|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » The Two Faces of Craig
| The Two Faces of Craig [message #211083] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 04:02 |
|
Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but like
a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
"younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in CR.
This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig [message #211085 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 04:12 |
|
Craig's look is so far removed from Bond (and further comounded with
his blonde hair) that he'll have to reinvent Bond. I doubt he'll go for
the playboy 'look at me I am very handsome and confident' approach
because it won't work. The one advantage of casting a rather handsome
chap is it helps the audience believe Bond can chat up virtually any
woman. With Craig as Bond, hmm... that illusion may be strained. Craig
will have to adopt a new style.
I guess, to coin the clich=E9, he has to become a gritty Bond. I just
can't see him being a Moore, Brosnan, Connery or Lazenby Bond. Perhaps
he'll be like Dalton but even more down to Earth and rough.
Unfortunately, Craig isn't blessed with a smooth playboy sort of face
so I can't see Eon wanting him to be like the earlier Bond actors. He's
going to have to be his own Bond and hope people like it.
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig [message #211086 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 04:13 |
|
Craig's look is so far removed from Bond (and further compounded with
his blonde hair) that he'll have to reinvent Bond. I doubt he'll go for
the playboy 'look at me I am very handsome and confident' approach
because it won't work. The one advantage of casting a rather handsome
chap is it helps the audience believe Bond can chat up virtually any
woman. With Craig as Bond, hmm... that illusion may be strained. Craig
will have to adopt a new style.
I guess, to coin the clich=E9, he has to become a gritty Bond. I just
can't see him being a Moore, Brosnan, Connery or Lazenby Bond. Perhaps
he'll be like Dalton but even more down to Earth and rough.
Unfortunately, Craig isn't blessed with a smooth playboy sort of face
so I can't see Eon wanting him to be like the earlier Bond actors. He's
going to have to be his own Bond and hope people like it.=20
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #211088 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 05:04 |
|
WQ wrote:
> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but like
> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in CR.
> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
--- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen. But
getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less, only 2
appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub after
getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what the
Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped by
about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a Bond
in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they had
made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be CR,
then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As a
2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #211089 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 05:17 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> WQ wrote:
>> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
>> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
>> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
>> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but like
>> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
>> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
>> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
>> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
>> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
>> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
>> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
>> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
>> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
>> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in CR.
>> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
>> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
>> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
>> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
>> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
>> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
>> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
>> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
>> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
>> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
>> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
>> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
>
>
> --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen. But
> getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less, only 2
> appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub after
> getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what the
> Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped by
> about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a Bond
> in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they had
> made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be CR,
> then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As a
> 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
>
After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the movie.
Leave it to those with an open mind.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #211090 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 05:26 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > WQ wrote:
> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but like
> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in CR.
> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
> >
> >
> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen. But
> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less, only 2
> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub after
> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what the
> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped by
> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a Bond
> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they had
> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be CR,
> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As a
> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
> >
>
> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the movie.
> Leave it to those with an open mind.
--- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #211091 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 05:32 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > WQ wrote:
>> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
>> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
>> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
>> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but
>> >> like
>> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
>> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
>> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
>> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
>> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
>> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
>> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
>> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
>> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
>> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in
>> >> CR.
>> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
>> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
>> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
>> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
>> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
>> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
>> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
>> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
>> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
>> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
>> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
>> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen. But
>> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less, only 2
>> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub after
>> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what the
>> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped by
>> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a Bond
>> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they had
>> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be CR,
>> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As a
>> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
>> >
>>
>> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the
>> movie.
>> Leave it to those with an open mind.
>
> --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
> that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
> just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
>
Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD, which
started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty good
director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more realistic
Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #211093 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 06:17 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Will wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > WQ wrote:
> >> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
> >> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
> >> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
> >> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but
> >> >> like
> >> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
> >> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
> >> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
> >> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
> >> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
> >> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
> >> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
> >> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
> >> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
> >> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in
> >> >> CR.
> >> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
> >> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
> >> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
> >> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
> >> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
> >> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
> >> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
> >> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
> >> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
> >> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
> >> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
> >> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen. But
> >> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less, only 2
> >> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub after
> >> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what the
> >> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped by
> >> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a Bond
> >> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they had
> >> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be CR,
> >> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As a
> >> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
> >> >
> >>
> >> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the
> >> movie.
> >> Leave it to those with an open mind.
