Casino Royale

[FormerBondFan]

BB and ST didn't have much negative press before release.

[Jake]

6 out of 10. To quote from my review;

www.alternative007.co.uk/85.htm

The major problem with Casino Royale for this James Bond nerd was the casting of 38 year-old Daniel Craig as the 'young' Bond. At times, the actor doesn't even look 38 in the film let alone 28. This contradiction was something that bugged me. Yes, they changed Bond's age to fit in with the casting on the official website and so on, but I was still left with an impression of that in this one Bond is a young whippersnapper on his first mission despite the fact that the actor playing him looks ancient compared to the other Bond actors in their first film!

The humourless script, riding roughshod over the history established in the series, sucked a lot of the fun out of a series of films I've always loved for their charm, panache and escapism. I don't mind a more grounded film but I feel that if you take it too seriously you miss the whole point of a James Bond film. Part of this is tied into Daniel Craig. He deserves credit for taking the role seriously and obviously put a lot into the film, but his anguished acting style made the film harder work for me than it should have been. Most of us were agreed that he was the 'strong cheese' option in 2006 and he still is in my opinion. Like many Bond films, Casino Royale is also a bit too long.

One of the first meetings between Bond and Vesper is atrocious. A cack-handed scene on a train where they try to analyze each other in a game of one-upmanship. Daniel Craig is much better at the action than scenes where he has to display a lightness of touch. Your reaction to Casino Royale depends very much on your reaction to Daniel Craig. For me personally, the whole charm of the James Bond series was in the sophisticated handsome devil hero, a unique counter-point to the everyman heroes in vests and dirty shirts found in other films. This is lost with Daniel Craig and I found it disappointing that Eon could not have 'grounded' the series with a younger actor who looked more like James Bond. If Craig's wrinkly mug represents Ian Fleming's James Bond then either the world has gone mad or I have. He falls short in projecting the urbane, refined qualities I always presumed were supposed to be part of the point - and fun - of James Bond.

The other thing that I wasn't really thrilled about was the whole 'pretend this is the first time you've ever met James Bond' aspect to the film. It sounded fun at first, the thought of finding out how specific tastes and talents became a part of his character. In the film it soon became slightly flimsy. Am I really meant to believe that a 38 year-old James Bond has to be taught about dinner-jackets by Vesper Lynd? He did go to Public School and Oxford, right?

The decision not to use the Bond theme, like the absence of Q and Moneypenny, I can understand, but it does all serve to make Casino Royale a strange experience. Some people like the changes but it all left me rather cold. I admire the attempt to throw the formula up in the air but I wasn't too convinced that it landed in the right place.

[James]

I'm looking forward to the Quantum of Solace voting already.

[Alec 006]

Dec 11, 2009 14:40:05 GMT -5 James said:

I'm looking forward to the Quantum of Solace voting already.

Hi!

Me too! I plan on giving 'Quantum Of Solace' a 10!

Ummm... -10, that is!!!

What a complete abomination that flick was. It makes 'Casino Royale' look like 'Goldfinger'. Never saw it in the theater, the DVD was a gift, and I STILL want my money back!

'Young Skywalker' will probably only let the scale go down to '0'...but a disappointed Bond fan can dream, can't he?

Take Care!

[Alec 006]

Dec 8, 2009 14:06:03 GMT -5 Jake said:

6 out of 10. To quote from my review;

www.alternative007.co.uk/85.htm

The major problem with Casino Royale for this James Bond nerd was the casting of 38 year-old Daniel Craig as the 'young' Bond. At times, the actor doesn't even look 38 in the film let alone 28. This contradiction was something that bugged me. Yes, they changed Bond's age to fit in with the casting on the official website and so on, but I was still left with an impression of that in this one Bond is a young whippersnapper on his first mission despite the fact that the actor playing him looks ancient compared to the other Bond actors in their first film!

The other thing that I wasn't really thrilled about was the whole 'pretend this is the first time you've ever met James Bond' aspect to the film. It sounded fun at first, the thought of finding out how specific tastes and talents became a part of his character. In the film it soon became slightly flimsy. Am I really meant to believe that a 38 year-old James Bond has to be taught about dinner-jackets by Vesper Lynd? He did go to Public School and Oxford, right?

