ROTTEN TOMATOES: It's Official: Daniel Craig is 007 Comments

It's Official: Daniel Craig is 007

by Scott Weinberg | October 14, 2005

Summary

ComingSoon.net shares with us the long-in-coming announcement, and it's one that shouldn't stun any of the astute movie geeks: British actor Daniel Craig has been signed to play everyone's favorite superspy, James Bond. The next 007 adventure, "Casino Royale," goes before the cameras early next year. Back to Article

(1-39 of 39 posts) | Reply

scottybarkbark writes:
on Oct 14 2005 08:38 AM

damn i wanted clive owen

(Reply to this)

lavatory love machine writes:
on Oct 14 2005 08:51 AM

I only saw him in road to perdition and didn't make much of an impresion on me

after seeing him in the brothers grimm heath legedr was my favourite for bond, maybe a little short but very amusing

(Reply to this)

xavieric writes:
on Oct 14 2005 08:52 AM

I am so incredibly excited by this news. Daniel Craig IS James Bond. I can't stop saying it over and over again in my head. We're in for an amazing ride.

(Reply to this)

MC. writes:
on Oct 14 2005 08:54 AM

Since Bond has to be at least 6' it's interesting how short many actors are these days.

(Reply to this)

inessalenin writes:
on Oct 14 2005 08:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#826724)
Clive Owen have no interest to play Bond! Neither Colin Ferrel!

(Reply to this)

arpeggio191 writes:
on Oct 14 2005 10:48 AM

In reply to this comment (#826728)
[b]you are correct.[/b]
Clive owen would have been cool, collin farrel would have sucked ass, but you're right, neither of them wanted to do it. he's the best of the choices

(Reply to this)

Eros_Amor writes:
on Oct 14 2005 11:08 AM

talk about LAME! that guy is a NOOB of all NOOBS!

bring back Sean Connary!

this is one bond flim im NOT going to see

(Reply to this)

OutToLunch25 writes:
on Oct 14 2005 12:19 PM

[b]Awful Choice[/b]
It's obvious why Craig got the job. All the other candidates were unwilling to sign a multi-picture contract and/or they wanted a lot of money. Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen, Ewan McGregor, Colin Farrell, and Orlando Bloom aren't exactly having trouble finding work, which means they can get away with asking for a lot of money. How sad that the guy who got the roll is ranked near the bottom in most online polls. Brosnan probably did ask for a lot of money, but so what? He deserves it. His Bond movies have made a lot of money, despite the awful writing. The Bond producers are just cheap. Daniel Craig may be a good actor, but he's all wrong for the part. He doesn't look charming and sophisticated, he doesn't look like the kind of man who can seduce women easily, and he's not the actor fans look forward to seeing as Bond.

(Reply to this)

lovelykeira writes:
on Oct 14 2005 12:36 PM

Replace their screenwriters, bullshit, Haggis is writing this and he is damn good.

(Reply to this)

dmcmanus99 writes:
on Oct 14 2005 12:43 PM

[b]Daniel Craig will do fine[/b]
Have any of you seen Layer Cake??? There is not one mention of that movie through this thread. He was great in that movie, and in my opinion was the role that made him 007.. until you see Layer Cake you naysayers really don't have any idea what your talking about.. Great role in a great movie!

Welcome to the Layer Cake son

(Reply to this)

InfinityCorp writes:
on Oct 14 2005 12:56 PM

I've posted previously and extensively about this subject.

Again, Craig is the best choice out of the actors they were going to choose from.

But... I am sorry to say NOT casting Brosnan for his 5th film is a galactic mistake. Poor Craig has shoes to fill that are far to large for him... I still don't understand.

People say it was Brosnan asking for too much money. Well, I did some research and he was asking roughly $12-14 million for "Casino Royale". I'm sorry his last 4 films grossed approx. $1.5 billion.... Yep, $1.5 billion. $12 million is a drop in the bucket.

I wish Daniel Craig all the best. I love the Bond films. Not bringing Brosnan back is a huge mistake. Period.

(Reply to this)

maverick_2k writes:
on Oct 14 2005 01:12 PM

[b]Timothy Dalton with blond hair[/b]
This choice stinnks. The Bond character has been so overdone it's unreal. They should have kept Brosnan for one more film and then did away with the Bond character and franchise. Heck, Roger Moore in his 70's would have made a better choice than someone like Craig. The series has grown totally stale and old. The screenwriters, including Paul Haggis, are uncapable of writing a screenplay that can compare to the great Bond films of the 1960's. I truly think this will be the worst bond ever.