> >
> > --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
> > that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
> > just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
> >
>
> Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD, which
> started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty good
> director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more realistic
> Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
--- Despite my own misgivings over Craig as Bond, I'm trying to stay
positive about it, too. Hey, if I liked the Bourne films, even though
I thought Matt Damon was miscast in it, though he did do a pretty good
job nevertheless, then the possibility exists that I might end up
feeling the same way about Craig in CR. I don't rule it out. I just
have to yet be somewhat, if not fully, convinced in the meantime, which
I'm not at this point.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #211103 ] |
So, 29 Januar 2006 15:16 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1138511856.825164.106400 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Will wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Will wrote:
>> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > WQ wrote:
>> >> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
>> >> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a
>> >> >> scene
>> >> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but
>> >> >> like
>> >> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
>> >> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
>> >> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
>> >> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other
>> >> >> scenes
>> >> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in
>> >> >> CR.
>> >> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
>> >> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this
>> >> >> film
>> >> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real
>> >> >> acting
>> >> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
>> >> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
>> >> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of
>> >> >> convincing
>> >> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
>> >> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
>> >> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen.
>> >> > But
>> >> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less,
>> >> > only 2
>> >> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub
>> >> > after
>> >> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what
>> >> > the
>> >> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped
>> >> > by
>> >> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a
>> >> > Bond
>> >> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they
>> >> > had
>> >> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be
>> >> > CR,
>> >> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As
>> >> > a
>> >> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the
>> >> movie.
>> >> Leave it to those with an open mind.
>> >
>> > --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
>> > that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
>> > just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD, which
>> started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty good
>> director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more realistic
>> Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
>
> --- Despite my own misgivings over Craig as Bond, I'm trying to stay
> positive about it, too. Hey, if I liked the Bourne films, even though
> I thought Matt Damon was miscast in it, though he did do a pretty good
> job nevertheless, then the possibility exists that I might end up
> feeling the same way about Craig in CR. I don't rule it out. I just
> have to yet be somewhat, if not fully, convinced in the meantime, which
> I'm not at this point.
>
The Bourne movies were much more "Bond" than the Bond movies as of late. If
they follow that style, CR should be a good movie. If they go back to the
invisible car and para-sailing non-sense in DAD, it's over.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215670 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 21:32 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Will wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > WQ wrote:
> >> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig in
> >> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
> >> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a scene
> >> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but
> >> >> like
> >> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
> >> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in a
> >> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked as
> >> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting other
> >> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
> >> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
> >> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique or
> >> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other scenes
> >> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play a
> >> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in
> >> >> CR.
> >> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
> >> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this film
> >> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real acting
> >> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see how
> >> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
> >> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
> >> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of convincing
> >> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions to
> >> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to have
> >> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
> >> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
> >> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen. But
> >> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less, only 2
> >> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub after
> >> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what the
> >> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped by
> >> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a Bond
> >> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they had
> >> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be CR,
> >> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As a
> >> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
> >> >
> >>
> >> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the
> >> movie.
> >> Leave it to those with an open mind.
> >
> > --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
> > that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
> > just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
> >
>
> Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD, which
> started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty good
> director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more realistic
> Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
You shouldn't be positive about it....you should keep an open mind.
Coming up with reasons why it'll be good...why, that might consist of
analytical thought...we don't want any of that. ;-P
Chris C.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215672 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 22:29 |
|
What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during Road To
Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to be
forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of him.
You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who was
your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
<mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1138653141.014598.256790 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Will wrote:
>> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > WQ wrote:
>> >> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
>> >> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a
>> >> >> scene
>> >> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but
>> >> >> like
>> >> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
>> >> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting
>> >> >> other
>> >> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
>> >> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
>> >> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other
>> >> >> scenes
>> >> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in
>> >> >> CR.
>> >> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
>> >> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this
>> >> >> film
>> >> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real
>> >> >> acting
>> >> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see
>> >> >> how
>> >> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
>> >> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
>> >> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of
>> >> >> convincing
>> >> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
>> >> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
>> >> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen.
>> >> > But
>> >> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less,
>> >> > only 2
>> >> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub
>> >> > after
>> >> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what
>> >> > the
>> >> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped
>> >> > by
>> >> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a
>> >> > Bond
>> >> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they
>> >> > had
>> >> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be
>> >> > CR,
>> >> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As
>> >> > a
>> >> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the
>> >> movie.
>> >> Leave it to those with an open mind.
>> >
>> > --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
>> > that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
>> > just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
>> >
>>
>> Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD, which
>> started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty good
>> director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more realistic
>> Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
>
> You shouldn't be positive about it....you should keep an open mind.
> Coming up with reasons why it'll be good...why, that might consist of
> analytical thought...we don't want any of that. ;-P
>
> Chris C.
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215674 ] |
Mo, 30 Januar 2006 22:55 |
|
Jabei wrote:
> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during Road To
> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to be
> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of him.
> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who was
> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
>
--- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It was a
simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat there
in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with M.
But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for other
eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to pick
a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some sort
of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Only
I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
>
> <mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
> news:1138653141.014598.256790 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Will wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Will wrote:
> >> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > WQ wrote:
> >> >> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with Craig
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to find
> >> >> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a
> >> >> >> scene
> >> >> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond, but
> >> >> >> like
> >> >> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He was
> >> >> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair in
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position looked
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting
> >> >> >> other
> >> >> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a Bond-like
> >> >> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of the
> >> >> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like mystique
> >> >> >> or
> >> >> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other
> >> >> >> scenes
> >> >> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to play
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career in
> >> >> >> CR.
> >> >> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still looked
> >> >> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this
> >> >> >> film
> >> >> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real
> >> >> >> acting
> >> >> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see
> >> >> >> how
> >> >> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to sit
> >> >> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far, my
> >> >> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of
> >> >> >> convincing
> >> >> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past allusions
> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to
> >> >> >> have
> >> >> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his own
> >> >> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
> >> >> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen.
> >> >> > But
> >> >> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less,
> >> >> > only 2
> >> >> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub
> >> >> > after
> >> >> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see what
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit time-warped
> >> >> > by
> >> >> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as a
> >> >> > Bond
> >> >> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if they
> >> >> > had
> >> >> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to be
> >> >> > CR,
> >> >> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely. As
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see the
> >> >> movie.
> >> >> Leave it to those with an open mind.
> >> >
> >> > --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can use
> >> > that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes you
> >> > just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct level.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD, which
> >> started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty good
> >> director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more realistic
> >> Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
> >
> > You shouldn't be positive about it....you should keep an open mind.
> > Coming up with reasons why it'll be good...why, that might consist of
> > analytical thought...we don't want any of that. ;-P
> >
> > Chris C.
> >
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215708 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 05:36 |
|
"WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
news:1138658157.995960.256070 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jabei wrote:
>> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during Road
>> To
>> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
>> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to be
>> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of him.
>> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who was
>> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
>>
>
> --- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
> another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
> envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
> something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
> me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
> scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It was a
> simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat there
> in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
> enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with M.
> But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
> sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for other
> eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to pick
> a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some sort
> of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Only
> I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
> sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
>
>
As strange as this may sound to you, I can picture Craig playing Bond. If
the producers get it right, Craig should be fine. Everyone said Pierce
Brosnan was going to be fantastic. Instead, the movies were mediocre, which
in turn, put a damper on his stature as Bond. How can anyone say PB was a
great Bond if he made ONE good Bond movie out of four. Everyone thought PB
"looked" like a Bond, and had everything going for him. So what happened?
The producers and writers let him down. If EON makes a good Bond movie,
Craig will be fine, I believe.
>>
>> <mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1138653141.014598.256790 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Will wrote:
>> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1138508799.933664.49410 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Will wrote:
>> >> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1138507454.572057.185390 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > WQ wrote:
>> >> >> >> Halfway through watching Road to Perdition on the tube with
>> >> >> >> Craig
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> it. He hasn't been in it much so far, but I'm still trying to
>> >> >> >> find
>> >> >> >> what it is that the Bond people see in him as Bond. There was a
>> >> >> >> scene
>> >> >> >> early on where he came close to looking like a Bond [not Bond,
>> >> >> >> but
>> >> >> >> like
>> >> >> >> a Bond], or maybe it was more like projecting that image. He
>> >> >> >> was
>> >> >> >> nattily attired in a Bond-like suit sitting in a high back chair
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> dark-lit living room and that shot of him in that position
>> >> >> >> looked
>> >> >> >> as
>> >> >> >> close to Bond as he could look. There are very few and fleeting
>> >> >> >> other
>> >> >> >> shots of him where some sort of illusion is created of a
>> >> >> >> Bond-like
>> >> >> >> figure, but again, it's more a case of straining on the part of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> viewer to see it rather than any sort of natural Bond-like
>> >> >> >> mystique
>> >> >> >> or
>> >> >> >> qualities unexpectedly hitting the viewer. A lot of the other
>> >> >> >> scenes
>> >> >> >> with him in it show someone who is clearly out of age range to
>> >> >> >> play
>> >> >> >> a
>> >> >> >> "younger" Bond who is purportedly at the beginning of his career
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> CR.
>> >> >> >> This movie was filmed four years ago and even then he still
>> >> >> >> looked
>> >> >> >> like he was pushing 50 in some shots. Because he's not in this
>> >> >> >> film
>> >> >> >> that much, there's no chance for him to really display any real
>> >> >> >> acting
>> >> >> >> range or even create a memorable presence in the film. I'll see
>> >> >> >> how
>> >> >> >> the rest of this film plays out but it's such a boring one to
>> >> >> >> sit
>> >> >> >> through. What the hell is this movie about anyway? But so far,
>> >> >> >> my
>> >> >> >> contention holds that if Craig is going to do any kind of
>> >> >> >> convincing
>> >> >> >> Bond job, he cannot - repeat, cannot - resort to any past
>> >> >> >> allusions
>> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> Connery/Lazenby/Moore/Dalton/Brosnan Bond, he's clearly going to
>> >> >> >> have
>> >> >> >> redefine the character in order to be able to own it within his
>> >> >> >> own
>> >> >> >> image. It's the only way his portrayal can stand a chance of
>> >> >> >> succeeding. Back for part 2 of this after the movie ends.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --- Well, that was one of the more bloated movies I'd ever seen.
>> >> >> > But
>> >> >> > getting back to Craig. He was in the last half of it even less,
>> >> >> > only 2
>> >> >> > appearances, one of them dead - that's if that was him in the tub
>> >> >> > after
>> >> >> > getting shot. But in the first appearance I could finally see
>> >> >> > what
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > Bond people see in Craig. The problem is, they're a bit
>> >> >> > time-warped
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> > about a half-century. In that appearance I clearly saw Craig as
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > Bond
>> >> >> > in 1956, not 2006. That's when it just clicked for me that if
>> >> >> > they
>> >> >> > had
>> >> >> > made the first Bond film back then, and if the first one was to
>> >> >> > be
>> >> >> > CR,
>> >> >> > then bingo! As a 1956 Bond, Craig would've fit in quite nicely.
>> >> >> > As
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > 2006 Bond, sorry, he's just too much of a hard sell.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After all that bloviating that's your conclusion? Then don't see
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> movie.
>> >> >> Leave it to those with an open mind.
>> >> >
>> >> > --- Bloviate - now there's a new word I've learned. Thanks, I can
>> >> > use
>> >> > that one. But yeah, that's the conclusion I arrived at. Sometimes
>> >> > you
>> >> > just have to bloviate before something clicks on a gut instinct
>> >> > level.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, I'm keeping an open mind. They can't do much worse than DAD,
>> >> which
>> >> started out great but got derailed halfway through. CR has a pretty
>> >> good
>> >> director (Campbell), and all signs point to a toned down, more
>> >> realistic
>> >> Bond. So we'll have to wait and see. I'm staying positive about it.
>> >
>> > You shouldn't be positive about it....you should keep an open mind.
>> > Coming up with reasons why it'll be good...why, that might consist of
>> > analytical thought...we don't want any of that. ;-P
>> >
>> > Chris C.
>> >
>
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215709 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 06:23 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1138658157.995960.256070 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jabei wrote:
> >> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during Road
> >> To
> >> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
> >> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to be
> >> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of him.
> >> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who was
> >> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
> >>
> >
> > --- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
> > another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
> > envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
> > something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
> > me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
> > scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It was a
> > simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat there
> > in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
> > enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with M.
> > But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
> > sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for other
> > eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to pick
> > a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some sort
> > of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Only
> > I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
> > sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
> >
> As strange as this may sound to you, I can picture Craig playing Bond. If
> the producers get it right, Craig should be fine. Everyone said Pierce
> Brosnan was going to be fantastic. Instead, the movies were mediocre, which
> in turn, put a damper on his stature as Bond. How can anyone say PB was a
> great Bond if he made ONE good Bond movie out of four. Everyone thought PB
> "looked" like a Bond, and had everything going for him. So what happened?
> The producers and writers let him down. If EON makes a good Bond movie,
> Craig will be fine, I believe.
--- That doesn't sound strange to me at all. Craig could do a decent
job of it, but sure, it all comes down to the script. But the odds are
against in so many ways, and probably the biggest obstacle facing
Craig, more than he himself, is EON's inability to recognize a good
script. I don't know what kind of thinking they go through to
determine whether a script is filmable or not, but on the basis of just
the last three out of Brosnan's four films, they haven't had a very
literate track record. They're failing has been to keep Purvis and
Wade on past TND for some unfathomable reason, and because they're
behind CR as well, I really have grave doubts about the script making
Craig look good in any way, shape or form, regardless of Paul Haggis'
late addition to the writing chores. But as I keep saying, anything's
possible.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215720 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 11:39 |
|
Craig is far too unattractive to be a credible Bond. Plus his face size
is far too small. He has zero masculinity (well, in a Bond context, at
least).