The decision not to use the Bond theme, like the absence of Q and Moneypenny, I can understand, but it does all serve to make Casino Royale a strange experience. Some people like the changes but it all left me rather cold. I admire the attempt to throw the formula up in the air but I wasn't too convinced that it landed in the right place.

Hi!

Jake...that is one splendid and killer review. You're brutally honest, and your feelings about the film are backed up with very intelligent, articulate, and valid points.

Your 'Casino Royale' review could've won a Pulitzer Prize! Great Job!

Take Care!

[Bond 77]

Dec 11, 2009 21:58:49 GMT -5 Alec 006 said:

Dec 8, 2009 14:06:03 GMT -5 Jake said:

6 out of 10. To quote from my review;

www.alternative007.co.uk/85.htm

The major problem with Casino Royale for this James Bond nerd was the casting of 38 year-old Daniel Craig as the 'young' Bond. At times, the actor doesn't even look 38 in the film let alone 28. This contradiction was something that bugged me. Yes, they changed Bond's age to fit in with the casting on the official website and so on, but I was still left with an impression of that in this one Bond is a young whippersnapper on his first mission despite the fact that the actor playing him looks ancient compared to the other Bond actors in their first film!

The other thing that I wasn't really thrilled about was the whole 'pretend this is the first time you've ever met James Bond' aspect to the film. It sounded fun at first, the thought of finding out how specific tastes and talents became a part of his character. In the film it soon became slightly flimsy. Am I really meant to believe that a 38 year-old James Bond has to be taught about dinner-jackets by Vesper Lynd? He did go to Public School and Oxford, right?

The decision not to use the Bond theme, like the absence of Q and Moneypenny, I can understand, but it does all serve to make Casino Royale a strange experience. Some people like the changes but it all left me rather cold. I admire the attempt to throw the formula up in the air but I wasn't too convinced that it landed in the right place.

Hi!

Jake...that is one splendid and killer review. You're brutally honest, and your feelings about the film are backed up with very intelligent, articulate, and valid points.

Your 'Casino Royale' review could've won a Pulitzer Prize! Great Job!

Take Care!

It was the articles from people like you, Jake, Brandon, etc. that attracted me to this site in the first place. Good work. Very fun. I've enjoyed many of the contributors to the forum as well.



As far as the poll for Quantum of Solace goes, I do think negative numbers are going to be necessary. I decided to give Casino Royale a "2", and its sequel is worse. Thus, I'm considering giving it a "-1" if Skywalker makes it possible.

[skywalker]

Sorry guys, but no negative numbers regardless of how tempting. A '0' is the ultimate insult as it constitutes 0 out of 10 or more significantly 0%.

[jetsetwilly]

Many of you already here probably already know my opinion on CR, but to those who don't.

When it first came out in 2006 I fell in love with it. From the moment the b&w PTS came on, to the infamous `Bond, James Bond' at the end, I was, quite literally, blown away.

To me it had everything I ever wanted from a Bond movie, and corrected all the faults I felt had crept in that ruined previous Bond films. Gone were the silly one-liners, OTT gadgets, silly humour, too much action. In it's place we had gritty, bloody, serious, down-to-earth, long scenes of tension, we even had brutality and nasty torture. This was the Fleming I had read about, but never really seen on screen until now.

Too many plus points to mention - the retro credits sequence, accompanied by arguably the greatest song ever in the franchise, Craig hesitating before making his crane jump, the ruthless, self determined way he throws the bomber through the window then shoots him later, the dirty, bloody mess he looks afterwards. The Madagascar set piece is perfectly shot as an action sequence (note to Forster - this is how you do a Bond action sequence. Not a wobbly cam or a scissor-happy edit in sight).

Then Bond's journey in the Bahamas, onto a second action set piece at Miami airport, and the smile on his face as the bomber comes a cropper. Brilliant! At this moment in the movie I kept thinking to myself, `This is brilliant. EON, please don't scew up the rest of the film now' (something they have been renowned for doing in other Bond flicks).

Part two is where the film really comes into its own, as it then follows remarkably closely the original Fleming novel. It was great to suddenly see the pace of a Bond film slow down this much (probably the first time since Lazenby paraded in his kilt in OHMSS). The poisoning scene was one of the true highlights of the film, along with the stairwell fight. Seeing Bond tear off his bloody shirt, stare himself in the mirror then down a glass of bourbon. This is the Bond I had only read about in the Fleming books.

