Who should/could be a Bond actor?

1109510961098110011011193

Comments

  • Leo Suter is 6'2. And has a deeper voice than ATJ...

    cdd93b2870c055d44e28b63f3e383f894718bea7.png

    333843141_750555466378272_8933830585359200276_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=QxEVDV0KHyoAX-fnVYG&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfDESfJO2PDr4otboKfQwBZzNyYBQTywVGmUNFfn2hQsGQ&oe=64E6103A
  • edited August 2023 Posts: 6,677
    Univex wrote: »
    Just cut his hair a bit on the back and make him lower his voice. Better still, don’t let him talk much. Btw, those are some broad shoulders there!

    07.jpg

    If he does get the Bond gig, he'll probably be the most physically imposing of them all on screen, with shoulders like that.

    Having said that, his height is down as 5ft 11, and Aidan Turner is even shorter.

    I'd much rather a taller actor played Bond this time round. Sope beats ATJ on that score, who is 6ft 1.

    2cm less don’t make a person short, I think. I mean, the guy is 1,80m. With an imposing physique if there ever was one :)

    Leo Suter would do fine as well. Altough I find him a bit bland.
  • edited August 2023 Posts: 2,954
    SIS_HQ wrote: »

    Really? The Producers (or maybe along with Terrence Young) hired Auger and Bianchi when they've both won in beauty pageants (especially Auger who's a Miss Universe) and that's also obviously they're dubbed, this only stopped for a while when they've hired Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg (both are established actresses), it's obvious that the main reason why they've hired those two was because of their beauty queen titles, they're beautiful, not for their acting ability, the same with Bouquet (who's also dubbed, ironically).

    Several actors/actresses in the early Bond films were dubbed, mostly because they were European (or foreign in general), spoke with thick accents, or didn't quite have a high enough degree of English fluency needed. Gert Frobe, Adolfo Celi, Testsuro Tamba are all examples of actors the series wanted and performance-wise inhabited the role. The dubbing was just to iron out any dialect issues or give the character the correct accent, and is arguably a way of enhancing the performance with such actors. It's not something needed as much nowadays, mostly because English is more widely spoken to a more fluent degree (certainly amongst Europeans).

    For what it's worth, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. The truth is a big part of casting a Bond girl is that aspect of beauty, and in the earlier films many were former models. You even have pretty awful stories such as an actress named Elga Gimba Andersson coming quite close to the role of Tatiana in FRWL, but refused to sleep with a United Artist executive so was dropped. But it's also worth clarifying that all those actresses were... well, actresses, and did have prior film experience. One can even argue that in many of the cases it was their acting which got them cast. Connery personally chose Bianchi, Bouqet was chosen on a recommendation and after the producers saw her in a film called The Obscure Object of Desire etc. I don't think it's fair saying they were completely inexperienced.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I'll admit, that's how the Bond Girls casting at the time, they're hired for their looks than their acting, it's not only until maybe in the mid-80's (the Dalton era where they've started to look for the acting too).

    The thing was Deneuve was still a stronger actress than Bach (it would've still worked, performance wise), I mean, she's more established as an actress with many films already under her belt compared to Bach, there's already (stated) that in Mankiewicz biography, Bach was hired because she's more of a cheaper choice.

    That's somewhat true. There were pay disputes with Deneuve (and that plays into a whole issue of whether she would have been paid more, say, if she were a male playing the villain or whatever). I have no idea how her hypothetical performance would have panned out or whether Bach was actually the better choice. More famous or even more talented doesn't necessarily equate to a better performance, weird as the latter sounds. Sometimes specific actors are just better for certain roles.

