Caro pushes Craig

email this story
read comments (32)
post a comment

"There's one performance that hasn't been recognized by any movie critics group or awards organization despite being one of the year's most widely praised," writes Pop Machine's Mark Caro. "Where's the year-end love for Daniel Craig, a.k.a. Agent 007 in Casino Royale? Here's a guy who was widely dismissed and even ridiculed upon being cast in this iconic role, yet the consensus is he's the best James Bond since Sean Connery and perhaps the closest one to author Ian Fleming's original vision."

Three Amigos...at last<< previous | next >>African American criteria

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 22, 2006 at 9:04 AM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Owen Glieberman on EW.com just named Casino Royale his best film of the year.

Posted by Rich S. at December 22, 2006 9:13 AM

comment #2

Ian Sinclair says ...

For my money it was the year's best film too, a view shared by Owen Glieberman at Entertainment Weekly who made it his #1 of the year. At least Craig can console himself that he's now a bona fide full-blown movie star, which I define as someone men want to be and woman want to bed. We haven't had one of those in a long time.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at December 22, 2006 9:14 AM

comment #3

Ian Sinclair says ...

Wow. Just checked the RT score for CASINO ROYALE. It's at 95%. Only THE QUEEN has a better score (98%), while the hyped-to-death favorite for Best Picture DREAMGIRLS rates a comparatively pitiful 76%.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at December 22, 2006 9:22 AM

comment #4

Craig Kennedy says ...

Don't tell the delusional retards at www.danielcraigisnotbond.com

Posted by Craig Kennedy at December 22, 2006 9:43 AM

comment #5

Dixon Steele says ...

Craig was also great as the murderous Perry Smith in INFAMOUS, and I think if it had been released during the past month, he'd be a serious contender for a Best Supporting Oscar.

Because his excellent work in that movie is so different from Bond, the all-powerful Actors' Branch would've noted it. IMHO.

Posted by Dixon Steele at December 22, 2006 10:47 AM

comment #6

christian says ...

d.craig was great but his bond has about as much to do with ian fleming's character as woody allen. back to the books, blofeld!

Posted by christian at December 22, 2006 10:53 AM

comment #7

Craig Kennedy says ...

True Christian, but the Bond franchise gave up any connection other than lip service to the books before I was born (1969 for those keeping score at home).

I'm about to watch Layer Cake for the first time and I suppose I should check out Infamous as well.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at December 22, 2006 10:58 AM

comment #8

christian says ...

well, my beloved THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS captures the entire fleming short story in the opening assassination scene, including dialogue straight outta the story so i would say it's not just lip service there.

and i know there's not a lotta love for dalton, but he was the actor who most captured bond's moral ambiguity, modeling him on fleming's 007.

Posted by christian at December 22, 2006 11:13 AM

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

I liked Craig, up until they tried to make his character emotional. That felt forced. It's not that his performance was bad, but that the script was pretty horrible. His motivation for changing wasn't there like it was in the book.

Posted by D.Z. at December 22, 2006 11:21 AM

comment #10

Walter Sobchak says ...

Timothy Dalton lost me the minute he started crying in "Live Tomorrow After Dying Octogoldarm" or whatever the hell his first one was called. CRYING?! James Bond does not cry. Pussy.

Posted by Walter Sobchak at December 22, 2006 11:27 AM

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Walter: "Timothy Dalton lost me the minute he started crying in "Live Tomorrow After Dying Octogoldarm" or whatever the hell his first one was called."

http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=3942
^_-

Posted by D.Z. at December 22, 2006 11:31 AM

comment #12

Craig Kennedy says ...

I agree with you on Dalton, but it can't be a coincidence those were among the lowest grossing of the series. I don't think your mass audience cares for the book version of Bond too much.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at December 22, 2006 11:35 AM

comment #13

jse33 says ...

Craig hasn't been mentioned because his performance was in an action film. Rarely does the Academy even acknowledge the genre. Or Horror for that matter. Yeah, Johnny Depp got nominated for the first Pirates, but I think the Academy was just feeling saucy that year.

Posted by jse33 at December 22, 2006 2:38 PM

comment #14

donnyboy says ...

Casino Royale had one of the worst written second acts I've seen in movie in a very long time. That casino scene needed to be cut in 1/2.

Posted by donnyboy at December 22, 2006 4:01 PM

comment #15

Geoff says ...

Casino Royale was solid. It's the kind of thing I wanted during the summer time.

Posted by Geoff at December 22, 2006 4:11 PM

comment #16

T. S. Idiot says ...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Casino Royale achieves what it sets out to do better than any 2006 movie I've seen. Craig is outstanding.

Posted by T. S. Idiot at December 22, 2006 5:38 PM

comment #17

Thrudvangar says ...

Connery sucks so do the rest of the Bond players. Before the awesome Craig there was Cruise and Damon that were cool Bond's.

Posted by Thrudvangar at December 22, 2006 5:42 PM

comment #18

EveHarrington says ...

Here here! Daniel Craig for Best Actor!

Posted by EveHarrington at December 22, 2006 7:23 PM

comment #19

jeffmcm says ...

Cruise's Mission Impossible character a 'cool Bond'? That's pretty crazy. Tim Cruise doesn't even act in the MI movies as much as he's the world's most glorified stuntman.

