Where does Bond go after Craig?

1420421423425426482

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    talos7 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I wonder if the next actor will be as full on with the stunts?
    Daniel did seem to be hands on with getting involved, but given his injuries and the difficulties around changing the filming schedule to accommodate his injuries, will the producers want the actor to be so involved in the action?

    I think it'd be more the insurance companies, @Jordo007 ; I still have no idea how or why Tom Cruise gets around these guys (I'm guessing M:I films must pay a huge premium).

    I believe Cruise and company fired an insurance company for their refusal to insure his side of the building stunt in Dubai

    This is interesting...

    https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-tom-cruise-insured-mission-impossible-movie-stunts-hefty-price-1812442

    Good article and explains a lot...
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,380
    My 2 cents... if you're posting on a forum, your take is open to critique and question. Being a mod doesn't change that either. I don't think @mtm has ever been intentionally hostile and I didn't read any malice (from anyone) in the previous exchange. Let's move on.

    I do wonder what will be asked, stunts-wise, of the next Bond actor? What will they be down for? What will the producers expect? Brosnan showed you don't have to be a physical specimen to be Bond... but Craig showed the benefit if you are.

    I would say Connery had a hard edge, Lazenby in that harder mold, Moore was softer, Dalton hard again, Brosnan the soft version of Dalton, and Craig was hard once again. So soft Bond again next? Some of the names thrown around the other threads are pretty soft actors...
  • LucknFate wrote: »
    Brosnan showed you don't have to be a physical specimen to be Bond... but Craig showed the benefit if you are.

    You could say that about any of the previous Bond actors before Craig excluding maybe Lazenby. Honestly I’d like the next Bond to be a bit smaller than Craig’s Bond, but not too weak to where he isn’t convincing.
  • Brosnan always came across as pretty athletic to me.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,380
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Brosnan showed you don't have to be a physical specimen to be Bond... but Craig showed the benefit if you are.

    You could say that about any of the previous Bond actors before Craig excluding maybe Lazenby. Honestly I’d like the next Bond to be a bit smaller than Craig’s Bond, but not too weak to where he isn’t convincing.

    Fair about the previous actors, obviously none of them trained or bulked like Craig, but I do think Connery tried in his earlier years to be very fit, for the time. Lazenby was in great physical shape, looked very "modern" in that sense, very lean with a big chest. Moore was obviously soft. Dalton was lean but seemed athletic.

    a41a5945a66011c3b2cc79b8af07fb83.jpg
    Brosnan always came across as pretty athletic to me.

    He's athletic to me too, but the least convincing sportsman, the least convincing on skis, surfing, etc. Moore seemed like he spent time in the Alps, Brosnan does not, to me, at least how they read on screen. And I'm mostly talking about Brosnan post-GE, where in GE he was indeed very fit, but seemed rather squishy and lazy to me in the other three. I don't know a better way of saying it other than Brosnan is the only one who reminds me of my dad.

    Goldeneye-0926.jpg

    The-World-is-not-Enough-0604.jpg

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    Personally, I only found Connery and Craig to be athletic.
  • LucknFate wrote: »
    LucknFate wrote: »
    Brosnan showed you don't have to be a physical specimen to be Bond... but Craig showed the benefit if you are.

    You could say that about any of the previous Bond actors before Craig excluding maybe Lazenby. Honestly I’d like the next Bond to be a bit smaller than Craig’s Bond, but not too weak to where he isn’t convincing.

    Fair about the previous actors, obviously none of them trained or bulked like Craig, but I do think Connery tried in his earlier years to be very fit, for the time. Lazenby was in great physical shape, looked very "modern" in that sense, very lean with a big chest. Moore was obviously soft. Dalton was lean but seemed athletic.

    a41a5945a66011c3b2cc79b8af07fb83.jpg
    Brosnan always came across as pretty athletic to me.

    He's athletic to me too, but the least convincing sportsman, the least convincing on skis, surfing, etc. Moore seemed like he spent time in the Alps, Brosnan does not, to me, at least how they read on screen. And I'm mostly talking about Brosnan post-GE, where in GE he was indeed very fit, but seemed rather squishy and lazy to me in the other three. I don't know a better way of saying it other than Brosnan is the only one who reminds me of my dad.

