. There he was nothing else then a drunken serial killer. And no mentally stable person on this planet is interested in such boring trash.

Thats why the Moore era Bond movies were the best Bond movies. Cause they offered excitement and escapism. And with todays teenagers (focusing just on the depressing side of their own development and society) this is indeed something to fight. Cause otherwise you have to think about your destructive way of handling problems.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8174) 3 years ago

Well said and you make a very good point with that last paragraph.

reply

[–] Quint (957) 3 years ago

Craig always was a desaster as Bond. His movies neither were excitement nor escapism. And he played a small guy without any charisma (anyone remember when some hotel guests threw their cars keys to him thinking that he was working as a car parking guy? He looked and acted that boring and meaningless. Such a scene would have been absolutely impossible with Connery or Moore).

He didnt appeared like Broccoli always wanted Bond movies to be (back when Bond was famous and successful): Pure excitement and every Bond better then the other. Thats why movies like Moonraker became so extremely successful. Cause they were fun and escapism to watch. A Craig movie on the other side was watching a weak crybaby how he failed to solve given problems.This wasnt an idol like Bond has to be (otherwise Bond movies are as boring and grey as the books from Fleming).

But whatever .... the Bond series is now history and we wont get any further Bond movies. So this is like beating a dead horse ;) .

reply