    I think in all the cases the actresses were chosen because it was felt they embodied the characters they were playing, even if their looks or the fact that they had been models impacted this (as I said beauty is a consideration when it comes to Bond girls). It wasn't just a case of choosing any good looking model, nor was it completely a case where they sought out prestige actresses. It works better in certain cases compared to others, but that's the nature of casting anyway. Even Lea Seydoux, a very talented actress, fell into problems in terms of chemistry with Craig in SP. Ironically many people say Craig actually had better chemistry with Monica Bellucci, who was, before becoming an actress, a model, and that her performance is arguably better than Seydoux's in SP. In fact quite a few of the more modern Bond actresses are former models as well. Olga Kurylenko, Berenice Marlohe etc.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2023 Posts: 3,392
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »

    Really? The Producers (or maybe along with Terrence Young) hired Auger and Bianchi when they've both won in beauty pageants (especially Auger who's a Miss Universe) and that's also obviously they're dubbed, this only stopped for a while when they've hired Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg (both are established actresses), it's obvious that the main reason why they've hired those two was because of their beauty queen titles, they're beautiful, not for their acting ability, the same with Bouquet (who's also dubbed, ironically).

    Several actors/actresses in the early Bond films were dubbed, mostly because they were European (or foreign in general), spoke with thick accents, or didn't quite have a high enough degree of English fluency needed. Gert Frobe, Adolfo Celi, Testsuro Tamba are all examples of actors the series wanted and performance-wise inhabited the role. The dubbing was just to iron out any dialect issues or give the character the correct accent, and is arguably a way of enhancing the performance with such actors. It's not something needed as much nowadays, mostly because English is more widely spoken to a more fluent degree (certainly amongst Europeans).

    For what it's worth, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. The truth is a big part of casting a Bond girl is that aspect of beauty, and in the earlier films many were former models. You even have pretty awful stories such as an actress named Elga Gimba Andersson coming quite close to the role of Tatiana in FRWL, but refused to sleep with a United Artist executive so was dropped. But it's also worth clarifying that all those actresses were... well, actresses, and did have prior film experience. One can even argue that in many of the cases it was their acting which got them cast. Connery personally chose Bianchi, Bouqet was chosen on a recommendation and after the producers saw her in a film called The Obscure Object of Desire etc. I don't think it's fair saying they were completely inexperienced.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I'll admit, that's how the Bond Girls casting at the time, they're hired for their looks than their acting, it's not only until maybe in the mid-80's (the Dalton era where they've started to look for the acting too).

    The thing was Deneuve was still a stronger actress than Bach (it would've still worked, performance wise), I mean, she's more established as an actress with many films already under her belt compared to Bach, there's already (stated) that in Mankiewicz biography, Bach was hired because she's more of a cheaper choice.

    That's somewhat true. There were pay disputes with Deneuve (and that plays into a whole issue of whether she would have been paid more, say, if she were a male playing the villain or whatever). I have no idea how her hypothetical performance would have panned out or whether Bach was actually the better choice. More famous or even more talented doesn't necessarily equate to a better performance, weird as the latter sounds. Sometimes specific actors are just better for certain roles.

    I think in all the cases the actresses were chosen because it was felt they embodied the characters they were playing, even if their looks or the fact that they had been models impacted this (as I said beauty is a consideration when it comes to Bond girls). It wasn't just a case of choosing any good looking model, nor was it completely a case where they sought out prestige actresses. It works better in certain cases compared to others, but that's the nature of casting anyway. Even Lea Seydoux, a very talented actress, fell into problems in terms of chemistry with Craig in SP. Ironically many people say Craig actually had better chemistry with Monica Bellucci, who was, before becoming an actress, a model, and that her performance is arguably better than Seydoux's in SP. In fact quite a few of the more modern Bond actresses are former models as well. Olga Kurylenko, Berenice Marlohe etc.

    So that could be applied to Lazenby as well, there's a balance of youthfulness (which made the romance all the more tragic), and vulnerability (which was more raw and natural looking).

    And he fits in that role, it's no different from Lazenby, I've just made those Bond Girls castings as an example and somewhat similar to Lazenby's case.

    Because we're all looking at Lazenby, but not realizing that some Bond Girls are also similar to that case as well.

    Like yes, Bond actors should be good actors right, but that statement should be applied to Bond Girls as well, criticizing Lazenby's performance but overlooking the performances of the others which may sound a bit unfair.

    And despite of that, Lazenby (despite of his inexperience) had a better chemistry with Diana Rigg compared to yes, Lea Seydoux and Daniel Craig.