When Bond is captured after the breathtaking Aston car crash, I had that same nervous, crawling-in-the-pit-of-my-stomach feeling that used to occur when reading the novels. And seeing Bond stripped naked to a chair and (for the first time) showing fear. Genuine fear. Wow!

The torture scene obviously had to throw some dark humour in there, otherwise the film would have been turned into a cert 18. This I understood, and didn't feel it ruined the gruesome torture experience at all.

Then we see *shock horor* Bond recovering in hospital after the ordeal. Again this echoed the Fleming novels, and it was something we had never seen until now (if you ignore the Carry On hospital sketch seen in DAD).

The following Venice love scenes is where Arnold finally triumphs. Throughout the film there are great moments from him (Bond driving the Mondeo, the opening train sequence when Bond meets Vesper, when Bond tries on his dinner jacket, etc.) but only here is when Arnold truly excels. The sweeping, majestic score sounds like it could only have come from one man - John Barry. This is what I want to hear from a Bond score, and Arnold is the only man who can sound like John Barry, at the top of his game. The City of Lovers track is reminiscent of Somehwere in Time, Hanover Street and Out of Africa - all favourites of mine. We haven't heard a beautiful score like this since MR, and before that OHMSS.

The sinking Venice house is probably the least engaging moment in the movie, but I'm grateful we had this instead of a villain's volcano lair being blown up, with men is different coloured boiler suits battling it out, in 2 different colours so we know which is which.

Then the finale, with an anguished Craig distraught over trying to save the woman he loves. I thought OHMSS would be the only time we would see such a downbeat moment towards the end of a Bond film. Luckily it wasn't.

Which leads me to Craig himself. What more can you say that hasn't been said already. The man has caused endless debates on forums like this. He isn't dark haired, traditional handsome, suave or sophisticated looking. He resembles none of the previous Bond actors, and doesn't even really tally up to Fleming's description either. So why does it work with him in the role?

First, it's the eyes. I noticed them in Layer Cake before it was officially announced he would be the next Bond. There is something Fleming Bond about the eyes. The icy cold blue look they have. They look like eyes that could kill. And I recognised this when first viewing him in Layer Cake.

The Steve McQueen cool presence he has. This became more apparent in Munich. And he beefed out a tad more. By the time we saw him in skimpy trunks in the newspapers, on location in the Bahamas, I started to become convinced. He looked physically imposing, someone you wouldn't want to mess with. Even Conneryesque in a blonde sort of way.

And so how is he in the film itself. Well, he was one the main reasons why the film scored so highly with many of the reviews and critics. Craig is the reason why the film is a success. Sure, the script is near perfect, Campbell surpasses the work he did on GE, and Arnold turns in his best score to date, but Craig bulldozes his way throughout the movie. We are with him every step of the way. He makes mistakes, he shows fear, he cries out in pain, he bleeds, he gets angry - and he pulls it off in the most convincing way, that no other actor portraying Bond has ever done so before.

Finally to his looks. In the novel, TSWLM, when Viv Michel finally lands her eyes on Bond, she immediately thinks he is another villain. When the Russian General in SMERSH first studies a photo of Bond, he thinks to himself `nasty looking customer'.

The Bond of the novels was always described as good-looking but in a cruel kind of way. I never really truly understood that definition until Craig came along. Now I knew what Fleming was talking about when describing Bond. Craig IS Fleming's Bond. It's just a shame he is not around to see it. I'm sure he would have been proud to see his first ever novel finally represented honourably on screen over 50-odd years later.

Bond doesn't come any better than this (which QoS sadly proved, 2 years later)

10/10

[chuck007]

Feb 2, 2010 0:43:27 GMT -5 jetsetwilly said:

Many of you already here probably already know my opinion on CR, but to those who don't.

When it first came out in 2006 I fell in love with it. From the moment the b&w PTS came on, to the infamous `Bond, James Bond' at the end, I was, quite literally, blown away.

To me it had everything I ever wanted from a Bond movie, and corrected all the faults I felt had crept in that ruined previous Bond films. Gone were the silly one-liners, OTT gadgets, silly humour, too much action. In it's place we had gritty, bloody, serious, down-to-earth, long scenes of tension, we even had brutality and nasty torture. This was the Fleming I had read about, but never really seen on screen until now.

