Craig Is The New Bond

SL - James yes - but you and I are probably the only two on here who know who he is! Maybe the wrong side of 40 to get a run of films out of him though? And the Yanks would know who Damien was from Band Of Brothers...
 
Is he though? Tbh, I'm not sure how old he is Hunneyb, I'm guessing he's in his late thirties. I think he's great, have done ever since I saw him in some late-night drama on ITV some years back about a bunch of students who moved into a house together after they finished university. I forget what it was called but it wsa very good.
 
I've just looked up his filmography & he's 41, so you're probably right Hunneyb!

I see that he's playing Marcus Antonius in a TV mini-series called Rome - what channel is it on??? I really want to see it!!!!
 
I thought he was past 40 as he has been around a while - I know the series you mean but can't think what it was called. I think he was in a series with Peter Howitt about two brothers who took over some kind of business at a seaside - Peter was the 'rogue' brother......only lasted one series though. I think anyway - age is catching me up rapidly! :blink:
 
Rome will be on BBC and at over $100m is the most expensive series they've ever made. It was a 12 part seruies in co-production with HBO, where it has been running for six or seven weeks. It has had glowing reports and a second series has alrerady been commissioned. We'll be getting it on BBC2 soon.

It could never have been shown on network TV in the US, as it has its share of sex and violence. In one of the opening scenes a slave stands by and fans a couple while they have sex. Oh well, when in Rome...

I'm sure that the anti-licence brigade, who never watch BBC, will not care about missing this series...
 
SL did you catch the sensational new Elizabeth with Helen Mirren on C4 the other week - fantastic performance by Mirren - the film was based on the older Elizabeth rather than the young Elizabeth
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 17 2005, 02:52 PM
I'm sure that the anti-licence brigade, who never watch BBC, will not care about missing this series...
Click to expand...
Well I'm not anti-licence, and I sometimes watch the BBC (about 4 hours a week or so), but I won't care about missing this series.
 
Having seen many photos of D Craig this last week, I have to say I don't hold out too many hopes of him being a good Bond, in terms of looking the part. He's too much like Timothy Dalton. I think they made a big mistake not re-hiring Brosnan.
 
Daniel Craig is undoubtedly the best actor ever to have been given the role .I should wait and see before judging him .
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Oct 17 2005, 04:19 PM
Daniel Craig is undoubtedly the best actor ever to have been given the role .I should wait and see before judging him .
Click to expand...
I said "in terms of looking the part". He might well be able to act the pants off Brosnan but I reckon he looks too serious, in the same way Timothy Dalton did.

As for Brosnan pricing himself out of the market, I had read that too but I'm sure I also read subsequently he was prepared to negotiate.
 
There were negotiations. He was out, back in, then out again. Even present day block-buster budgets have limits it seems.

As for looking serious, they have said that they want to go back to portraying Bond as in the books, with gadgetry very much taking a back seat. So, as I remember Casino Royale, Le Chiffre captures Bond and has him tortured. The nature of the torture is that a naked Bond has to sit on a cane bottom chair from which the seat has benn removed and then has his genitals struck constantly from beneath with a carpet beater.

Perhaps that's why they felt they needed someone who looked serious...
 
A piece of 007 trivia - did you know that Peter "Swingometer" Snow auditione for the part of James Bond prior to the filming of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"?

There are some who say that he'd have made a better job of it than Big Fry man George Lazenby but I prefer my own little scenario:

"Well, Mr Snow, we don't see you as James Bond but we feel that you are eminently suitable for the very important rôle of "Q"...."
 
:D

Right, so which newsreaders/presenters should take up roles in the films?

How about:

Bond - Matthew Amraliwalah (totally unsure of the spelling)
M - Jeremy Bowen
Leading lady - Natasha Kaplinski
Q - Andrew Marr
Moneypenny - Jane (June?) Hill
Leading villain - the mental-looking weather guy
 
Ardross - surely you are not serious about Mirren's EI? I thought she was ghastly! A screechy, thin-voiced, posturing and petulant little madam. I didn't think she brought gravitas to a queenly part at all, merely pouting sulkiness and insane sexual jealousy coupled with a geriatric coquettishness more suited to fans of Barbara Cartland. Absolutely hideous!

I DID like the costumiers work, though, and the particularly graphic hang/draw/quarter session left little to the imagination. Some good buckling of swashes, but otherwise I felt it was rather shallow.
 
I am afraid that the stately gravitas is a historical overlay . Her capriciousness and her indulgence of Essex was brilliantly portrayed . Thought she was superb.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Oct 17 2005, 04:52 PM
Rome will be on BBC and at over $100m is the most expensive series they've ever made. It was a 12 part seruies in co-production with HBO, where it has been running for six or seven weeks. It has had glowing reports and a second series has alrerady been commissioned. We'll be getting it on BBC2 soon.

It could never have been shown on network TV in the US, as it has its share of sex and violence. In one of the opening scenes a slave stands by and fans a couple while they have sex. Oh well, when in Rome...
Click to expand...
Excellent - actually, I saw a trailer advertising the series on BBC1 last night. I'm looking forward very much to it too, it should be good.

Hunneyb - in looking up James Purefoy's filmography, I discovered the mini-series; it was called Metropolis.

Ardross/Krizon - I did see Elizabeth I on Channel 4 and I agree with Ardross; it was very well done. I'm afraid Kri, that Ardross is spot-on in that Elizabeth's behavour towards Essex was done very well and was historically correct. She behaved like a schoolgirl towards both of her favourites, Leicester included, but her behaviour became more erratic & yes, sulky, with inane sexual jealousy (this was a common denominator in both relationships) and coquettishness that was frankly embarassing to a lot of her advisors in particular. This most probably got worse with respect to Essex as Elizabeth loved being the centre of attention above and beyond any other and she was painfully aware that she was getting old. In her old age she got more desperate to retain this adulation (and her behaviour got more outlandish), particularly with respect to other women - she wanted to be the most attractive and desirable of them all and could not bear the thought of her favourites finding any other women desirable or sexually attractive.
 
Thanks SL.

Didn't watch E1 as can't watch anything with Jeremy Irons in it. Helen Mirren was so unconvincing in the Prime Suspects' I find her to watch as well.
 
I'm not disputing the REAL Queen's personality, people. I'm disputing that Helen Mirren was fabulous beyond critique in playing the part. Her addresses to 'her people' were screechy and, although not Mirren's fault, much of the dialogue was far too modern for today. I expected Leicester to come in and say "Hi, honey, I'm home" by the end of it all. Ardross, how on earth do you KNOW that stately gravitas is an 'historical overlay'? You're going to tell me now that it all started with Victoria, aren't you?
 
Back
Top