    That's why I'm not looking alone at Lazenby, because this franchise had some casts who were models, beauty queens and etc. And that's it, they've worked for the role, despite of them being dubbed and wooden or stiff at times, then so Lazenby (and the guy also had his merits).
  • Posts: 14,840
    Univex wrote: »
    Just cut his hair a bit on the back and make him lower his voice. Better still, don’t let him talk much. Btw, those are some broad shoulders there!

    07.jpg
    If nothing else he does have the look I think.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Just cut his hair a bit on the back and make him lower his voice. Better still, don’t let him talk much. Btw, those are some broad shoulders there!

    07.jpg
    If nothing else he does have the look I think.

    It's just the voice that is really the issue, like I, Univex and others have highlighted.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    edited August 2023 Posts: 7,983
    Delete
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    edited August 2023 Posts: 14,884
    I’m going to go with a long shot here.
    Not sure if he has the right look, but he is an excellent actor.
    Connor Swindells.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,983
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Just cut his hair a bit on the back and make him lower his voice. Better still, don’t let him talk much. Btw, those are some broad shoulders there!

    07.jpg
    If nothing else he does have the look I think.

    It's just the voice that is really the issue, like I, Univex and others have highlighted.


    No doubt, with proper training, he can make it more suitable, but can it be done without sounding contrived?

    I know some find him very charismatic but I find him very bland.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,545
    talos7 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    Just cut his hair a bit on the back and make him lower his voice. Better still, don’t let him talk much. Btw, those are some broad shoulders there!

    07.jpg
    If nothing else he does have the look I think.

    It's just the voice that is really the issue, like I, Univex and others have highlighted.


    No doubt, with proper training, he can make it more suitable, but can it be done without sounding contrived?

    I know some find him very charismatic but I find him very bland.

    He’s fine’ish.

    His smirks will quickly become old.

    And the voice really gets under my skin.

    I don’t know why he’s been bouncing around as the top, or near the top, in candidacy… if I’m to believe what I was told, and reported here: in October’ish, EoN supposedly met with a few actors.

    That’s plural.

    I was told there was no gun barrel sequence shot, and no auditions.

    Just simple meets and greets.

    I heard that come the New Year, the spitballing would start on direction and story (since BB has said they’d be chatting with P&W around this time, I guess this was happening, and at least preliminary spit balling sessions were to be with them).

    Then by March, we started to hear about the WGA was considering striking.

    By May 2, the writers were on strike against the studios.

    By July, the actors struck against the studios.

    So as far as I know: there were some meetings with actors (no names were shared with me; I assume ATJ was amongst them (he fits the age and look), but it sounded like several men came in for a chat); there’s no script and EoN, and other producers, are all in a holding pattern because of strikes…. (They’re not allowed to speak with writers or actors, no auditions, no deal-making…)-

    I just find it difficult to see EoN casting by coronation (the last one was Brosnan, and I don’t think BB was happy with that process), but who knows, I guess…
  • Posts: 6,677
    That’s a brilliant insight on the process and a very good explanation on what has been going on, @peter my friend. Thank you 😊
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,520
    Thanks for the insight as always @peter mate
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,983
    @peter is the man…
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited August 2023 Posts: 8,545
    No problem @Jordo007 … I can only drop the info I’ve heard, most of it makes sense (usually from an industry perspective), and most of the info tends to bear some kind of fruit in the end when I’m granted any tidbits.

    But things change very quickly, and maybe there’s been some secret deal with Nolan and ATJ (although I doubt it because all of this isn’t simply a gentlemen’s agreement: there’s a lot of money to attaching an A-list director and an actor— pay or play agreements.

    And for every new production (not just Bond, but for EVERY film production), a shell company is formed so that all finances are put into this company, and all payments come out of the company (so accounting is a simple task (just don’t tell anyone looking for a bigger residual check)). And as far as I know, EoN hasn’t opened a new shell company.)

    So that’s not to say none of this will happen, it’s just it hasn’t happened yet.

    (And I honestly have no idea who will be cast, or who will direct, although Villeneuve has again tossed his hat into the ring as recently as April and May of ‘23, and I KNOW he definitely met with EoN before Fukunaga came on board NTTD; I believe this was during Dune’s preproduction and the timeline just couldn’t be figured out. I’m also sure this news was published, so it should be an easy find). I would have to believe he’s a serious candidate that everyone forgot during the Oppenheimer’gasms….)