    Goldeneye-0926.jpg

    The-World-is-not-Enough-0604.jpg

    You’re definitely onto something with Pierce. I think Brosnan benefited from the editing style in GE as opposed to his later three films. For me the best example of that are the three fight scenes he has in the film; the one on the yacht where he takes the assailant out with the towel, his brief punch up in the Archives, and the final fight with 006. All three of which are some of my favorite moments from Brosnan, and indeed the whole series.
    peter wrote: »
    Personally, I only found Connery and Craig to be athletic.

    You’re not convinced by Lazenby? Heck I think he’s the only other Bond actor who would stand a chance against Craig in a cage match.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 6,519
    You guys keep going on about alpha male physicallity and athleticism, but when I think about Bond I always go back to that sort of post war chap like Lieutenant-Commander Home Ronald Archibald Kidston - do look him up.

    This sort of post 2000s gorilla like bouncer, muscle ripped persona like, say, Aaron Tatlor Johnson or, yes, Daniel Craig (just look at him shirtless in QOS or CR, I’d say he’s not exagerated, but he did bulk up too much, IMO), is not the Bond I imagine when I read the novels. That answer he gives to Dr. Swann (do you work out? When I have to) made me laugh. No one only works out when he has to and looks like that.

    Funny thing is, most people here who call Pierce the “model” Bond, in the sense of supermodel ken doll pretty boy figure, are the ones who endorse muscled up physiques for the character. Where’s the middle ground?

    I’d say Connery was lean as Bond and did the opposite of Craig. He took some of the bulk off. And Dalton was damn right perfect in that balance. And so was Lazenby.

    All IMHO, of course.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,380
    Univex wrote: »
    You guys keep going on about alpha male physicallity and athleticism, but when I think about Bond I always go back to that sort of post war chap like Lieutenant-Commander Home Ronald Archibald Kidston - do look him up.

    This sort of post 2000s gorilla like bouncer, muscle ripped persona like, say, Aaron Tatlor Johnson or, yes, Daniel Craig (just look at him shirtless in QOS or CR, I’d say he’s not exagerated, but he did bulk up too much, IMO), is not the Bond I imagine when I read the novels. That answer he gives to Dr. Swann (do you work out? When I have to) made me laugh. No one only works out when he has to and looks like that.

    Funny thing is, most people here who call Pierce the “model” Bond, in the sense of supermodel ken doll pretty boy figure, are the ones who endorse muscled up physiques for the character. Where’s the middle ground?

    I’d say Connery was lean as Bond and did the opposite of Craig. He took some of the bulk off. And Dalton was damn right perfect in that balance. And so was Lazenby.

    All IMHO, of course.

    A fair and measured take. I'm not saying I prefer one way or another, just discussing the physical differences of the actors and how that was interpreted by their characterizations. I think the world is suited at the moment for a less-toned, more casual-athlete build guy. However, given the modern hyper-masculine (and feminine now) gym culture in the U.S. and UK, maybe Bond should be a bulker to be relatable.

    I think it's also clear to folks by now that I am a forum member who is very open to playing with the cinematic interpretation of Bond. I respect the books, but want the movies to have fun and explore. So I'm game for anything and happy to go traditional or new.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2023 Posts: 7,953
    @007ClassicBondFan , I found Lazenby a clumsy mover. He looked like a slow (and not too bright) horse to me (and I do love OHMSS). I'm not a fan of his winding-up Superman punches, either.

    No, the only two actors I felt had a command over their bodies, and were truly athletic (and you see by the way they simply walk, to running, to fighting), was Connery and Craig.

    I don't think Dalton needed to be athletic, necessarily, cuz his Bond was intensely on the move, so aggressively going after the baddie (especially in LTK), so driven, and so wound up like a coiled spring.... (Although his physique did disappoint me)....

    Moore relied on his charm, and, no I didn't find Pierce athletic at all.