(Reply to this)

mizzoucritic writes:
on Oct 14 2005 01:32 PM

[b]A great pick[/b]
This is the best movie news all week! Craig's work in "Layer Cake" was excellent and his incarnation of 007 will likely be the deepest, most well-rounded Bond of them all. I was getting tired of Brosnan and had they chosed him again, I probably wouldn't have wanted to see "Casino Royale." And with Haggis writing the adaptation, this is going to be great!

(Reply to this)

maverick_2k writes:
on Oct 14 2005 01:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#826736)
[b]Disagree[/b]
The problem is there has already been a good young Bond, you might remember a Guy named Sean Connery who played him. Craig looks like another stiff actor who will play the character with a dark edgy tone much like Dalton did. The issue is that this has already been done, and the results were . . . umm Pierce Brosnan as Bond. So there you have it, Craig will last one film and Sony will be signing an aging Brosnan to star in the film after this disaster.

(Reply to this)

sparetime writes:
on Oct 14 2005 02:32 PM

thank the bond gods... no more pretty fancy schmancy bond stuff please.

craig should be able to pull bond back to his womanizing roots.

this is good news. very good news.

(Reply to this)

jaydurden writes:
on Oct 14 2005 02:43 PM

[b]I dunno about his...[/b]
I really think that this flick will be a commercial flop...I'm not saying it won't be good but the problem is that pierce brosnan was probably the most beloved james bond ever (i'm not saying he was the best). When people see daniel craig on the trailer for the first time (cause most people won't know about the new james bond before the movie begins its commercial campaign) they'll all freak out. First, because they didn't know that pierce brosnan was gone. Then, because most people have no clue who daniel craig is. and lastly, let's admit it, he's not an ugly guy but he's just tough and weird looking. for my part I don't mind Craig, he's a decent actor and i think he'll do ok...but i'm still angry at the producer for being so ungrateful towards brosnan...anyway, will have to wait and see

(Reply to this)

UselessRob writes:
on Oct 14 2005 08:08 PM

[b]Oh look, another killer satellite...[/b]
Hey I wasn't sure Brosnan would be any good until he started, so I figure lets wait and see how this guy does.

But lets hope it's got a better story than DAD has. I mean come on people, it was just another stupid killer satellite!

And lets hope John Cleese is still on board.

(Reply to this)

TheAnswerMVP2001 writes:
on Oct 14 2005 11:26 PM

[b]Casino Royale[/b]
Great is this going to be the remake of the Woody Allen film with the same title, which was actually a James Bond spoof?

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Oct 15 2005 01:56 AM

[b]you can buy anything with money[/b]
I like Daniel Craig, but I'm a long-time James Bond fan and I was hoping that they would have just offered Pierce Brosnan more money.

I feel like there is a pattern emerging with actors who play James Bond: ugly, handsome, ugly, handsome, ugly, handsome, and now we're back to ugly.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Mojo Risin' writes:
on Oct 15 2005 03:16 PM

It seems like Jude Law would have made the best Bond.

(Reply to this)

sokiveta.com writes:
on Oct 15 2005 10:56 PM

In reply to this comment (#826743)
[b]Nuts to that[/b]
Besides Brosnan, Clive Owen would be a good choice, but it almost makes me think that he would have been too obvious (like casting Carrie Ann Moss as Aeon Flux). I mean, Owen made all of those short films for BMW where he was a driver -- you know, those movies that the Transporter were based on. And then Owen played a spy opposite Matt Damon in Borne Identity.

Rowin Atkinson, that's who we need.

(Reply to this)

nparga writes:
on Oct 16 2005 12:50 AM

[b]Outrageous choice[/b]
Daniel Craig for 007? What a joke? He looks older than Brosnan even though Craig is just 37.

Barbara Broccoli and her Bond empire will go up in flames when Casino Royale opens in 2006 due to Craig as 007.

Should have kept Brosnan! If not Brosnan, get Ralph Fiennes or Clive Owen...
I don't get it. Timothy Dalton who I liked as 007 played Bond really serious and gritty like the Fleming novels. But Craig does not have the look like Dalton.

Only Roger Moore could play a blonde James Bond not Craig. Boy, our standards in 2005 are getting lower especially after Sean, Roger, Timothy, and Pierce played and looked the part as 007. Even Mel Gibson would be a great Bond!