    Edit: sorry I didn’t see @Univex response to my post, so a quick you’re welcome, 😂 . And when @talos7 gives me a “you’re the man”, I find my muscles swelling and my hair growing back (well, maybe not my hair…. 😞)
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 566
    Benny wrote: »
    I’m going to go with a long shot here.
    Not sure if he has the right look, but he is an excellent actor.
    Connor Swindells.

    Great jawline.
  • peter wrote: »
    and at least preliminary spit balling sessions were to be with them).

    Gosh, I hope that isn't true. Imagine picking Purvis and Wade over Chris Nolan to write Bond 26...
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,545
    @Colonel_Venus , I believe both BB and MGW said they’d soon be chatting with P&W (pre-strike… maybe around September/October)….

    I’m not the Nolan fan you are (he can shoot one helluva looking film (one of the best), I just think his skills as a writer are wanting; his brother, but especially, his sister-in-law, are quite fantastic screenwriters).

    I’ve had the pleasure of reading a couple of Lisa Joy’s unproduced scripts and they both blew me away. If EoN was looking for sharp, witty talent, someone who is staggeringly good at bringing characters and action alive on the page, they might want to look into her.

    Then I’d be comfortable getting a Nolan Bond film.

    Honestly with these strikes, and the state of the industry, who knows how EoN, MGM, Amazon and distributors are going to play this? I’d guess that whatever plan they were formulating pre-strikes, has been altered. By how much is anyone’s guess.

    But until the strikes end, and then the dust settles (with the lawyers getting to work on all the legalities and making clear of what the new bargaining agreements are), no one is getting to work soon (inside of the studio system).
  • Posts: 6,677
    I’d love it if Dennis Villeneuve got the gig. I know he’s also a big fan.
  • edited August 2023 Posts: 104
    Not excited with the names of Villeneuve and Nolan. Sure, they both have made some good or even great films but I don't want another era with dark, depressing and slow Bond films. ☹️
    But if the producers have met with Villeneuve this year, they obviously want to keep this direction.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,545
    @Kojak007 they didn’t meet with Villeneuve this year, as far I know.

    They met with him after Boyle, and before Fukunaga, BUT, in April and May of this year, Villeneuve enthusiastically stated he’d jump at doing a future Bond if asked (his two favourites being CR and SF).

  • Posts: 104
    peter wrote: »
    @Kojak007 they didn’t meet with Villeneuve this year, as far I know.

    They met with him after Boyle, and before Fukunaga, BUT, in April and May of this year, Villeneuve enthusiastically stated he’d jump at doing a future Bond if asked (his two favourites being CR and SF).

    Oh sorry, I misinterpreted your post, my bad!

    So in this case any direction, even one with a lighter tone, may still be on the table.

    Personally I wouldn't be excited with Nolan or Villeneuve, I think there are other, less-known directors who should get a chance.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,545
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Kojak007 they didn’t meet with Villeneuve this year, as far I know.

    They met with him after Boyle, and before Fukunaga, BUT, in April and May of this year, Villeneuve enthusiastically stated he’d jump at doing a future Bond if asked (his two favourites being CR and SF).

    Oh sorry, I misinterpreted your post, my bad!

    So in this case any direction, even one with a lighter tone, may still be on the table.

    Personally I wouldn't be excited with Nolan or Villeneuve, I think there are other, less-known directors who should get a chance.

    No matter what the press says, the only ones who know what’s going on, or at least what will be going on, is EoN and their partners.

    And even then they can course-correct (think about CR/QoS to a tonal change in SF and another in SP and still another in NTTD).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    peter wrote: »
    Kojak007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Kojak007 they didn’t meet with Villeneuve this year, as far I know.

    They met with him after Boyle, and before Fukunaga, BUT, in April and May of this year, Villeneuve enthusiastically stated he’d jump at doing a future Bond if asked (his two favourites being CR and SF).

    Oh sorry, I misinterpreted your post, my bad!