Here:
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123880/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123880.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123883/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123883.png
Compare Craig's smaller face to the other guy in the above image. Note
how much smaller it is, meaning he is less masculine.
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123892/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123892.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123909/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123909.png
I doubt he has enough natural Bond charm and machismo. He certainly
hasn't got the machismo as his face is too small. Genetically speaking,
he is the least confident of all the Bonds. Craig has zero Bond
masculinity and it's manifested in his small face. Not my opinion, it's
mother nature telling us.
It's imperative Bond has a larger face - this is why George Lazenby - a
guy with no acting ability prior to Bond - is far more suited to the
role than Craig. Lazenby had the larger face - far more confident (and
arrogant!).
Daniel Craig:
http://s10.imagehosting.us/uploadpoint/imagehosting_upload_s torage/nouser_1123/T0_-1_1123880.png
Timothy Dalton:
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123963/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123963.png
Compare the face size. Dalton's is far more masculine. Dalton looked
like Bond. Craig? Nope. See, the machismo of Bond is in the size of the
face as much as anything else. Good looks help too. LOL
The most hilarious claim is Craig will be a masculine Bond. He's
actually the least masculine of all the Bonds.
Plus, By Bond standards his side profile is the least attractive of all
five Bonds:
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123721/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123721.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123712/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123712.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123715/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123715.png
Not his fault, we have no say how we look but I can't imagine any Bond
woman ever looking at his profile and having the hots for him. Sorry,
it's not gonna work. More Boris Becker profile than Bond.
If you cast someone so alien to the classic Bond type then you can't
expect most people to accept the new chap. It's expecting too much.
Sorry.
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215721 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 11:44 |
|
Just not Bond looking AT ALL!:
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123724/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123724.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123727/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123727.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123729/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123729.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123734/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123734.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123738/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123738.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123746/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123746.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123751/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123751.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123755/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123755.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123762/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123762.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123766/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123766.jpg
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/00/02/200510141140099 90004
http://www.br-online.de/bayern3/boulevard/starnews/artikel/2 005/10/12-bond-nachfolger/foto/craig-daniel-150-dpa.jpg
http://www.cinema.cz/image/20051027170835_Daniel_Craig.jpg
http://www.adressa.no/multimedia/archive/00603/BondBig_60371 2f.jpg
http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/danielcraig.jpg
http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/844-bondgu ess01.jpg
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/artikel/466/62404/image_ kopfzoom-1129280870.jpg
http://www.objectif-cinema.fr/IMG/jpg/Daniel_Craig.jpg
http://i.wp.pl/a/f/pjpeg/8403/daniel_craig.jpg
http://www.unison.ie/images_papers/entertainment/2005-10-12/ 356183.jpg
http://entertainment.pipex.com/Images/41758.jpg
http://www.kino.de/pix/newspics/GALERIE/190949_1.jpg
http://www.24sata.hr/repository/images/_variations/a/3/a3e95 bf4f3a8f3ac16453689eaab1ccd_large.jpg
http://www.netglimse.com/images/celebs/bio/sn_danielcraig.jp g
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123827/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123827.png
Once the appeal of Craig's Bond drops, say, after 20 minutes of
screentimes, the chances are his look will alienate most people. Plus
the jury is out if he has enough charm to convince as Bond.
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215722 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 11:47 |
|
Just not Bond looking AT ALL!:
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123724/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123724.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123727/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123727.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123729/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123729.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123734/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123734.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123738/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123738.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123746/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123746.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123751/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123751.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123755/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123755.jpg
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123762/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123762.png
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123766/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123766.jpg
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/00/02/200510141140099 90004
http://www.br-online.de/bayern3/boulevard/starnews/artikel/2 005/10/12...
http://www.cinema.cz/image/20051027170835_Daniel_Craig.jpg
http://www.adressa.no/multimedia/archive/00603/BondBig_60371 2f.jpg
http://newsfeed.tcm.ie/images/people/danielcraig.jpg
http://nandotimes.nandomedia.com/ips_rich_content/844-bondgu ess01.jpg
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/artikel/466/62404/image_ kopfzoom-...
http://www.objectif-cinema.fr/IMG/jpg/Daniel_Craig.jpg
http://i.wp.pl/a/f/pjpeg/8403/daniel_craig.jpg
http://www.unison.ie/images_papers/entertainment/2005-10-12/ 356183.jpg
http://entertainment.pipex.com/Images/41758.jpg
http://www.kino.de/pix/newspics/GALERIE/190949_1.jpg
http://www.24sata.hr/repository/images/_variations/a/3/a3e95 bf4f3a8f3...
http://www.netglimse.com/images/celebs/bio/sn_danielcraig.jp g
http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1123827/0/nouser_1123/T0_-1 _1123827.png
Once the appeal of Craig's Bond drops, say, after 20 minutes of
screentime, the chances are his look will alienate most people. Plus
the jury is out if he has enough charm to convince as Bond.