Posted by jeffmcm at December 22, 2006 8:22 PM

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

Sorry, Tim Cruise is his doppelganger. I meant Tom.

Posted by jeffmcm at December 22, 2006 8:23 PM

comment #21

Argen says ...

I'm thinking there are far worse things to be in the world than Tom Cruise's doppelganger.

Posted by Argen at December 22, 2006 8:57 PM

comment #22

Rob says ...

Well, Craig is a superb actor, period. And the next time he does something Oscar bait-y, more voters will take notice. It took Casino Royale to jog my memory as to how many movies I've admired him in.

There are worse ways to while away a weekend than watching Enduring Love, Layer Cake, Sylvia, The Mother and Munich. Maybe throw Tomb Raider in there for a little levity.

Posted by Rob at December 22, 2006 9:27 PM

comment #23

Craptastic says ...

Sure, Craig was great. As good as Connery me thinks. But how about Sly? He was f-ing GREAT in Rocky Balboa. Best performance I've seen by an actor all year-- by far.

Posted by Craptastic at December 22, 2006 9:35 PM

comment #24

donnyboy says ...

ALL THIS HORSESHIT

ALL THE TIME

BERNARD ROSE

IVANS XTC

STOP WITH THE BULLSHIT MORONS

Posted by donnyboy at December 23, 2006 12:28 AM

comment #25

Hallick says ...

Daniel Craig's just the latest victim of awards season elitism that's too good for straightforward action movies and comedies (Little Miss Sunshine wouldn't be anywhere in the running if it weren't for the dark and sad parts). Basically, anything you can damn as a "popcorn flick", even though we'd all be in the shit if they ever stopped making (good) popcorn flicks, is DQ'd on sight; even when the same critics praised Craig's work to high heaven, he just doesn't do anything for the human condition like Will Smith's or Forrest Whittaker's characters supposedly do.

Posted by Hallick at December 23, 2006 4:15 AM

comment #26

christian says ...

i actually think the worldwide praise for CR is proof that returning to fleming's bond works wonders, it's just they substituted a forced romance for fleming's more believable and interesting take.

bond explicitly states he doesn't like to work with women in the novel and that little bit of sexism would have made his romantic conversion more powerful and blah blah blah.

if you can put that jet set spy within a semi-realistic frame that's what makes bond work. but will we see craig versus blofeld?

Posted by christian at December 23, 2006 11:22 AM

comment #27

christian says ...

and of course, OHMSS, the best fleming adaptation, was a hit too and it is now regarded as one of the best in the series. wikipedia refutes up one of the false legends nicely:

There is a persistent belief that this film was a poor performer at the box office, or even that it was an actual flop. This is not true; it was actually the second highest grossing film worldwide of 1969, being outgrossed only by the mega-hit film Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The film grossed $87,400,000 (USD worldwide), only $24 million less than Connery's previous offering. With inflation taken into account, the film outgrossed three of Roger Moore's Bond films as well as both of Timothy Dalton's films. It also outgrossed Connery's unofficial 1983 Bond film Never Say Never Again.

Posted by christian at December 23, 2006 11:29 AM

comment #28

atticusrex says ...

Thrudvangar: Dude you of course are allowed your opinions but I must take umbrage with you on the Connery snub. Sure Sir Connery has made a few dudes (everyone does) i.e. Cuba, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Medicine Man, The Avengers and maybe the worst Bond of all Never Say Never Again or is it the original Casino Royale?

Connery Is BOND. Also check out The Wind and the Lion, Robin and Marion and Man Who Would Be King plus he was one of the best things in DePalma's Untouchables.

Craig is the New Bond. No one can take the mantel from Connery but Craig is the best choice and performance in the role since Connery especially his first 4.

Posted by atticusrex at December 23, 2006 2:11 PM

comment #29

atticusrex says ...

donnyboy: WTF?

Posted by atticusrex at December 23, 2006 2:12 PM

comment #30

atticusrex says ...

It's kinda shame that the Academy's voters are so fickle when it comes to nominations and selecting winners.

The 'best' movies are not always in the running nor are the 'best' performances. Some times yes the voters get it right.

And what is right? Wow, that is so politically, monetarily, egotistical to know really know what's right.

I remember when the classic Miller's Crossing was snubbed or how about L.A. Confidential? (even though that was at least nominated). And don't get me started on the instant American Classic; The Shawshank Redemption.

At times they get it right as well. Jodie Foster for the Accused, not a great movie by any stretch but her performance was as 'real' as they come.

Craig was great as Bond, he's been great in everything he's done even playing Paul Newman's weak gangster son in Road to Perdition. But he will be ignored because well the role Bond is a trifle in these matters.

I want Scorsese to finally get his due and The Departed is one of his best efforts since Goodfellas but that said... I will have no problem if Clint Eastwood gets chummy with Oscar again. Who else put out two movies back to back that were filmed at the same time that have the gravatis, emotional pull and artistry of Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima? Sure Peter Jackson did an amazing job with the Rings all at once but they do not hold up as a 'best' picture to the Eastwood bookends.

Posted by atticusrex at December 23, 2006 2:26 PM

comment #31