    So in this case any direction, even one with a lighter tone, may still be on the table.

    Personally I wouldn't be excited with Nolan or Villeneuve, I think there are other, less-known directors who should get a chance.

    No matter what the press says, the only ones who know what’s going on, or at least what will be going on, is EoN and their partners.

    And even then they can course-correct (think about CR/QoS to a tonal change in SF and another in SP and still another in NTTD).

    SP was fun. The ones bookending it? Not as much. If we're lucky we'll get CR/QOS quality again.
  • Posts: 3,279
    Throw another one in the ring, how about Tom Ellis -

    lucifer-season-5-mr-640x960.jpg

    tumblr_pv97vbxVOD1v020i0o9_1280.jpg



  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,884
    Benny wrote: »
    I’m going to go with a long shot here.
    Not sure if he has the right look, but he is an excellent actor.
    Connor Swindells.

    Great jawline.

    For a younger actor, he has amazing range, see SAS Rogue Heroes or Sex Education to see what I mean.
    He's not what many might think of Bond too look at, but I think he could (possibly) become a credible Bond.
    d90shxqxccil.jpeg

    Many of the images you'll find online, he doesn't look very Bondian, but I think he could have something.
  • Posts: 6,677
    I liked him in SAS. And Jack O'Connell was also great in it. He chew every scene he was in.
  • cwl007cwl007 England
    Posts: 611
    Benny wrote: »
    Benny wrote: »
    I’m going to go with a long shot here.
    Not sure if he has the right look, but he is an excellent actor.
    Connor Swindells.

    Great jawline.

    For a younger actor, he has amazing range, see SAS Rogue Heroes or Sex Education to see what I mean.
    He's not what many might think of Bond too look at, but I think he could (possibly) become a credible Bond.
    d90shxqxccil.jpeg

    Many of the images you'll find online, he doesn't look very Bondian, but I think he could have something.

    100% agree.
    In photos he is easy to dismiss as not looking right for the role. On film I think he's great.
    Good voice and mannerisms. Having watched SAS Rogue Heroes again I felt he could easily be Bond.
    Even in the Barbie film, while he clearly isn't Bondlike in the slightest, he has a certain look to him.
    Right now he has the right level of under the radar/ but well known enough that seems to have applied to previous Bond actors before getting the role.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 2023 Posts: 2,934
    I've not seen Ellis act, but he does look plausible in those photos and he's in good shape. Thing is, he's 44 already. We'd risk being back to the old Bond/last mission stuff by his third film. Good to see a new suggestion, though. Agree with others about how if ATJ had shorter hair in that last photo he wouldn't look that far off. Not the classic Connery/Dalton/Brosnan cinema Bond look, but yeh I could see that working for the post-Craig era, tbh.
  • Posts: 14,840
    Venutius wrote: »
    Ellis looks plausible and he's in good shape, but he's 44 already. We'd risk being back to the old Bond/last mission stuff by his third film. Good to see a new suggestion, though.
    At 44, he'd been back at old Bond/last mission by his first Bond film! Because they won't start shooting next year.
  • edited August 2023 Posts: 2,954
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »

    Really? The Producers (or maybe along with Terrence Young) hired Auger and Bianchi when they've both won in beauty pageants (especially Auger who's a Miss Universe) and that's also obviously they're dubbed, this only stopped for a while when they've hired Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg (both are established actresses), it's obvious that the main reason why they've hired those two was because of their beauty queen titles, they're beautiful, not for their acting ability, the same with Bouquet (who's also dubbed, ironically).

    Several actors/actresses in the early Bond films were dubbed, mostly because they were European (or foreign in general), spoke with thick accents, or didn't quite have a high enough degree of English fluency needed. Gert Frobe, Adolfo Celi, Testsuro Tamba are all examples of actors the series wanted and performance-wise inhabited the role. The dubbing was just to iron out any dialect issues or give the character the correct accent, and is arguably a way of enhancing the performance with such actors. It's not something needed as much nowadays, mostly because English is more widely spoken to a more fluent degree (certainly amongst Europeans).