LLC
Reply
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215723 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 11:58 |
|
Craig is just too unattractive (by Bond standards) to ever work. I
don't think he's that unattractive but when you say he is the new James
Bond and look at most images of him or see him in his films, he becomes
less attractive.
His looks are too far removed from Bond - PERIOD. Good acting can't
make him more Bond looking or more handsome. It's impossible.
LLC
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215730 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 17:59 |
|
Will wrote:
> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> news:1138658157.995960.256070 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jabei wrote:
> >> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during Road
> >> To
> >> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
> >> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to be
> >> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of him.
> >> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who was
> >> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
> >>
> >
> > --- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
> > another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
> > envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
> > something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
> > me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
> > scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It was a
> > simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat there
> > in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
> > enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with M.
> > But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
> > sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for other
> > eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to pick
> > a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some sort
> > of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Only
> > I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
> > sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
> >
> >
>
> As strange as this may sound to you, I can picture Craig playing Bond. If
> the producers get it right, Craig should be fine. Everyone said Pierce
> Brosnan was going to be fantastic. Instead, the movies were mediocre, which
> in turn, put a damper on his stature as Bond. How can anyone say PB was a
> great Bond if he made ONE good Bond movie out of four. Everyone thought PB
> "looked" like a Bond, and had everything going for him. So what happened?
> The producers and writers let him down. If EON makes a good Bond movie,
> Craig will be fine, I believe.
Actually, the problem may lay in differing perceptions. I'd say your
odds are backwards, and 3 of the 4 Bronsnan movies were good Bond
movies. (And while I think my one would be obvious, I am curious which
one you liked). And Brosnan became progressively a better Bond, as
most of them do. Timothy Dalton was someone who looked and acted like
Bond, and was a good Bond, yet he still wasn't accepted by the public
(read: women) as Bond. Brosnan instantly got that demographic. If
even guys don't think Craig is good looking enough to play Bond, there
may be a problem. Bond is supposed to be the guy everyone wants to be,
and every woman wants to be with. Craig is neither. And while the
claim that it's a role, and acting is what matters...I just don't see
the brilliance of Dame Judi Dench in the role. :)
Chris C.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215732 ] |
Di, 31 Januar 2006 18:01 |
|
|
I thought you'd left? back so soon?
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215747 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 00:22 |
|
"Lord Basildon" <lordbasildon [at] hotmail.co.uk> said:
>I thought you'd left? back so soon?
Don't feed the trolls.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215752 ] |
Mi, 01 Februar 2006 01:19 |
|
<mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1138726759.759498.258990 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> news:1138658157.995960.256070 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Jabei wrote:
>> >> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during
>> >> Road
>> >> To
>> >> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
>> >> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to
>> >> be
>> >> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of
>> >> him.
>> >> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who
>> >> was
>> >> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
>> >>
>> >
>> > --- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
>> > another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
>> > envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
>> > something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
>> > me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
>> > scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It was a
>> > simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat there
>> > in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
>> > enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with M.
>> > But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
>> > sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for other
>> > eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to pick
>> > a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some sort
>> > of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Only
>> > I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
>> > sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> As strange as this may sound to you, I can picture Craig playing Bond. If
>> the producers get it right, Craig should be fine. Everyone said Pierce
>> Brosnan was going to be fantastic. Instead, the movies were mediocre,
>> which
>> in turn, put a damper on his stature as Bond. How can anyone say PB was a
>> great Bond if he made ONE good Bond movie out of four. Everyone thought
>> PB
>> "looked" like a Bond, and had everything going for him. So what happened?
>> The producers and writers let him down. If EON makes a good Bond movie,
>> Craig will be fine, I believe.
>
> Actually, the problem may lay in differing perceptions. I'd say your
> odds are backwards, and 3 of the 4 Bronsnan movies were good Bond
> movies. (And while I think my one would be obvious, I am curious which
> one you liked). And Brosnan became progressively a better Bond, as
> most of them do. Timothy Dalton was someone who looked and acted like
> Bond, and was a good Bond, yet he still wasn't accepted by the public
> (read: women) as Bond. Brosnan instantly got that demographic. If
> even guys don't think Craig is good looking enough to play Bond, there
> may be a problem. Bond is supposed to be the guy everyone wants to be,
> and every woman wants to be with. Craig is neither. And while the
> claim that it's a role, and acting is what matters...I just don't see
> the brilliance of Dame Judi Dench in the role. :)
>
> Chris C.
