User comments on this story

• Mephisto said...

  Daniel Craig is a great actor, but HE IS NOT James Bond. This film will flop. Posted on Jul 19 2006 15:58

  Report as inappropriate

• Rob said...

  SO WHO SHOULD BE BOND? Easy answer: They shoulda let Brosnan do at least ONE MORE. Harder answer: I dont know, But NOT Craig! (although He might have made a good REMO WILLIAMS) Heres the FACTS: He hates guns, He CANNOT drive an Austin Martin because its a stick, and its been quoted that he only took the role for the money. Posted on Jun 02 2006 23:34

  Report as inappropriate

• tyler said...

  i smell like poop Posted on May 18 2006 21:47

  Report as inappropriate

• Curt cochran said...

  Craig’s a great choice for Bond. He will surprise all his critics and I suggest you wait until November 17th to decide for yourself. Posted on May 10 2006 23:07

  Report as inappropriate

• AndyS said...

  Craig is a poor choice for Bond. Brosnan's successor should have been Clive Owen. Clive would have been perfect for the role. Posted on May 10 2006 16:21

  Report as inappropriate

• Bond, James BOND said...

  Craig will make a fine Bond. His detractors are illiterates who are two consumed by film. They are also either women, who don't matter, or gay men. Posted on Apr 15 2006 03:32

  Report as inappropriate

• panshaoxi said...

  I heard he shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. Posted on Apr 05 2006 04:32

  Report as inappropriate

• Pepe said...

  Craig sucks, Brosnan must come back Posted on Mar 23 2006 23:03

  Report as inappropriate

• paco said...

  give craig a chance instead of slagging him off. he might breath new life into the role....and play a more darker menacing bond instead of a pretty boy like brosnan....saying that the best choice for bond would have been CLIVE OWEN. he would have been best bond ever and i hope he takes the role oneday.... Posted on Mar 20 2006 15:11

  Report as inappropriate

• CoolBond said...

  Regardless of Flemming's original intent for Bond's "look", tall, dark and handsome men have established JB's essential appearance over the course of over 40 years in films that have become classics. Craig is probably the worst choice EON could have made. We don't need a "Bourne Identity Bond", we need the suave, manly superspy that men want to be and women want to be with. Posted on Mar 12 2006 06:15

  Report as inappropriate

• Anarki said...

  Bond was getting old and very tired, not to mention unbelieveable, riading waves created by ice falling?! Modern slick thrillers is what is needed like the Bourne Identity and its sequel, not a cheesy sleaze from the 60's. It needed sorting and its a good start with Craig. Posted on Mar 10 2006 18:40

  Report as inappropriate

• bachay for Bond said...

  HmmMmm. no comments. Who cares. dont watch the movie i know i will. they'll make the money back believe. a few ppl dont like it who cares. tell them to shut it or $#@# off. I dont understand who they are anyways to judge who should be bond. I mean are you financing the movie. no! Posted on Mar 01 2006 16:54

  Report as inappropriate

• gojira said...

  Here is a sentence written on that website about craig...
  
  "the rough face of a
  professional boxer and a penchant for playing killers, cranks,
  cads and gigolos pull off the role of a tall, dark, handsome and
  suave secret agent?"
  
  'Bond is the consummate womaniser, drinker, and heavy cigarette smoker, at one point reaching 70 cigarettes a day' (wonder what that does to your looks).
  I hate to say it, but i think people should have complained more about pierce. Bond was hardly a pretty, suave looking fellow.
  The novel portrays him as cruel looking with a scar on his face. That he looks more like a killer.
  
  He gets his girls through power and dominance (flemmings fantasies no doubt), never through some kind of mutual physical attraction. He's no angel.
  
  Tall and dark, yes. Plain handsome, not exactly (handsome, yet ruthless/cruel/like a killer). Suave? I have no idea where that came from, he's a mans man all the way.
  It sounds like your description above may in fact be more true to such a man than previous actors.
  
  I think we should wait, and hope they make a new movie. Not another cheeseball wannabe pimp who gets everything through charm and wit (bond had none, only that mans man comraderie). The real bond, complex, would restart the franchise.
  
  My choice for bond would have been Daniel Day Lewis in a heartbeat. He fits the descriptions in the book perfectly. Tall, dark, good-looking, yet a killer to the core. But, i have no problem with this guy. At least he won't look like he's afraid to get puched in the face. Posted on Mar 01 2006 15:21

  Report as inappropriate

• sou brasileiro said...

  fora craig not craig. back brosnan Posted on Feb 28 2006 23:36

  Report as inappropriate

• Mr. Welles said...

  I am pleased to see that TOMB has sniffed out this rather odious website which I only just discovered myself and wrote to yesterday. I copy and paste that particular e-mail:
  To: letters@craignotbond.com
  Subject: Craig as Bond
  I doubt if you will publish my view but I felt compelled enough to say that I am shocked at the venom directed at Daniel Craig on your website. Craig is easily one (if not the) finest contemporary English actor in cinema. For instance, how often have you seen a performance of such depth and shade as the one he gave in 'Enduring Love' where he easily outshone two other very fine English actors? Your venom simply seems to stem from the fact that Craig is a more rugged (but highly interesting) Character Actor rather than the shallow 'personality' type that normally inhabits the role of James Bond.
  I believe that Craig is the first actor since Sean Connery who can give a much needed depth and darkness to what is, after all, a very tired and dated franchise. For a start, he is English (unlike Connery) and he has proved his ability of being able to inhabit very different character types with ease - something your website inadvertently confirms rather than dispels. However, I will agree with the sentiment of "Craig not Bond" but for reasons very different from yours. Surely the role of Bond is of little challenge to his acting skills - I personally hope that it doesn't ruin his desire to be a consistently inventive actor. Obviously the role offers fame and great financial reward (which is understandable for any actor to desire) but it is also, let’s face it, far beneath his talent. Even Clive Owen (to my mind a much lesser actor) expressed no interest in playing the part and the role of the obligatory ‘Bond girl’ was turned down by none other than Naomi Watts who is, for my money, the best actress in mainstream film. Surely the opinion of these other performers cannot be discounted too?
  My polite advice to you is to stop this nonsense (i.e. your ridiculous website) and wait to see what 'Casino Royale' actually delivers. If the film turns out to be a flop - which it might- the blame will no doubt lie with the producer, director, and writers rather than the lead. Posted on Feb 27 2006 22:06

  Report as inappropriate

49 user comments: page 3 of 4
1 2 3 4