    I'm not obtuse about this subject as I have been an avid trainer since my teens. I'm in the gym five days/week, lifting, flipping tires, boxing, strength, metabolic training, etc., etc... And just because someone lifts weights, or can throw a decent punch, doesn't make them athletic either.

    Being athletic goes down to a mastery of one's body and being a master of one's movement patterns. It then branches out from here. It's a gift (that I believe can eventually be taught if one is willing to stick with it), of a mind-body connection, if that makes sense?

    And finally: a spy from the 1950s would look remarkably different to a spy from today. And a modern James Bond must fit this, with a few aesthetic embellishments, because, after all, this is a fictitious series, and it is the movies, and most people like looking at pretty things that we don't get to see all that often in our every day lives (unless we are @talos7 !!! All joking aside, Talos and I have had some great discussions about health and fitness, and he's naturally built and knows his stuff and likely has a biological age that is at least 25-30 years younger than his around-the-sun age!!)
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 664
    Wasn’t Lazenby a combat instructor? I’m sure someone told me that, though his height probably gave him an advantage that he might well have relied upon.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,711
    peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan , I found Lazenby a clumsy mover. He looked like a slow (and not too bright) horse to me (and I do love OHMSS). I'm not a fan of his winding-up Superman punches, either.

    No, the only two actors I felt had a command over their bodies, and were truly athletic (and you see by the way they simply walk, to running, to fighting), was Connery and Craig.

    I don't think Dalton needed to be athletic, necessarily, cuz his Bond was intensely on the move, so aggressively going after the baddie (especially in LTK), so driven, and so wound up like a coiled spring.... (Although his physique did disappoint me)....

    Moore relied on his charm, and, no I didn't find Pierce athletic at all.

    I'm not obtuse about this subject as I have been an avid trainer since my teens. I'm in the gym five days/week, lifting, flipping tires, boxing, strength, metabolic training, etc., etc... And just because someone lifts weights, or can throw a decent punch, doesn't make them athletic either.

    Being athletic goes down to a mastery of one's body and being a master of one's movement patterns. It then branches out from here. It's a gift (that I believe can eventually be taught if one is willing to stick with it), of a mind-body connection, if that makes sense?

    And finally: a spy from the 1950s would look remarkably different to a spy from today. And a modern James Bond must fit this, with a few aesthetic embellishments, because, after all, this is a fictitious series, and it is the movies, and most people like looking at pretty things that we don't get to see all that often in our every day lives (unless we are @talos7 !!! All joking aside, Talos and I have had some great discussions about health and fitness, and he's naturally built and knows his stuff and likely has a biological age that is at least 25-30 years younger than his around-the-sun age!!)

    Lol, Thank you @peter but every day my bones remind me just how many revolutions around the sun I've made. Early Connery and Craig are easily the most athletic and convincing. I actually think Lazenby had very good physicality but his inexperience in front of the camera hindered it. Pierce moved well, except when running, Dalton, from a physicality aspect, was passible but he was shockingly slight in build; he should have never taken his shirt off. Rog was the least physical and as has been said, relied on charm, which he had in spades.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    @talos7 … I really didn’t think Brozz moved all that well, and I usually use his battle with Bean in GE as an example:

    Bean is far more slick, and more gifted, as a physical actor, and certainly displayed excellent efficiency in his movements, making his combat with Brozz feel organic and vicious and improvised (but improvisation that’s based in some kind of training), whereas it looked like Brosnan was waiting for his cues, waiting for his turn to throw a punch, doing the replay in his mind etc., etc.

    I think I found Brosnan too calculated in his movements, and therefore came off as too stiff, like an ironing board (if that makes sense).

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,711
    peter wrote: »
    @talos7 … I really didn’t think Brozz moved all that well, and I usually use his battle with Bean in GE as an example:

    Bean is far more slick, and more gifted, as a physical actor, and certainly displayed excellent efficiency in his movements, making his combat with Brozz feel organic and vicious and improvised (but improvisation that’s based in some kind of training), whereas it looked like Brosnan was waiting for his cues, waiting for his turn to throw a punch, doing the replay in his mind etc., etc.