Too many plus points to mention - the retro credits sequence, accompanied by arguably the greatest song ever in the franchise, Craig hesitating before making his crane jump, the ruthless, self determined way he throws the bomber through the window then shoots him later, the dirty, bloody mess he looks afterwards. The Madagascar set piece is perfectly shot as an action sequence (note to Forster - this is how you do a Bond action sequence. Not a wobbly cam or a scissor-happy edit in sight).

Then Bond's journey in the Bahamas, onto a second action set piece at Miami airport, and the smile on his face as the bomber comes a cropper. Brilliant! At this moment in the movie I kept thinking to myself, `This is brilliant. EON, please don't scew up the rest of the film now' (something they have been renowned for doing in other Bond flicks).

Part two is where the film really comes into its own, as it then follows remarkably closely the original Fleming novel. It was great to suddenly see the pace of a Bond film slow down this much (probably the first time since Lazenby paraded in his kilt in OHMSS). The poisoning scene was one of the true highlights of the film, along with the stairwell fight. Seeing Bond tear off his bloody shirt, stare himself in the mirror then down a glass of bourbon. This is the Bond I had only read about in the Fleming books.

When Bond is captured after the breathtaking Aston car crash, I had that same nervous, crawling-in-the-pit-of-my-stomach feeling that used to occur when reading the novels. And seeing Bond stripped naked to a chair and (for the first time) showing fear. Genuine fear. Wow!

The torture scene obviously had to throw some dark humour in there, otherwise the film would have been turned into a cert 18. This I understood, and didn't feel it ruined the gruesome torture experience at all.

Then we see *shock horor* Bond recovering in hospital after the ordeal. Again this echoed the Fleming novels, and it was something we had never seen until now (if you ignore the Carry On hospital sketch seen in DAD).

The following Venice love scenes is where Arnold finally triumphs. Throughout the film there are great moments from him (Bond driving the Mondeo, the opening train sequence when Bond meets Vesper, when Bond tries on his dinner jacket, etc.) but only here is when Arnold truly excels. The sweeping, majestic score sounds like it could only have come from one man - John Barry. This is what I want to hear from a Bond score, and Arnold is the only man who can sound like John Barry, at the top of his game. The City of Lovers track is reminiscent of Somehwere in Time, Hanover Street and Out of Africa - all favourites of mine. We haven't heard a beautiful score like this since MR, and before that OHMSS.

The sinking Venice house is probably the least engaging moment in the movie, but I'm grateful we had this instead of a villain's volcano lair being blown up, with men is different coloured boiler suits battling it out, in 2 different colours so we know which is which.

Then the finale, with an anguished Craig distraught over trying to save the woman he loves. I thought OHMSS would be the only time we would see such a downbeat moment towards the end of a Bond film. Luckily it wasn't.

Which leads me to Craig himself. What more can you say that hasn't been said already. The man has caused endless debates on forums like this. He isn't dark haired, traditional handsome, suave or sophisticated looking. He resembles none of the previous Bond actors, and doesn't even really tally up to Fleming's description either. So why does it work with him in the role?

First, it's the eyes. I noticed them in Layer Cake before it was officially announced he would be the next Bond. There is something Fleming Bond about the eyes. The icy cold blue look they have. They look like eyes that could kill. And I recognised this when first viewing him in Layer Cake.

The Steve McQueen cool presence he has. This became more apparent in Munich. And he beefed out a tad more. By the time we saw him in skimpy trunks in the newspapers, on location in the Bahamas, I started to become convinced. He looked physically imposing, someone you wouldn't want to mess with. Even Conneryesque in a blonde sort of way.

And so how is he in the film itself. Well, he was one the main reasons why the film scored so highly with many of the reviews and critics. Craig is the reason why the film is a success. Sure, the script is near perfect, Campbell surpasses the work he did on GE, and Arnold turns in his best score to date, but Craig bulldozes his way throughout the movie. We are with him every step of the way. He makes mistakes, he shows fear, he cries out in pain, he bleeds, he gets angry - and he pulls it off in the most convincing way, that no other actor portraying Bond has ever done so before.

Finally to his looks. In the novel, TSWLM, when Viv Michel finally lands her eyes on Bond, she immediately thinks he is another villain. When the Russian General in SMERSH first studies a photo of Bond, he thinks to himself `nasty looking customer'.