>
Overall, GE was Brosnan's best film, and TWINE was his best performance. But
DAD and TND are not very good, IMHO. In both films, the first half is better
than the second, with the second devolving into ridiculousness. TWINE is
pretty good, but it's overlong and lacks a good villain in Renard. Only GE
hits my top 10 Bond films.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215826 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:23 |
|
Will wrote:
> <mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
> news:1138726759.759498.258990 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Will wrote:
> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1138658157.995960.256070 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Jabei wrote:
> >> >> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during
> >> >> Road
> >> >> To
> >> >> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter, frightened,
> >> >> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear to
> >> >> be
> >> >> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes of
> >> >> him.
> >> >> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks pretty.....who
> >> >> was
> >> >> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
> >> > another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
> >> > envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
> >> > something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
> >> > me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
> >> > scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It was a
> >> > simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat there
> >> > in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
> >> > enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with M.
> >> > But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
> >> > sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for other
> >> > eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to pick
> >> > a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some sort
> >> > of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do. Only
> >> > I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
> >> > sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> As strange as this may sound to you, I can picture Craig playing Bond. If
> >> the producers get it right, Craig should be fine. Everyone said Pierce
> >> Brosnan was going to be fantastic. Instead, the movies were mediocre,
> >> which
> >> in turn, put a damper on his stature as Bond. How can anyone say PB was a
> >> great Bond if he made ONE good Bond movie out of four. Everyone thought
> >> PB
> >> "looked" like a Bond, and had everything going for him. So what happened?
> >> The producers and writers let him down. If EON makes a good Bond movie,
> >> Craig will be fine, I believe.
> >
> > Actually, the problem may lay in differing perceptions. I'd say your
> > odds are backwards, and 3 of the 4 Bronsnan movies were good Bond
> > movies. (And while I think my one would be obvious, I am curious which
> > one you liked). And Brosnan became progressively a better Bond, as
> > most of them do. Timothy Dalton was someone who looked and acted like
> > Bond, and was a good Bond, yet he still wasn't accepted by the public
> > (read: women) as Bond. Brosnan instantly got that demographic. If
> > even guys don't think Craig is good looking enough to play Bond, there
> > may be a problem. Bond is supposed to be the guy everyone wants to be,
> > and every woman wants to be with. Craig is neither. And while the
> > claim that it's a role, and acting is what matters...I just don't see
> > the brilliance of Dame Judi Dench in the role. :)
> >
> > Chris C.
> >
>
> Overall, GE was Brosnan's best film, and TWINE was his best performance. But
> DAD and TND are not very good, IMHO. In both films, the first half is better
> than the second, with the second devolving into ridiculousness. TWINE is
> pretty good, but it's overlong and lacks a good villain in Renard. Only GE
> hits my top 10 Bond films.
Hmmm. Fair enough. But while we'd agree that DAD was dreck, I'm not
sure we'd see eye to eye on the rest. If any of them seem to face the
good 1st half, less so second half, I'd say Goldeneye, which is still
good, because the second half has the excellent fight seen. I'm in
the minority here, but I like TND a lot. Good action set pieces,
better Brosnan, great leading lady, and I like the villain. I'd agree
that TWINE is Pierce's best performance, and overlong (and my biggest
problem with it, making it not rank right near the top - silly action
scenes), but if you don't like Renard, you're not a fan particularly of
the "henchman" in the movie. The villain's Electra, and she's
excellent in it, IMHO. But half dozen of this, six of the other.
Chris C.
|
|
|
| Re: The Two Faces of Craig - Part 2 [message #215835 ] |
Do, 02 Februar 2006 17:50 |
|
<mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1138897389.051253.233320 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>> <mwolvie [at] umich.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1138726759.759498.258990 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Will wrote:
>> >> "WQ" <wq [at] email.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1138658157.995960.256070 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Jabei wrote:
>> >> >> What are you on about WQ ?...Can't see much of Bond in Craig during
>> >> >> Road
>> >> >> To
>> >> >> Perdition....Well of couse not....he was playing a bitter,
>> >> >> frightened,
>> >> >> pathetic, bullying coward.....As in your previous posts, you appear
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> forgetting that this man IS AN ACTOR...As such, I have high hopes
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> him.
>> >> >> You appear to only be interested in someone who looks
>> >> >> pretty.....who
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> your first choice...Julian Clary ???...or Dale Winton ??