    For what it's worth, I'm not saying you're entirely wrong. The truth is a big part of casting a Bond girl is that aspect of beauty, and in the earlier films many were former models. You even have pretty awful stories such as an actress named Elga Gimba Andersson coming quite close to the role of Tatiana in FRWL, but refused to sleep with a United Artist executive so was dropped. But it's also worth clarifying that all those actresses were... well, actresses, and did have prior film experience. One can even argue that in many of the cases it was their acting which got them cast. Connery personally chose Bianchi, Bouqet was chosen on a recommendation and after the producers saw her in a film called The Obscure Object of Desire etc. I don't think it's fair saying they were completely inexperienced.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    I'll admit, that's how the Bond Girls casting at the time, they're hired for their looks than their acting, it's not only until maybe in the mid-80's (the Dalton era where they've started to look for the acting too).

    The thing was Deneuve was still a stronger actress than Bach (it would've still worked, performance wise), I mean, she's more established as an actress with many films already under her belt compared to Bach, there's already (stated) that in Mankiewicz biography, Bach was hired because she's more of a cheaper choice.

    That's somewhat true. There were pay disputes with Deneuve (and that plays into a whole issue of whether she would have been paid more, say, if she were a male playing the villain or whatever). I have no idea how her hypothetical performance would have panned out or whether Bach was actually the better choice. More famous or even more talented doesn't necessarily equate to a better performance, weird as the latter sounds. Sometimes specific actors are just better for certain roles.

    I think in all the cases the actresses were chosen because it was felt they embodied the characters they were playing, even if their looks or the fact that they had been models impacted this (as I said beauty is a consideration when it comes to Bond girls). It wasn't just a case of choosing any good looking model, nor was it completely a case where they sought out prestige actresses. It works better in certain cases compared to others, but that's the nature of casting anyway. Even Lea Seydoux, a very talented actress, fell into problems in terms of chemistry with Craig in SP. Ironically many people say Craig actually had better chemistry with Monica Bellucci, who was, before becoming an actress, a model, and that her performance is arguably better than Seydoux's in SP. In fact quite a few of the more modern Bond actresses are former models as well. Olga Kurylenko, Berenice Marlohe etc.

    So that could be applied to Lazenby as well, there's a balance of youthfulness (which made the romance all the more tragic), and vulnerability (which was more raw and natural looking).

    And he fits in that role, it's no different from Lazenby, I've just made those Bond Girls castings as an example and somewhat similar to Lazenby's case.

    Because we're all looking at Lazenby, but not realizing that some Bond Girls are also similar to that case as well.

    Like yes, Bond actors should be good actors right, but that statement should be applied to Bond Girls as well, criticizing Lazenby's performance but overlooking the performances of the others which may sound a bit unfair.

    And despite of that, Lazenby (despite of his inexperience) had a better chemistry with Diana Rigg compared to yes, Lea Seydoux and Daniel Craig.

    That's why I'm not looking alone at Lazenby, because this franchise had some casts who were models, beauty queens and etc. And that's it, they've worked for the role, despite of them being dubbed and wooden or stiff at times, then so Lazenby (and the guy also had his merits).

    I'd argue that Lazenby didn't have as much acting experience as those actresses, nor do I think he was the best actor they could have picked. I don't even think his performance matches up to the standard of some of those actresses. But that said that's just my opinion, and yes, you can very much make the case that he got the role on his own merits even though he lacked much prior acting experience.
    Univex wrote: »
    I liked him in SAS. And Jack O'Connell was also great in it. He chew every scene he was in.

    Jack O' Connell is actually one of my favourite picks for Bond. From clips his performance in SAS is very scene chewy, yes (I haven't watched it yet) but I remember seeing Starred Up a while back, and one thing that stood out for me was the way the guy walked, the way he moved his eyes etc. I definitely got a whiff of that Craig/Connery swagger and purposefulness in his physicality.

    He's an odd choice in some ways, but I can see it. He's a bit shorter compared to the other Bonds, and there's a stretch of his early career where he's been known for playing younger, working class characters with violent streaks (again, which is very much in line with someone like Connery and his early career before Bond). The guy's a well established actor, very much a British character actor but not too famous. I'm surprised he's not mentioned as much for Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.