The Bond of the novels was always described as good-looking but in a cruel kind of way. I never really truly understood that definition until Craig came along. Now I knew what Fleming was talking about when describing Bond. Craig IS Fleming's Bond. It's just a shame he is not around to see it. I'm sure he would have been proud to see his first ever novel finally represented honourably on screen over 50-odd years later.

Bond doesn't come any better than this (which QoS sadly proved, 2 years later)

10/10

one of the best reviews i ever read

[jetsetwilly]

Feb 2, 2010 4:51:40 GMT -5 chuck007 said:

one of the best reviews i ever read

Cheers man!

[adam]

Must admit I did'nt notice and can't remember the music during CR. I remember the theme song (unfortunatly) which got poor reviews at the time.

Still amazes me that people think CR is some sort of original masterpiece that saved the franchise. Most people I know don't hate it, but think it's an average low budget action thriller.

For me there is nothing I had'nt seen before -

Origin story (supposedly): Already seen in Spiderman, Superman & Batman.

Bond falling in love: Happened in OHMSS.

Bond losing the love of his life: Happened in OHMSS.

Bond getting tortured: Happened in DAD.

Bond running around a building site: Seen in most Jackie Chan films.

Bond running around an airport and jumping on trucks: Seen in most Chuck Norris films as well as LTK.

Bond playing cards: All Bonds have played cards.

Some of the film in black and white: Seen in many films before.

Not having 'Q' in the film: He did not appear in LALD either.

Witty banter on the train: Bond has witty banter with all his leading ladies.

Bond having a fist fight: All Bonds have had em. My fav being Rog's in M.

Bond bleeding: Not happened before but Brosnan was pretty bruised in TND & broke an arm in TWINE.

A new tough Bond: All Bonds have played it tough. Even Moore hit Maud Adams in TMWTGG.

Bond in swimming trunks: Seen in Dr No.


One thing that was original was Mr Craig as Bond. Love him or hate him, he is totally different to previous Bonds & the first Bond who actually looked like he did bodybuilding. Probably to compensate for a lack of height. English and at 38 the right age to become Bond. A good but unspectacular actor. His monotone voice did not help matters .However he tried hard and like all good Bonds, leaped around like he meant business. Most people I know, men and women do not find him handsome. However he's won awards for sexiest man alive etc.

[alvin]

Feb 2, 2010 0:43:27 GMT -5 jetsetwilly said:

Many of you already here probably already know my opinion on CR, but to those who don't.

When it first came out in 2006 I fell in love with it. From the moment the b&w PTS came on, to the infamous `Bond, James Bond' at the end, I was, quite literally, blown away.

To me it had everything I ever wanted from a Bond movie, and corrected all the faults I felt had crept in that ruined previous Bond films. Gone were the silly one-liners, OTT gadgets, silly humour, too much action. In it's place we had gritty, bloody, serious, down-to-earth, long scenes of tension, we even had brutality and nasty torture. This was the Fleming I had read about, but never really seen on screen until now.

Too many plus points to mention - the retro credits sequence, accompanied by arguably the greatest song ever in the franchise, Craig hesitating before making his crane jump, the ruthless, self determined way he throws the bomber through the window then shoots him later, the dirty, bloody mess he looks afterwards. The Madagascar set piece is perfectly shot as an action sequence (note to Forster - this is how you do a Bond action sequence. Not a wobbly cam or a scissor-happy edit in sight).

Then Bond's journey in the Bahamas, onto a second action set piece at Miami airport, and the smile on his face as the bomber comes a cropper. Brilliant! At this moment in the movie I kept thinking to myself, `This is brilliant. EON, please don't scew up the rest of the film now' (something they have been renowned for doing in other Bond flicks).

Part two is where the film really comes into its own, as it then follows remarkably closely the original Fleming novel. It was great to suddenly see the pace of a Bond film slow down this much (probably the first time since Lazenby paraded in his kilt in OHMSS). The poisoning scene was one of the true highlights of the film, along with the stairwell fight. Seeing Bond tear off his bloody shirt, stare himself in the mirror then down a glass of bourbon. This is the Bond I had only read about in the Fleming books.

When Bond is captured after the breathtaking Aston car crash, I had that same nervous, crawling-in-the-pit-of-my-stomach feeling that used to occur when reading the novels. And seeing Bond stripped naked to a chair and (for the first time) showing fear. Genuine fear. Wow!

