random brain flak [Liam]
-Does anyone know how people used to pass idle time at work before the internet? I've been trying to fathom this concept, and it's honestly really difficult. My current theory? Sexual harassment. It was such a big topic in the early dialup era!
-I recently rented the new "Casino Royale," and it has a blurb on the back calling Daniel Craig 'the best Bond ever'... This is something of a rant-heavy topic for me, and I honestly don't remember what's been said already and what hasn't-- the gist of it is this, though:
James Bond is a man who wears many hats. It's his versatile, chameleon-esque nature that defines him as a character and endears him to moviegoing audiences. A consistent facet of the franchise is that we simply don't know who the real Bond is... as a character he's someone who is constantly shuffling personas to suit the task at hand (in large part this the reason the Bond franchise has survived so many changes of leading man). Thus, the best Bond should be first and foremost a well-rounded generalist encompassing all the essential Bond traits.
Let's look at Pierce Brosnan, to start with: he does the "Aristocrat Bond" better than anyone. He wears the tux better, has a sophisticated accent, and delivers the franchise catch phrases and punch lines with an unblinking intensity not even the self-aware Connery-era Bond could pull off. Put a gun in his hand and tell him to start running though, and everything falls apart. Pierce Brosnan runs like a girl, winces through combat of any sort, and generally brings none of the physicality to the role we'd expect from a trained killer. He's great in many aspects, but he's not the complete package.
Conversely, Daniel Craig brings some real post-Bourne athleticism to the franchise. He sells his stunts, seems totally businesslike in an action sequence, and he's cut like someone who could kill things with his bare hands. Unfortunately in a tux, where Brosnan shines, Craig has a bit of the cro-magnon thing going on.
In the context of a Bond origin story where all the real Bond-like personality traits aren't fully established, he does come off pretty damn well. He's very believable as some SAS lug who just got pulled out of the service and into MI-6. Each successive movie removed from this story, though, I'm convinced his Bond will seem more and more awkwardly out of keeping with the JB we know and love. Craig's "Killer Bond" is a blunt instrument, and an engaging character-- but he's decidedly un-Bondlike in social situations.
By now you probably know where this is going-- and you're right, to some degree. I AM on the Sean Connery gospel kick. Sean Connery doesn't wear the tux as well as Pierce, and he doesn't kick asses like Daniel, but he straddles extremes more competently than anyone else has in the franchise history.
This isn't to say that he'll always be the best Bond. I think Clive Owen shows the potential to set a new bar for the character, given the chance. He has the look, and the physicality, and he can play a suave tough guy with the best of them. If you need convincing of the potential he holds for a role like this look no further than the "BMW / The Driver" short films. He can do "mercenary sensibilities" with depth and subtlety heretofore never seen in a summer blockbuster. He plays a dangerous man just as well as Daniel Craig (see: Bourne Identity), and he dresses up just as classily as Pierce Brosnan when the role calls for it (in addition to pulling off a slightly abusive and highly conflicted love story like in "Closer"). He's seriously the LeBron of Bonds just waiting to happen, and I think sentimentality aside he could blow Sean Connery's rendition out of the water.
Alas, our next 007 will probably be Daniel Radcliffe.
-I recently rented the new "Casino Royale," and it has a blurb on the back calling Daniel Craig 'the best Bond ever'... This is something of a rant-heavy topic for me, and I honestly don't remember what's been said already and what hasn't-- the gist of it is this, though:
James Bond is a man who wears many hats. It's his versatile, chameleon-esque nature that defines him as a character and endears him to moviegoing audiences. A consistent facet of the franchise is that we simply don't know who the real Bond is... as a character he's someone who is constantly shuffling personas to suit the task at hand (in large part this the reason the Bond franchise has survived so many changes of leading man). Thus, the best Bond should be first and foremost a well-rounded generalist encompassing all the essential Bond traits.
Let's look at Pierce Brosnan, to start with: he does the "Aristocrat Bond" better than anyone. He wears the tux better, has a sophisticated accent, and delivers the franchise catch phrases and punch lines with an unblinking intensity not even the self-aware Connery-era Bond could pull off. Put a gun in his hand and tell him to start running though, and everything falls apart. Pierce Brosnan runs like a girl, winces through combat of any sort, and generally brings none of the physicality to the role we'd expect from a trained killer. He's great in many aspects, but he's not the complete package.
Conversely, Daniel Craig brings some real post-Bourne athleticism to the franchise. He sells his stunts, seems totally businesslike in an action sequence, and he's cut like someone who could kill things with his bare hands. Unfortunately in a tux, where Brosnan shines, Craig has a bit of the cro-magnon thing going on.
In the context of a Bond origin story where all the real Bond-like personality traits aren't fully established, he does come off pretty damn well. He's very believable as some SAS lug who just got pulled out of the service and into MI-6. Each successive movie removed from this story, though, I'm convinced his Bond will seem more and more awkwardly out of keeping with the JB we know and love. Craig's "Killer Bond" is a blunt instrument, and an engaging character-- but he's decidedly un-Bondlike in social situations.
By now you probably know where this is going-- and you're right, to some degree. I AM on the Sean Connery gospel kick. Sean Connery doesn't wear the tux as well as Pierce, and he doesn't kick asses like Daniel, but he straddles extremes more competently than anyone else has in the franchise history.
This isn't to say that he'll always be the best Bond. I think Clive Owen shows the potential to set a new bar for the character, given the chance. He has the look, and the physicality, and he can play a suave tough guy with the best of them. If you need convincing of the potential he holds for a role like this look no further than the "BMW / The Driver" short films. He can do "mercenary sensibilities" with depth and subtlety heretofore never seen in a summer blockbuster. He plays a dangerous man just as well as Daniel Craig (see: Bourne Identity), and he dresses up just as classily as Pierce Brosnan when the role calls for it (in addition to pulling off a slightly abusive and highly conflicted love story like in "Closer"). He's seriously the LeBron of Bonds just waiting to happen, and I think sentimentality aside he could blow Sean Connery's rendition out of the water.
Alas, our next 007 will probably be Daniel Radcliffe.
1 Comments:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0654110/
Wow - Clive Owen is 42?
I would assume the producers would want Craig to do at least 2 more Bonds. That'd make Clive 50ish by the time the franchise opened up again.
Connery made his last Bond film at 52/53.
It's too bad he probably won't get a shot. I agree - I think Owen would have been awesome.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home