    I think I found Brosnan too calculated in his movements, and therefore came off as too stiff, like an ironing board (if that makes sense).

    Thinking about it , I guess I mean in quieter scenes; he had an elegant physicality and moved very smoothly . Sean possessed the same quality.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    talos7 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @talos7 … I really didn’t think Brozz moved all that well, and I usually use his battle with Bean in GE as an example:

    Bean is far more slick, and more gifted, as a physical actor, and certainly displayed excellent efficiency in his movements, making his combat with Brozz feel organic and vicious and improvised (but improvisation that’s based in some kind of training), whereas it looked like Brosnan was waiting for his cues, waiting for his turn to throw a punch, doing the replay in his mind etc., etc.

    I think I found Brosnan too calculated in his movements, and therefore came off as too stiff, like an ironing board (if that makes sense).

    Thinking about it , I guess I mean in quieter scenes; he had an elegant physicality and moved very smoothly . Sean possessed the same quality.

    I can see that in a few scenes… one I actually liked from Brozz is in DAD: after he’s shaved, and Fountain of Desire comes into his room, he frisbee-tosses the ashtray, shattering the two way mirror. I quite like that sequence and it was executed with smoothness…
  • LucknFate wrote: »
    My 2 cents... if you're posting on a forum, your take is open to critique and question. Being a mod doesn't change that either. I don't think @mtm has ever been intentionally hostile and I didn't read any malice (from anyone) in the previous exchange. Let's move on.

    I do wonder what will be asked, stunts-wise, of the next Bond actor? What will they be down for? What will the producers expect? Brosnan showed you don't have to be a physical specimen to be Bond... but Craig showed the benefit if you are.

    I would say Connery had a hard edge, Lazenby in that harder mold, Moore was softer, Dalton hard again, Brosnan the soft version of Dalton, and Craig was hard once again. So soft Bond again next? Some of the names thrown around the other threads are pretty soft actors...

    Or Henry Cavill type. Pretty boy but stronger.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,711
    Broken record here, for the next Bond I want someone like Hugh Jackman, an actor who can be incredibly charming and is comfortable with the lighter side of a character but who possesses incredible physicality and can convincingly engage in action.
  • peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan , I found Lazenby a clumsy mover. He looked like a slow (and not too bright) horse to me (and I do love OHMSS). I'm not a fan of his winding-up Superman punches, either.

    I feel that’s down more to Lazenby’s skills as an actor, and perhaps lack of direction, and not his physicality necessarily. If I were to put George Lazenby (the man) inside a cage with either Connery or Craig, I don’t think either of them would win that fight, especially with what we know of Lazenby’s actual Martial Arts training.
    peter wrote: »
    No, the only two actors I felt had a command over their bodies, and were truly athletic (and you see by the way they simply walk, to running, to fighting), was Connery and Craig.

    I don't think Dalton needed to be athletic, necessarily, cuz his Bond was intensely on the move, so aggressively going after the baddie (especially in LTK), so driven, and so wound up like a coiled spring.... (Although his physique did disappoint me)....

    Moore relied on his charm, and, no I didn't find Pierce athletic at all.

    Moore at least made some attempts to get into shape for his earlier Bond films. He wasn’t trying to get buff like Craig, but he was actively working on it to where I could buy some of the stuff he was doing. The problem with Moore is that he was already in his mid 40’s in LALD, so it’s tough for me to hold that against him.

    Dalton I agree, his presence sold me enough to buy his characterization of the part, but it also helped that he did his own stunts after all of the obvious stunt double usage of the late Moore years.

    Brosnan was incredibly athletic too, a result of his lean physique, so I’m not sure why you don’t see that in his performance. Yeah he wasn’t bulky, but he certainly was in shape. Take Goldeneye for example and the scene where Bond and Natalya have to escape the Military Archives. Brosnan immediately has to cut a corner, drop/slide enough of a distance in order to fire the machine gun and hit those guards coming at him. You can’t really do a drop/slide move like that without having some sort of athleticism, or as you described “connection between Mind and Body.”

    peter wrote: »
    whereas it looked like Brosnan was waiting for his cues, waiting for his turn to throw a punch, doing the replay in his mind etc., etc.