The torture scene obviously had to throw some dark humour in there, otherwise the film would have been turned into a cert 18. This I understood, and didn't feel it ruined the gruesome torture experience at all.

Then we see *shock horor* Bond recovering in hospital after the ordeal. Again this echoed the Fleming novels, and it was something we had never seen until now (if you ignore the Carry On hospital sketch seen in DAD).

The following Venice love scenes is where Arnold finally triumphs. Throughout the film there are great moments from him (Bond driving the Mondeo, the opening train sequence when Bond meets Vesper, when Bond tries on his dinner jacket, etc.) but only here is when Arnold truly excels. The sweeping, majestic score sounds like it could only have come from one man - John Barry. This is what I want to hear from a Bond score, and Arnold is the only man who can sound like John Barry, at the top of his game. The City of Lovers track is reminiscent of Somehwere in Time, Hanover Street and Out of Africa - all favourites of mine. We haven't heard a beautiful score like this since MR, and before that OHMSS.

The sinking Venice house is probably the least engaging moment in the movie, but I'm grateful we had this instead of a villain's volcano lair being blown up, with men is different coloured boiler suits battling it out, in 2 different colours so we know which is which.

Then the finale, with an anguished Craig distraught over trying to save the woman he loves. I thought OHMSS would be the only time we would see such a downbeat moment towards the end of a Bond film. Luckily it wasn't.

Which leads me to Craig himself. What more can you say that hasn't been said already. The man has caused endless debates on forums like this. He isn't dark haired, traditional handsome, suave or sophisticated looking. He resembles none of the previous Bond actors, and doesn't even really tally up to Fleming's description either. So why does it work with him in the role?

First, it's the eyes. I noticed them in Layer Cake before it was officially announced he would be the next Bond. There is something Fleming Bond about the eyes. The icy cold blue look they have. They look like eyes that could kill. And I recognised this when first viewing him in Layer Cake.

The Steve McQueen cool presence he has. This became more apparent in Munich. And he beefed out a tad more. By the time we saw him in skimpy trunks in the newspapers, on location in the Bahamas, I started to become convinced. He looked physically imposing, someone you wouldn't want to mess with. Even Conneryesque in a blonde sort of way.

And so how is he in the film itself. Well, he was one the main reasons why the film scored so highly with many of the reviews and critics. Craig is the reason why the film is a success. Sure, the script is near perfect, Campbell surpasses the work he did on GE, and Arnold turns in his best score to date, but Craig bulldozes his way throughout the movie. We are with him every step of the way. He makes mistakes, he shows fear, he cries out in pain, he bleeds, he gets angry - and he pulls it off in the most convincing way, that no other actor portraying Bond has ever done so before.

Finally to his looks. In the novel, TSWLM, when Viv Michel finally lands her eyes on Bond, she immediately thinks he is another villain. When the Russian General in SMERSH first studies a photo of Bond, he thinks to himself `nasty looking customer'.

The Bond of the novels was always described as good-looking but in a cruel kind of way. I never really truly understood that definition until Craig came along. Now I knew what Fleming was talking about when describing Bond. Craig IS Fleming's Bond. It's just a shame he is not around to see it. I'm sure he would have been proud to see his first ever novel finally represented honourably on screen over 50-odd years later.

Bond doesn't come any better than this (which QoS sadly proved, 2 years later)

10/10

This is incredible. I was excited to read your review. CR is truly a masterpiece. It's like Daniel Craig turned Bond into masterpiece theater. But what's also great about your review is that it shows that this is all catching on with Daniel Craig and the reboot, and there are lots more men out there like you and me. I'm sort of trembling right now just talking about this. What I mean is, I can tell that Daniel Craig has also changed your life as he's changed mine. He's allowed me to get in touch with my inner feelings and I think a lot of men are going through the same thing. I was deeply moved when you mentioned: "He makes mistakes, he shows fear, he cries out in pain, he bleeds, he gets angry." This is so unbelievable, you're also in touch with your inner feminine side and you're not afraid to show it.

