|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Aug 24, 2007 0:54:15 GMT
Have we seen this pic before? (I haven't): never-evil.livejournal.com/52701.html(sorry, I can't figure out how to copy it here. Uuuuuuuke!!!!!) Scroll down about halfway. And he has fluffy hair!  |
|
|
|
Post by etherealtb on Aug 24, 2007 1:04:45 GMT
 . James Pure sexfoy looks so YOUNG too! |
|
|
|
Post by ukelelehip on Aug 24, 2007 1:08:22 GMT
I've seen it before. An oldie but a goodie. One of the Brit thesp issues of ES Mag?  |
|
|
|
Post by catdishy on Sept 2, 2007 21:22:12 GMT
Oh. so cool....Daniel Craig is a fine actor, but I still think PUrefoy or Roof would have been great Bonds!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Sept 2, 2007 21:43:09 GMT
do you? I think Rufus is much too gifted and delicate (at least when he's performing) and I think Purefoy is much too cocky and arrogant. In fact I quite like Daniel Craig much to my surprise. For me, he's the best Bond since Sean Connery. I find he's made me interested in seeing the films again. From what I've gleaned I'm not the only person who feels that way, in fact he's a particular favorite of women who have flocked back to the franchise in droves. It's seem Barbara Broccoli is a very clever woman.  |
|
|
|
Post by catdishy on Sept 2, 2007 22:20:30 GMT
Well, I've got nothing against cocky and arrogant , unless that's all there is. The great thing about Rufus' characters is how multidimensional he makes them...there's a man there underneath that steely Adhemar, that megalomanic Agamemnon, that chilled out Ian...I adored Connery and Craig is watchable, but lacks the complexity I like in my men of action...men like Jet LI!
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Sept 2, 2007 23:18:58 GMT
Um, I think Craig is the most multi-dimensional Bond there has yet been. He has some spectacular scenes of depth and emotion in CR-something you would have never seen before this incarnation. Bond is a blunt instrument as M says. In the books at least, he was very little else. Any depth comes from the actors who play the role and Daniel Craig is shaping up to give Bond a little life beyond his guns.
Try some of Daniel Craig's other films. He's a very capable actor and he's done some good work. He did a terrific little picture called The Mother where you can really see his acting chops.
He's not in Rufus' league but very few are. Rufus' is a brilliant actor but I could never see the brutality and indifference in him that are part of who Bond is. Even in Charles, you feel the compassion oozing from him as he does what he has to keep his country together. He doesn't like it but he understands it must be done. Bond doesn't care. He's completely indifferent. Who he kills and how badly they die means nothing to him and never give him a moment of lost sleep.
Rufus has a fragility and delicacy in his approach to his roles that is like fine crystal--tough but nevertheless breakable. He's much too emotionally raw for Bond. His Bond would have thrown himself in front of a truck long before he ever made it to be a 00. You don't need a fine actor for Bond. You need a good one. Rufus would have been wasted on it because all of the things that make him what he is would have to be left behind.
I love action films but there is a certain type of actor for them and I don't think Rufus fits the bill for a lot of reasons. One of my favorite scenes in Charles is the fencing scene where Charles is taking delightful malice in beating the tar out of Buckingham. So clearly there is that side to him, but it doesn't seem to be what Rufus wants to explore in his career. And I don't know about anyone else, but I think, thank heaven. Action stars are a dime a dozen. Actors like Rufus come around maybe once in a generation--if that often.
|
|
|
|
Post by catdishy on Sept 2, 2007 23:58:50 GMT
You may have put your finger on something...the character Bond is in fact unidimensional as written and filmed and leaves me cold.I want to re-create him as something more, so Rufus comes to mind..But I enjoy a gripping action film now and again, such as the Bourne series and the DieHard series, where the protagonist , however challenged in the personal arena, is an effective man of action pursuing altruistic goals.
|
|
|
|
Post by barfleur on Sept 4, 2007 13:46:19 GMT
I've seen most of the Bond films but didn't read any of the books. Of course, when Roof did the audio books I bought them all LOL. I was surprised at how different they are from the films though I shouldn't have been. No gadgets (well not many anyway) and Fleming's real Bond is more complicated than the shallow Bonds we're accustomed to seeing on the screen. I didn't care for Craig in the role. James Bond was a public school educated, classy guy and Craig's rough edges just didn't cut it for me. By the end of the film, I was thinking, quit pursing those lips!! He's a good actor I suppose, and I rather liked him in Invasion with Nicole Kidman (the remake of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers).
Ginny
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Sept 4, 2007 14:55:12 GMT
LOL! I think you've made my point, Ginny. I've been a Bond fan since I was a child and I'd read all of the books long before Rufus' reading. Bond is a killer and it doesn't keep him up nights. Ian Flemming, like many people, found a formula and stuck with it. Bond never thought much of women other than as play things and he walked away often and never looked back. Rufus brings colors to Bond from his own experiences. He imbues Bond with much more compassion and feeling than is actually on the written page. I loved Dr. No when Rufus read it. It had such sweetness and delight, but I think that comes from Rufus and not from what was written even in subtext. I agree that the films play up the ruthless aspect of his nature... or did for many years. There seems to be a shift in that dynamic. I don't disagree that Bond has evolved since the early films, but the character must change with the times to survive. I think the old Bond was in danger of becoming a caricature of himself the way the franchise was going. I'm sorry you find Daniel Craig so rough. And you aren't the first person I've heard say this. I'll say the same thing to you that I've said to them, give him a chance. They are going somewhere with his character (for a pleasant change) and I think the Bond you expect to see will evolve. And I think he's been a great success with women, something none of the other incarnations of Bond have ever boasted. Bond comes along at the time when women are fed up with the emotional delicate man who needs more care than they do. He's a romance novel hero in the guise of a secret agent. And women can get the men in their lives to see the film too as afterall he is Bond and the mystic carries on. Sadly Daniel Craig is cursed with his face, just as Rufus has been with his. It shouldn't define him as an actor any more than Rufus' should define him. I've seen most of Daniel Craig's work and the roughness you see is for the role. Much like Clive Owen he can have a very delicate and emotional touch regardless of how he looks and I think you see that in the shower scene in Casino Royale and a great deal of his other work as well. Anyway... no more on Daniel Craig. I swear.  |
|
|
|
Post by barfleur on Sept 4, 2007 17:22:30 GMT
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't have a problem with Craig's face. It was just that constant pursing of the lips and trying to look tough which annoyed me. I mentioned "Invasion" because he plays a compassionate, gentle character very well and with no facial contortions.
BTW - my children disagree with me on this - they liked him as Bond.
That's all folks! ;D
Ginny
|
|
|
|
Post by quoll on Sept 4, 2007 21:03:30 GMT
I'm with you, Ginny, the constant pout was very annoying. I do actually like DC and he wasnt a bad Bond at all, all things considered. He certainly didnt look too bad in budgie smugglers!
|
|
|
|
Post by barfleur on Sept 5, 2007 0:37:14 GMT
He certainly didnt look too bad in budgie smugglers! LOL That must be an Aussie expression - and I LOVE it! I've got to remember that one. G |
|
