Wednesday, April 06, 2005

They call him Craig. Daniel Craig.

Hot off the presses, as of this afternoon, the actor who will be portraying James Bond in the next installment of the franchise has been announced. British actor, Daniel Craig will be playing Bond.

Who?

Yes. Apparently, Mr. Craig, who has a first name for a last name, inched out Clive Owen for the coveted action star role. Owen’s camp is saying that he passed on it, but I don’t buy it for a second. Clive Owen is starting to come into the limelight, no doubt about it, but there’s no way he would turn down Bond.

Choosing an actor who is fairly unknown is not beyond the pale for the Bond producers either. None of the men who have donned the character’s persona were particularly famous before they did their first Bond pic, not even Sean Connery. Also, the producers always goed with an actor from the UK, so often times, the actor may have an established career in British TV and film, but is a lesser known entity in the states.

Craig is 38 years old, so his age is about right. Brosnan, Dalton, and Moore were all in their 40’s when they first played Bond, Connery was 32, and the enigmatic Lazenby was only 30.

Craig actually looks a bit long in the tooth if you ask me, I’d say about seven years older than his actual age.

See:



I haven’t seen any of his films very recently, but he’s had large supporting roles in Sylvia, Road to Perdition, Tomb Raider, Enduring Love, Layercake, and many more. I have seen a few of his movies and all I can say is that I must not have been struck by his performances because I don’t remember any of them. I realize them is fighting words, but this is James Bond we’re talking about here and it is not to be taken lightly. I have yet to be convinced that Craig has the screen presence, though I haven’t totally written him off yet. His resume implies that he has the acting chops for it, but it takes more than that to be a great James Bond. This actor needs to embody the adjectives of cool, sexy, and smooth. Its not just about looks, its about attitude, and how he carries himself. He must have ultimate confidence.



Ok, confident? Yes. But cool? Maybe if he was running for treasurer of the dandy librarians guild. He also looks a bit too sneaky and villainous, notwithstanding the foppery.



The picture above, is the most James Bondish image that I could find of Mr. Daniel Craig. He looks fairly sharp in the suit, though he gives off that air of playing the heavy again. I wonder if they will dye his hair brown…. We’ve never had a blonde Bond before, but I suppose there’s a first time for everything.

4 Comments:

Blogger Mike said...

I know very little about the Bond series - I just wanted to point out that there is nothing wrong with having a first name for a last name. Bigot.

9:56 PM  
Blogger The New Yorker said...

Hey, I never said there was anything wrong with it, I merely stated it as point of fact! For the record I have nothing against people who have two first names as their full name. Honest.

10:15 PM  
Blogger The New Yorker said...

Hey, I never said there was anything wrong with it, I merely stated it as point of fact! For the record I have nothing against people who have two first names as their full name. Honest.

10:15 PM  
Blogger The New Yorker said...

Hey, I never said there was anything wrong with it, I merely stated it as point of fact! For the record I have nothing against people who have two first names as their full name. Honest.

10:36 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares