I read today that some James Bond fans are mounting a campaign to get people to boycott the upcoming Casino Royale movie. They don't like the casting of Daniel Craig as 007, apparently, saying that he has 'blonde hair and a face like a boxer', and therefore not able to realistically portray the stylish, suave super-spy.
Their argument kind of falls down when they say 'realistically'. Nothing about the modern Bond film is remotely realistic. 007 keeps changing his face, staying almost the same age for forty years (except for the Roger Moore era, more on that later) whilst Q , once the same age as Bond, got older and older. MI6 keep asking just this one man to sort out the world's problems? What happened to the SAS? Are you telling me Roger Moore with his magnetic watch is better than a crack troop of commandos?
Ah. Roger Moore. Now that was shitty casting. Connery had the lot; he was suave, he could handle the fistfights as well as the women, he was equally adept with the humour as he was with his Walther PPK. Roger Moore was shite at fighting. He never looked at ease. His 007 films relied too much on overt slapstick and sight gags. I could never for one second believe that Moore could actually kill someone. I could believe it of Connery (I've met a few Scots!). Moore also stayed in the role too long. People don't like seeing old men copping off with young women, and in Octopussy and A View To A Kill there was far too much of that. I mean, Roger Moore with Grace Jones? Who the fuck thought that one up?
Daniel Craig might be bad as Bond, but give him a chance. He's a good actor, and he's more like the literary Bond than Moore ever was. Compared with the other candidates (Julian McMahon? For Fuck's sake! Have you seen Fantastic Four?) he was the only choice.