(Reply to this)

Elessar Oronro writes:
on Oct 16 2005 01:56 AM

I agree with the poster who said this movie will bomb commercially. No matter how talented this guy may be (and he has to be, since they picked him) the general American public has no idea who this guy is. Walk down mainstreet America and ask anyone if they've actually seen Layer Cake.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Oct 16 2005 08:10 AM

[b]Daniel is GREAT![/b]
Clive Owen?!? Give me a break! I can't stand the guy... the way he spells every word with his lips... like he's talking to two year-olds, who don't know English! I realize many will jump on this: but he was the WORST in "Sin City"-- I don't think I want to see any more movies starring him-- least not Bond-- who is one of my favorite charaters! Daniel Craig is a GREAT choice. He has quiet sophistication in his looks. He does look somewhat shrewd and 'cunning'-- well, guess what? That's EXACTLY what a great-spy SHOULD look like! The funny thing is, the very SAME people who are dissing Daniel today-- are going to be the ones who will HAIL him and praise him, after "Casino Royale" debuts. MARK my WORDS. You can take this to the bank. Craig makes a (for once) TRUE 007.

(Reply to this)

jeanpaul writes:
on Oct 16 2005 08:19 AM

[b]THE SAME GUYS...[/b]
Those guys who are NOT liking Daniel as Bond 007-- are the VERY SAME guys who offered that stupid Orlando Bloom (who SINGLE-HANDEDLY bombed "Kingdom of Heaven" with his apathetic stiffness...), for the coveted role... So really, Craig is way better than a FINE choice. As someone noted here before, now 'they' need to write a more serious toned, maturer (yet still fun including...) Bond-Adventure, and "Casino Royale" is going to ROCK!

(Reply to this)

saiyajinX writes:
on Oct 16 2005 09:00 AM

They shot themselves in the foot with no Brosnan!!! That is what some of the current wannabe fans will expect. Daniel Craig is an excellent choice for the role, especially having seen layer cake. He will make an excellent Bond; however, he will be compared to to Brosnan the entire time. He may not be able to fill the Brosnan shoes, but he will fill Bonds shoes, and move into the ranks with Sean and Roger!!!

(Reply to this)

MikeOfAllTrades writes:
on Oct 16 2005 12:32 PM

I hope they are able to really revamp the whole franchise with Casino Royale. Some people seem to fear a darker, more serious bond, but I think that is just what the series needs. Am I the only one who can't stop rolling their eyes every time Bronsnan spouts off some stupid ass one-liner? Congrats to Craig!

(Reply to this)

wiggins writes:
on Oct 16 2005 03:54 PM

[b]agreed[/b]
this franchise really does need a complete overhaul in my opinion. the world is not enough and die another day were both steaming shitpiles. in truth, goldeneye was the only brosnan bond film that could hold a candle to the originals. so now with that same director, paul haggis writing, and the fresh face of craig as a more serious bond, i feel safe enough to get excited about a bond film for the first time this milennia.

(Reply to this)

zeromark16 writes:
on Oct 17 2005 12:03 PM

jude law is a pansy. he's almost as much of a woman as orlando bloom. daniel craig is excellent and i've been hoping for im the whole time

(Reply to this)

inessalenin writes:
on Oct 17 2005 08:58 PM

Yesterday I read one newspaper discussed about Bond actors
Sean Connery--classic
Roger Moore--profitable
Pierce Brosnan--expensive

(Reply to this)

cowsfan writes:
on Oct 18 2005 03:06 AM

[b]That'll do pig, that'll do![/b]
I'm just saying that anyone who hasn't seen 'Layer Cake' will not get a clear idea of how this man will pull off what I think will be the job of the decade. The Brosnan movies were the worst of the series and let's hope the next Bond will be a darker and more subversively witty film. While I would have loved to see Clive Owen tackle the role (he OWNED Closer & Sin City), Craig will do!!

(Reply to this)

Introducing... writes:
on Oct 19 2005 07:20 AM

[b]Another 007 movie?[/b]
I stopped caring way before Tommorow Never Dies came out. They should just stop now and stop ruining the Bond franchise.

(Reply to this)

masta_chill writes:
on Oct 19 2005 03:26 PM

Give blonde Bond a chance. I will probably see the next movie. I was tired of Bronson anyways.

(Reply to this)

jaydurden writes:
on Oct 19 2005 03:41 PM

In reply to this comment (#826756)
[b]man, come on...[/b]
Leave Bronson alone, he's 84 for god's sake!!