    I’m sorry but I don’t think that makes any sense. The problems you described Brosnan as having is just the process of fight choreography. Actors have to wait for their cues, wait for their turns, do the replay in mind, in other words they have to act professionally. Every Bond has had to do that, including Connery and Craig, so I’m not really understanding the merit of that point.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    @007ClassicBondFan : Lazenby walked like a clumsy horse in my opinion and has nothing to do with his performance or direction. And re: him in a cage match: As I said somewhere on this thread: just because someone pumps iron, or can throw a punch, doesn’t mean they’re athletic (and I go into what I mean by true athleticism).

    I have no problem with Moore. His Bond sells me on his charm.

    Re: Brosnan, and fighting cues: I disagree about your view on fight choreography. Of course you wait for your cue, but the best in the business can conceal it and make it look like a “real fight”. In the very scene I cited, Bean makes it all look organic and improvised. Brosnan doesn’t, in my opinion.

    In later films, Brosnan also looks like he’s throwing a knuckleball pitch, not a punch to the face. He wasn’t physical nor athletic to me.

    And as far as his leanness, he’s far too thin in Goldeye, and to me, he just got softer with each Bond film he did.

    I’m not saying this to be contrarian. I’m stating what I see, and to me there were two, terrifically athletic actors who played Bond.

    The rest were, at best, a mixed bag with Lazenby coming a distant third, Dalton’s kinetic energy fourth, Brosnan fifth, and Moore in dead last. This isn’t about performances, but natural athleticism and physicality that the actors either have, or don’t have…. In my opinion.

  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,723
    talos7 wrote: »
    Broken record here, for the next Bond I want someone like Hugh Jackman, an actor who can be incredibly charming and is comfortable with the lighter side of a character but who possesses incredible physicality and can convincingly engage in action.

    Found him...
    wndky0vgvefh.jpg
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Broken record here, for the next Bond I want someone like Hugh Jackman, an actor who can be incredibly charming and is comfortable with the lighter side of a character but who possesses incredible physicality and can convincingly engage in action.

    Found him...
    wndky0vgvefh.jpg

    👍🏻 👍🏻 👍🏻…
  • Benny wrote: »
    Found him...
    wndky0vgvefh.jpg

    Nope.
  • BennyBenny keeping tabs on youAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,723
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Broken record here, for the next Bond I want someone like Hugh Jackman, an actor who can be incredibly charming and is comfortable with the lighter side of a character but who possesses incredible physicality and can convincingly engage in action.

    Found him...
    wndky0vgvefh.jpg
    Benny wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    Broken record here, for the next Bond I want someone like Hugh Jackman, an actor who can be incredibly charming and is comfortable with the lighter side of a character but who possesses incredible physicality and can convincingly engage in action.

    Found him...
    wndky0vgvefh.jpg
    Benny wrote: »
    Found him...
    wndky0vgvefh.jpg

    Nope.

    You're spelling it wrong. ;)
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited December 2023 Posts: 2,857
    Rachel Weisz famously said that Craig's not a tough guy, he's just really good at pretending to be one. Whereas Lazenby punched out Oliver Reed with one shot and Connery had to be pleaded with not to do the same to Lee Marvin. He also gave such a good account of himself when jumped by half a dozen blokes from one of Edinburgh's razor gangs that they asked him to join them! If you got all the actors at age 30 and put them in a real life battle royale, I'd back Connery and Lazenby to be the last men standing. Peter's obviously right that being handy in a scrap isn't the same as athleticism, though, and on that one, yes, I'd go Connery and Craig too.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 1,955
    I’m sorry @peter but I still can’t bring myself to agree. I just think your fundamentally wrong about Brosnan, and I know he isn’t one of your favorites, but I don’t see how he doesn’t sell that fight with Bean, I don’t see how he becomes softer in the future films (maybe the fight scenes in those later 3 weren’t up to the standard of GE; but that’s never on Pierce, he was just getting older), and I certainly don’t see how Lazenby lacked athleticism especially when he was quite proficient in Martial Arts. Putting it this way, neither Connery nor Craig were being invited by Bruce Lee to train with him; Lazenby was, and I think that should be taken into account.