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > --- It was actually Buck Dick. Of course I know Craig's playing
>> >> > another character. I was looking past that character and trying to
>> >> > envision him as Bond or a Bond type, hoping to instinctively see
>> >> > something in him I could latch onto in a way that makes 007 sense to
>> >> > me. And as I said, the closest I saw of that in Craig was in that
>> >> > scene of him in a seated position wearing that tailored suit. It
>> >> > was a
>> >> > simple shot, I don't think he even said a word, but he just sat
>> >> > there
>> >> > in that highback leather chair looking relaxed, suave and dapper
>> >> > enough, legs crossed, almost as if he was in a briefing session with
>> >> > M.
>> >> > But even then, he struck me more as a 1956 Bond than a 2006 one. He
>> >> > sort of has that dated face about him, one that works great for
>> >> > other
>> >> > eras except the one he's actually in. I mean, if EON is going to
>> >> > pick
>> >> > a new Bond, I would imagine that they would be trying to see some
>> >> > sort
>> >> > of a Bond in the actor, and that's exactly what I'm trying to do.
>> >> > Only
>> >> > I'm still trying to fathom what exactly kind of Bond it is that EON
>> >> > sees in him because aside from a 1956 version, I still don't get it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> As strange as this may sound to you, I can picture Craig playing Bond.
>> >> If
>> >> the producers get it right, Craig should be fine. Everyone said Pierce
>> >> Brosnan was going to be fantastic. Instead, the movies were mediocre,
>> >> which
>> >> in turn, put a damper on his stature as Bond. How can anyone say PB
>> >> was a
>> >> great Bond if he made ONE good Bond movie out of four. Everyone
>> >> thought
>> >> PB
>> >> "looked" like a Bond, and had everything going for him. So what
>> >> happened?
>> >> The producers and writers let him down. If EON makes a good Bond
>> >> movie,
>> >> Craig will be fine, I believe.
>> >
>> > Actually, the problem may lay in differing perceptions. I'd say your
>> > odds are backwards, and 3 of the 4 Bronsnan movies were good Bond
>> > movies. (And while I think my one would be obvious, I am curious which
>> > one you liked). And Brosnan became progressively a better Bond, as
>> > most of them do. Timothy Dalton was someone who looked and acted like
>> > Bond, and was a good Bond, yet he still wasn't accepted by the public
>> > (read: women) as Bond. Brosnan instantly got that demographic. If
>> > even guys don't think Craig is good looking enough to play Bond, there
>> > may be a problem. Bond is supposed to be the guy everyone wants to be,
>> > and every woman wants to be with. Craig is neither. And while the
>> > claim that it's a role, and acting is what matters...I just don't see
>> > the brilliance of Dame Judi Dench in the role. :)
>> >
>> > Chris C.
>> >
>>
>> Overall, GE was Brosnan's best film, and TWINE was his best performance.
>> But
>> DAD and TND are not very good, IMHO. In both films, the first half is
>> better
>> than the second, with the second devolving into ridiculousness. TWINE is
>> pretty good, but it's overlong and lacks a good villain in Renard. Only
>> GE
>> hits my top 10 Bond films.
>
> Hmmm. Fair enough. But while we'd agree that DAD was dreck, I'm not
> sure we'd see eye to eye on the rest. If any of them seem to face the
> good 1st half, less so second half, I'd say Goldeneye, which is still
> good, because the second half has the excellent fight seen. I'm in
> the minority here, but I like TND a lot. Good action set pieces,
> better Brosnan, great leading lady, and I like the villain. I'd agree
> that TWINE is Pierce's best performance, and overlong (and my biggest
> problem with it, making it not rank right near the top - silly action
> scenes), but if you don't like Renard, you're not a fan particularly of
> the "henchman" in the movie. The villain's Electra, and she's
> excellent in it, IMHO. But half dozen of this, six of the other.
>
> Chris C.
>
Well, I wouldn't consider Renard a "henchman" in TWINE, but as you
said.....I liked Electra in the movie, thought she was very interesting. But
Denise Richards was a disaster. If she's a nuclear physicist then I'm a
brain surgeon. Geez, that was as bad a casting job as Tanya Roberts as a
geologist in AVTAK. And you are right: some of the actions sequences are not
very good in that movie. But TND has some dreadful action sequences too:
Bond driving the car from the back seat and villains firing RPGs through the
windshield? LOL. And the motorcycle chase on the rooftops was much too long
and over the top. Bond and Michelle Yeoh falling down the side of the
building while tearing the banner? Just over-the-top action sequences that
can be found in any action film nowadays. And the villain? Well....hey, you
know what, I don't want to drone on....let's just agree to disagree. I'm
just glad we all like Bond, in one form or another, lol.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 00:47:32 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 1,22510 Sekunden |