(Reply to this)

KAli1212 writes:
on Oct 20 2005 04:42 PM

[b]Stop your whining...[/b]
I agree with anyone who has seen Daniel Craig in "Layer Cake." The guy was obviously cast for a reason... I am sure that diirector Martin Campbell, who made one of the best Bond films with "Goldeneye," had some say in the casting of Craig since he has been attached to the project for a little less than a year now.
Furthermore, while it does sadden me that Pierce Brosnan is no longer going to play James Bond, we have to remember that he cannot play the role forever. Both Roger Moore AND Sean Connery made the mistake of coming back to do another James Bond film (Moore with "Octopussy" and "A View to a Kill"; Connery with "Never Say Never Again") when they were obviously past their primes. It was a great four-picture run, but I feel that if Brosnan played Bond again, he would have been pushing his term even if it meant greater box office success for the franchise.
Which brings me to a final point: anyone who thinks that this film will not do well is insane! Every actor who has played James Bond, from Connery to Brosnan, was not well known when they were cast for the role. In fact, Moore and Brosnan were famous for being television spies who did not fit the likeness of James Bond. I think that Broccoli and Co.'s gamble with Craig will pay off if they based their decision solely on his performance in "Layer Cake," where ironically he pretended to be James Bond.

(Reply to this)

Sportyyyy writes:
on Oct 20 2005 05:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#826743)
[b]You've had too many shaken martinis[/b]
... if you think JUDE LAW would have been a good bond. Christ! Did you see Closer? He was a whining pansy through the whole movie and unattractive to boot. I've seen about half of Layer Cake and while Daniel Craig is an excellent actor, Clive Owen most closely embodies the sexy, hard-ass Bond I've so missed since Sean Connery became decrepit and feeble. Who knows though, Craig may kick some major ass. Clive Owen is just so hot and British though, damn that's disappointing.

(Reply to this)

puablo writes:
on Oct 21 2005 08:27 AM

[b]Clarification[/b]
I agree with everyone who has flamed those who support some of the mainstream actors we've often heard in the "next Bond" talk. Orlando Bloom? I shuddered just thinking about it. Hugh Jackman? Jude Law? Yeah right. I always wanted Clive Owen ever since I first saw him in Croupier, and was disappointed he turned it down, but thinking more critically I don't know if he would have brought anything new to the table. They most definitely should have kept Brosnan for at least a 5th and maybe a 6th outing, as he was excellent, but what's done is done. As for Dalton, if you recall they tried to get back to the books and make Bond more gritty and a badass, as a result The Living Daylights was great but most people agree that License To Kill was not. A good action movie, but not a good Bond/spy movie.
Which brings us to the point of this new movie. Casino Royale was Ian Fleming's first book, and the David Niven/Woody Allen/Peter Sellers/Orson Welles parody movie just borrowed the name alone and is not and never was an "official" Bond movie. So ignore it. The producers are going back in time and getting a story from a fresh Bond when he first gets his "00" license to kill. It will definitely be a throwback to the Connery days and is SUPPOSED to be a throwback to simpler, grittier, less gadget-y films in the series. Think From Russia With Love.
Daniel Craig will be perfect for this. They did precisely what they should have done in not getting a Hollywood pretty boy, and get a more raw, fresh guy to take the series in this new direction. The big complaint about Bond movies for years (decades, even) has been its unoriginal, repetitive formula, but whenever they suggest straying from that formula, people freak out. This is the shot in the arm that the series needs, and I for one cannot wait. You don't have to see Layer Cake to know that this is a great idea - but it would certainly make you feel better if you're worried.

(Reply to this)

BradwenJames writes:
on Oct 26 2005 06:37 PM

[b]Open your eyes PEOPLE[/b]
What a lame choice. James Bond movie is not just being a good actor.Its all about sophistication and coolnes with a razor edge look.Daniel Craig just hasnt got the appeal and the look so to speak.Hes a bit rough around the edges.Hell he could win an oscar and still wouldnt look good for a 007.I saw Layer Cake and to be honest his acting is just at par with the average hollywood character actor.Its like anybody can do that, hell...you put Jason Biggs in Layer Cake and he would make a good impression.Bottomline is they made a bad business decision and whoever think DC is right for the job should have a visit to SPECSAVERS.

(Reply to this)

proto57 writes:
on Feb 23 2006 05:07 AM

[b]Dye his hair.[/b]
I'm willing to give the guy a chance... but then again, I really thought Dalton was good (still do), so what do I know? But if he is blond, he is not Bond, so dye his hair or forget it. As for writing, I agree most of the latest have not been so hot... with the exception of TWINE. There was great character development, and an interesting story line.

Brown hair dye: $6.75
Pierce Brosnan: $12.5 millon
Brown-Haired Craig as Bond: Priceless

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Daniel Craig

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links