    Plus there’s a whole lot more to playing Bond than just the athletic aspects. I’m not trying to take away anything from Connery or Craig, but there were elements that the other Bonds had that those two lacked as well, particularly Craig. Brosnan may not be as physically fit as Connery/Craig, but he runs laps around Craig at least when it comes to the sophistication/elegance/humor, plus he can effortlessly switch from being a lover to being a killer with the change of an expression, and be incredibly convincing as well. Connery is the only other Bond who can do that, and I think that Brosnan edges Connery slightly because he never got bored with the role, and put in a lazy performance. Mind you this is all my opinion.
    Venutius wrote: »
    Peter's obviously right that being handy in a scrap isn't the same as athleticism, though, and on that one, yes, I'd go Connery and Craig too.

    Being handy in a scrap isn’t the same as athleticism yes, but being a Martial Artist does imply athletic skill ;).
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 2,544
    Craig obviously built himself up for the role (although he’s not ‘a tough guy’ in real life as was said, I think it helps that he’s got a naturally quite stocky physique). Connery had naturally quite a slim build but was athletic so it showed. If anything it’s Moore who actually had quite a broad chest and shoulders (not dissimilar to Craig’s natural physique) which I always thought gave the impression of strength. I actually think his fighting looks very convincing in the club scene in TMWTGG (it helps that it looks like his Bond is struggling/it’s not built on ‘smooth’ choreography). Brosnan and Dalton were quite slim but lean by contrast.

    I get the sense some people’s body types lend themselves more to ‘buffing up’ while others are better off being ‘lean’. It actually has nothing to do with how the actor moves in fairness.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 7,953
    @007ClassicBondFan , I’m not asking for you to agree with me, nor do I expect it.

    I’m not talking about athleticism being the only attribute to Bond (but it should be in the top three).

    I personally don’t find Brosnan sophisticated in any way. I don’t find him funny either. Roger was funny, and Craig and Connery have the driest of wit, which I personally find more funny than, “I thought Christmas only comes once a year”…

    I never found Brosnan to be a lover and a killer, just an actor who makes pain face and touches his lip a lot… And one who tries to cannibalize his leading ladies.

    I don’t think Brozz has, in his entire being, what Connery had in his baby toenail.

    I can’t convince you of anything. I see the actors as I see them, and nothing more.
  • peter wrote: »
    @007ClassicBondFan , I’m not asking for you to agree with me, nor do I expect it.

    I’m not talking about athleticism being the only attribute to Bond (but it should be in the top three).

    I personally don’t find Brosnan sophisticated in any way. I don’t find him funny either. Roger was funny, and Craig and Connery have the driest of wit, which I personally find more funny than, “I thought Christmas only comes once a year”…

    And again, you’re welcome to think that, that’s your prerogative.

    peter wrote: »
    I never found Brosnan to be a lover and a killer, just an actor who makes pain face and touches his lip a lot… And one who tries to cannibalize his leading ladies.

    I don’t think Brozz has, in his entire being, what Connery had in his baby toenail.

    But this is where I do push back, because this is clearly a biased take with no basis in facts/reality.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,711
    Someone may have mentioned this, and I missed it, but one thing that has advanced through the years is fight choreography. So, to some degree, its a bit unfair to compare actors from different eras when it come to how their fights looked on screen. Without a doubt Daniel Craig benefitted greatly from outstanding fight choreography. Now, he had to have the athletic prowess to pull it off ,so it was very collaborative.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    Someone may have mentioned this, and I missed it, but one thing that has advanced through the years is fight choreography. So, to some degree, its a bit unfair to compare actors from different eras when it come to how their fights looked on screen. Without a doubt Daniel Craig benefitted greatly from outstanding fight choreography. Now, he had to have the athletic prowess to pull it off ,so it was very collaborative.

    100% agreed.
Sign In or Register to comment.