Truth nuke: Daniel Craig is the best Bond and Casino Royale is the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace and Skyfall are in the top 5 of Bond movies.
>Inb4 muh Dalton
He was in 2 mid movies, that's all
Truth nuke: Daniel Craig is the best Bond and Casino Royale is the best Bond movie.
The Beach (2000) is a better movie than all the ones you mentioned though. In fact it might just be the best movie ever made.
Fpwp
very cute kitty
would pet
Commit suicide for typing that out, even ironically or baiting.
Your opinion is wrong and backwards but I do like the cat
I used to hate Craig's take on Bond but I realized that it's just different strokes for different folks. I still hate Skyfall though for being so dreadfully self-important despite having a ridiculous Roger Moore Bond type plot.
Bond is not a different strokes kind of franchise. It's either Bond or it's not. Daniel Craig made 2000's thriller slop with the 007 logo on the poster so people gave a shit about it.
>Bond is not a different strokes kind of franchise
It is, unless you think Moonraker and GoldenEye are identical, but I'm not going to disagree that the Craig movies took the series in the wrong direction.
They have same beats and the Bond formula just with Moonraker having a third act in space. Don't see what's so different fundamentally speaking.
Craig's problem is that his Bond has little charm. Every other major Bond had charm, whether it was Connery, Moore, Dalton (maybe), or Brosnan. Bond classically speaking is a charming cold-hearted killer with a weird but existent code of ethics. Craig nailed all of that except the charming part. However, I can understand that not everybody cares as much about the charming part as I do, Or they feel that Craig is charming, whereas I do not.
Not maybe, Dalton had charm and probably the most class out of them all. He felt like the character of James Bond brought to flesh and blood from the books. He had an ethereal level of charm, class and a cultured ubermensch. He's the best Bond by far, just the unluckiest one although LTK is easily the best Bond movie and far more well written, dark and dramatic than anything Craig did.
Well, I should probably rewatch his movies then. It has been a long time.
>LTK is easily the best Bond movie
It's my favourite but I can't in good conscience call it the best when that absurd Hong Kong ninja scene brings the film to a grinding halt at the halfway point. Near perfect otherwise but the scene is so tonally at odds with the rest of the film and culturally braindead, it's a noticeable stain that I can't just ignore if I recommend it to others.
>Every other major Bond had charm, whether it was Connery, Moore, Dalton (maybe), or Brosnan
Yeah a massive part of the appeal of the Bond movies is that he's a suave gigachad.
This. The tone or style can change but if you don't adher to the character on a fundamental basis, the movies are garbage. He's a suave ubermensch who's tall, handsome with black and blue eyes and otherwordly charisma. Does that sound like Daniel Craig to you?
I think the handsome and charisma parts matter but the tall and blue eyes not so much. Bogart, Dean, and Brando were all 5'9" or under. And I doubt many people are paying attention to Bond's eye color. But he does have to be at least average-looking in terms of handsomeness (I wouldn't say Roger Moore was super handsome, but he was a good Bond) and he has to have the gigacharm and suaveness.
Bond needs to have dark hair, the eyes are a good addition but not the end all. The reason being is that it actually adds to his personality and bright blonde hair wearing a tuxedo is aesthetically nightmarish. Aesthetics are just as important as the crux of the storytelling and characterization. Cavill or Clive Owen would have been better Bonds. Watch Croupier, it's Clive's own audition for James Bond
Craig Bond doesn't have bright blonde hair, it's somewhat blonde but not bright. It's more that he's just not very handsome. If he had Connery level charisma it wouldn't matter as much but he doesn't. Not sure if because of him as an actor or because of the scripts that de-emphasized some typical Bond traits from the earlier movies.
For all I know, women are just as attracted to Craig Bond as to Connery Bond, but at the end of the day part of what makes the movies work is how much men are attracted to him in the "I want to be him" way. Craig Bond fails that both in that he does not look like a guy's idea of what a giga-attractive man looks like and he does not display a lot of charm.
His whole era is a huge nothingburger that has left the brand and character in disarray and matching towards irrelevance for good. The generation that grew up with him doesn't really care or find him much of an ideal because of the reasons you stated. Different thing with Brosnan and Millenials who for them, Brosnan was the apex male and an otherworldly figure. That's what Bond should be, I agree.
To be fair, the nomad temple that is a drug center can be called ridiculous. I understand it was in a bit bad taste but nothing that I'd say ruins the film. The rest is so fantastically good I don't think it ruins it for me one bit. Easily the best Bond performance in a movie and best Bond villain and absolutely S+ tier girls and pace and writing. It really was so ahead of it's time it's mind-blowing. Boomers didn't deserve such kino. Although I found the Hong Kong narcotics agent guy very kino, I can understand why it may have rubbed you the wrong way. If not LTK, what would you recommend as the best alternatively?
>what would you recommend as the best alternatively
In terms of being a well-constructed film, From Russia With Love or GoldenEye. Casino Royale is a great film, only Craig Bond film I like, but I do think it would mislead a viewer looking to get into the broader franchise as to what Bond films were like for most of their history. I personally love OHMSS as well, Telly Savalas's Blofeld is the best villain in the franchise, but I'm aware Lazenby isn't a very good actor.
>From Russia With Love or GoldenEye.
Patrician taste
women find charming men threatening now
Do they? I find that hard to believe, but granted, I'm a 40 year old boomer. Maybe some highly online women on Twitter do find Bond-type men threatening. But I doubt that women in general will ever find Bond-type men to be distasteful.
I'm the one who keeps posting the Dalton threads because he's the best Bond , and though I wouldn't call it the best of the series I do think Casino Royale is a very good film. That being said, I don't think this post is sincere because Quantum of Solace is one of the few films I'd say is *objectively* bad, in that it's incomplete due to the writers strike, it is genuinely missing essential scenes, it is not fully constructed.
I get you have to put the cat picture all the time cause youre autistic or something, but cant you at least make a good post to go along with it?
Bond should credibly be able to beat up a couple guys at once and kill people for the state, which Craig can do. But he should also be educated and capable of beating you in a battle of wits. When Dalton spouts off an autistic fact about history or culture, it's because he's James Bond. When Craig does it, it's because that's what's in the script
Based and succinct take. Brosnan had that good mix as shown in his movies but Dalton is the creme de la creme if you're a Bond purist, only actor to make Sean Connery seem inferior.
Craig is a brute. No sex appeal, no nothing. Just a bully with a freakish face
This. The appeal and reason JB is the cultural behemoth he is is that he's the male ideal and someone everyone wants to be like. Who the hell looks at Daniel Craig and wants to BE him? No one but dishonest morons. You look at Dalton, Brosnan and Connery and you want to be them so badly it drives you nuts. That's the whole appeal, the absolute male ideal that inspires you.
I don't want to be them because my ideal is to be a solo alpha male, not to be some government assassin. But in every other regard yeah, I want to be them.
nice try daniel