On Friday, MGM producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli confirmed the rumor that has been circulating around the Internet for months now: The blond-haired, blue-eyed Daniel Craig will be the next James Bond.
This ends the years of 007 gossip and speculation rather happily, as Craig, whose celebrity status was fairly moderate, is one of the top actors working today. You may or may not have seen him opposite Gwyneth Paltrow in \Sylvia"" or ""Enduring Love,"" but chances are, you'll know him as Paul Newman's cruel, trigger-happy son in ""Road to Perdition.""
But the role that might as well have been his audition for Bond was in this summer's exhilarating ""Layer Cake,"" a glossy yet brutal mobster thriller in which Craig played a slick, no-nonsense cocaine dealer working his way to the top in an appropriately nefarious underworld. As he smoothly negotiates drug deals and double-crosses with equal parts charm and menace, Craig radiates a magnetic, volatile screen presence. If this is how he plays Bond, then the new 007 will be one steely, ballsy son-of-a-bitch.
Judging from director Martin Campbell's comments on the new film, ""Casino Royale"" will be ""tougher"" and ""grittier"" than the other Bond films, with ""more character"" and ""less gadgets."" Whereas the 1967 ""Casino Royale"" was more of a spoof (and generally regarded as a piece of shit), the new film will reportedly focus on Bond's beginnings as a 00-agent and explore the nuances of the character in a way that no other Bond film has since, well, never. Instead of rigorously following formula like every other Bond movie since ""Dr. No,"" Campbell, Wilson and Broccoli intend to ""take the franchise in a new and exciting direction.""
Pessimists will point out that the last time the franchise was made ""tougher"" and ""grittier,"" the result was the fairly unpopular ""License to Kill"" with Timothy Dalton (following ""The Living Daylights,"" a better and more conventional Bond adventure). The Dalton Bond was stoic and more than willing to exercise his titular license, but also lacked charisma and wit. Dalton isn't nearly as terrible as his hordes of naysayers would proclaim, but he probably was the worst Bond (not counting David Niven).
Pierce Brosnan is my favorite Bond besides Sean Connery (who was, is and will always be the best Bond, end of discussion), but his post-""Goldeneye"" movies, especially ""Die Another Day,"" were gadget-obsessed and forgettable. Roger Moore never really convinced me he could kick an ass, but his films, even after they descended into the camp of ""Moonraker"" and ""View to a Kill"" (which, even with Christopher Walken as its diabolical villain, is my least favorite Bond film), are genuinely fun. Plus, Moore was the sleaziest Bond-if any Bond ever contracted the clap on a regular basis, it would have been Moore-and that wins him a lot of points. And George Lazenby only played 007 in one film, ""On Her Majesty's Secret Service,"" and consensus would indicate he's somewhere above Dalton and below Moore.
I feel that this incredibly ambitious new Bond movie, if filmed as promised, is going to be terrific. While Campbell is somewhat of a hack action filmmaker, he's a hack with a solid r??sum?? (he helmed ""Goldeneye,"" the best Bond film of the past 20-odd years, and both ""Zorro"" films) and what seems to be a smart creative outlook on the franchise. ""Casino Royale"" sounds like it should be called ""Bond Begins,"" what with its intended redefinition of an iconic character through realism and nuance; although I can't help but wonder what a more dynamic director like Christopher Nolan could do with it, it sounds great.
While Clive Owen may have been my preference, Daniel Craig is definitely a superb, intriguing choice for the role. Whether or not ""Casino Royale"" will be the ""biggest Bond ever"" as Wilson and Broccoli are predicting, I can't wait until Nov. 2006.
Joe Pudas is a junior majoring in journalism and communication arts. He can be reached at japudas@wisc.edu.