On my college campus, all my classmates are totally into Daniel and the style of his Bond movies, and we're talking about a largely liberal crowd. Progressive is actually a better term. They're gays, feminists, students of deconstruction literary theory, and they like how the new Bond films are geared for everyone, no segment of society is left out, even gays are included because Daniel's Bond is gay-friendly in that metrosexual style. I mean, that part you mentioned about being in skimpy swimming trunks takes us into the essence of this new Bond. I really like you described that: "By the time we saw him in skimpy trunks in the newspapers, on location in the Bahamas, I started to become convinced. He looked physically imposing, someone you wouldn't want to mess with." You know that's how all my progressive friends reacted too. It caught on to me, and that's how I feel about Daniel's Bond. Daniel has fused his Bond with the masculine and the feminine into one true identity. I can tell you, Daniel is really big with the gays and the feminists here, and that's how they also see him.

I really believe Barbara Broccoli understood the new generation of moviegoers, so that's why she went into this direction for the reboot. This is a big phenomenon we're experiencing with Daniel Craig.

[alvin]

This is one of the cool interviews with Daniel Craig that sort of ties in with that review above. It shows the modern progressive approach that Barbara and Daniel have done with the series. No moviegoer is left out now, Bond is for everyone, and so there's social justice here. My classmates were excited to read this when it came out before QOS was released.

source: www.digitaljournal.com/article/253049

The Name's Bond, Gay Bond: Daniel Craig Open to a Bisexual 007
Apr 11, 2008
by David Silverberg -

James Bond might not be such a vanilla womanizer in the future, if actor Daniel Craig has his way. The British star admitted a bi-Bond wouldn’t faze the character’s fans, especially since the Bond films have attracted a gay following, he said.

Digital Journal — In an interview with the U.K.’s Daily Star, Craig said he’d like to see Hollywood “modernize” 007 by letting him bat for both sides. When asked whether he thought the infamous lady’s man should go bisexual, Craig replied, “Why not? I think in this day and age fans would have accepted it. No one blinks an eye.”

Craig, 40, attracted a gay following when he appeared in the first Bond flick, Casino Royale, the Daily Star wrote. The actor recounts how he was recently mobbed by zealous fans while shooting his most recent Bond film, Quantum of Solace. ““I was out recently and all these gay guys were over me like a rash. But for some reason they never ask about the Bond plot!”

This isn’t the first time Craig has caused the queer community to ask, “Is he gay or gay-friendly?” In the film Infamous, Craig plays convicted killer Perry Smith in the recreation of Truman Capote’s emotional journey while writing In Cold Blood. One scene features Craig kissing actor Toby Jones, who plays Capote.

A survey earlier this year found that Craig topped the list of British actors gay men most wanted to date. Craig beat out other studs such as Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor.

In QOS, they started to apply some of this stuff. I mean, you got those gay villains like Dominic Greene and his henchman. And Daniel's Bond was sort of not interested in women. But I like this interview because of what Daniel mentioned about being "modern." That's so cool, because it's progressive. I'll admit that I'm kind of uncomfortable with a gay James Bond, but my classmates and my professors said that you got to step back and look at the big picture. This is not so much about having a gay or bi-sexual Bond, but a way of leveling the playing field and making sure that Bond is for everyone. When you look at it that way, it becomes a deeply moving experience about human solidarity.

[alex]

They were lucky to have a Fleming story to crib from. If QoS had been the first film of the reboot Eon would have been in very big trouble as the reviews were shocking.

[sandeep]

I have searched long time for the review by "jetsetwilly". It is above, Feb 2 2010. I have seen it long ago but could not remember correct forum. It is here! Glad it is here. I want to commend author for his honesty, for his unabashed revealation. You see I am volunteer in counseling at community center. Many of people I help, they are struggling with gender identity, of sexual orientation, and they feel systemic oppressions. Sometimes for levity, we talk about movie characters. In case of Daniel Craig as Bond, I can see big support how he shape character into modern style hero and how even put moment in Skyfall he is admitting inner self as gay man. That has been inspirational for people I help. I have taken liberty and share with them this review of Casino Royale. It is excellent example of layman perspective of queer theory in literary criticism. Poster has called into question what is normal and has shown us his awakening passion for Craig: "[Daniel as Bond] in skimpy trunks in the newspapers, on location in the Bahamas, I started to become convinced. He looked physically imposing, someone you wouldn't want to mess with.” There is like awed fascination and attraction he has for Daniel. These are powerful words. He challenges straight ideology as he is revealing his true self. I thank this poster again for the sharing of insights.