I must say that Daniel Criag in and of himself is a really good actor (or atleast in my book). Not just in the roles that he plays but also in the facial expressions which to me without them, there isn't anything to really believe in the acting itself.
I am hoping, but probubly to no avail, that he would at the very least get nominated for his role. As the link posted above states, not many people thought he was up for the job and he silenced those critics (with the exception of the India newspaper, but what do they know anyways).
Craig is a good actor, who has been lurking under the radar for a few years. I had never seen him before Munic. When I found out he was the new Bond I was elated, his performance in that movie was excellent though it was in the background for most of the time. I think Casino Royale is the first MAJOR film in which he stared.
I hope he will gain much from this. He certianly deserves some sort of recgonition simply because of the hell he had to go through from the media till the movie was released.
No mention of Daniel Craig, but Casino Royale (along with 'The Queen') is at the top of the longlists for the British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA's) with 14 entries. Eva Green is in the main actress category.
There's an article about Brad Pitt by David Thomson in the UK Guardian that gives Craig a mention. Thomson writes about the male stars who seem to be overtaking Pitt's career.
'Damon is flying now. Leonardo DiCaprio has become the actor promised for so long. Daniel Craig can probably do what he wants.'
Not an Oscar nomination, but high praise from Thomson, the kind of highbrow critic who would never have anything to do with a Bond film.
There's a link here if anybody's interested in reading the rest of the article, although that's the only mention of Craig.
Oscar for Dan? Doubtful. Maybe a catagory such as Best Sound editing or Best effects.
It would be nice for the producers to receive some sort of recognition, but...
Personally I don't care if Bond wins any Oscars. Being a big film fan I used to watch the Oscars, riveted and excited to see which is the best film, best actor, actress etc.
But really at the end of the day what do the Oscars mean? Sure it's a prestigious award for the recipient, but to a fan?
The Oscars are voted for by the Oscars panel. And voting is apparently VERY political. It is often the film with the best campaign that wins.
If any awards are to be won, presonally I would much prefer Bond to win an award that is voted for by the public. Maybe an MTV award, the ceremony is a lot more fun to watch compared to the conceited, stuck up, bland (not including a few of the Billy Crystal hosted ceremonies )Oscars ceremony.
But really I don't care if Bond wins no awards, the only thing that means anything to me is the film itself. And awards or no awards that isn't going to change.
Anyway thats my thoughts on the Oscars!
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Another critic is pushing for Craig to get an Oscar nomination, G. Allen Johnson of the San Francisco Chronicle. You can read his column here; but the important stuff is excerpted below:
Daniel Craig for a Best Actor nomination
From G. Allen Johnson of The Chronicle staff
With just a few days to go until votes for Oscar nomination are due, let me make a last-minute push for what on the surface might seem a laughable candidate -- but bear with me!
I am speaking of one Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 in "Casino Royale," and I am not joking. Craig has entirely remade the concept of James Bond as a character, and with 40 years of prehistory, that's hard to do. His Bond was not only totally unlike the performances of the five actors who had played Bond before him, but it was a fully realized character, with emotions, tough choices and real acting involved.
Plus, "Casino Royale" is a fine film, co-written by Oscar-winner Paul Haggis and featuring an excellent supporting performance from another Oscar-winner, Judi Dench, among others.
I am not suggesting that Craig win the Oscar -- that should be Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin in "The Last King of Scotland." But Craig should be one of the five nominated.
Can you name five better, more charismatic and riveting male performances in a 2006 movie?
. . .There is precedent for Craig, both in perfecting a role previously played by others and as an action star. For one, O'Toole was nominated for playing Henry II in "The Lion in Winter" in 1968 just four years after many thought Richard Burton defined the role in "Becket." For two, Sigourney Weaver was nominated as the hero of a kick-ass action film in 1986 for "Aliens" -- which was also a sequel.
So don't be shy, voters! On your ballots, the name is Craig. Daniel Craig.
Interesting, though I don't trust this guy's film knowledge--Peter O'Toole played Henry II in bothBecket (Burton played the title role) and The Lion in Winter. But that's neither here nor there.
Vox clamantis in deserto
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Dan Craig wasn't on the SAG Awards ballot either. I totally would've voted for him, I wish he was.
Stephanie Zacharek, a critic for Salon, a popular online magazine, has a story that urges Academy Award voters to remember a number of dark horses when they pick the nominees. Among them:
Screenplay: "Casino Royale"
The "Casino Royale" screenplay, by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, working with Paul Haggis, is proof that there is (or can be) such a thing as a well-written action movie. But by any measure, this is a wonderful script, one that satisfies every craving you might have for smart interplay between characters, dialogue that moves with as much grace as the actors do, and the occasional spontaneous-sounding wisecrack. When a solicitous bartender asks Daniel Craig's Bond whether he prefers his martini shaken or stirred, 007 shoots back, "Do I look like I give a damn?" It's a clever, jazzy line, but it also serves the purpose of cluing us into Bond's concerns and frustrations at that moment in the plot -- an example of the way dialogue can simultaneously move a story forward and bring us straight into the mind of a character. The "Casino Royale" team get something else right, too, by writing Vesper Lynd (played by the terrific Eva Green) as a fully rounded character instead of just a "Bond girl." This is the sort of pleasurable, smart writing Hollywood needs more of. http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2007/01/12/oscar_wishes/index.html
Couldn't have said it better myself.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
edited January 2007
An Oscar nomination for a Bond film is always a hoot---and one connected to writing would be almost as precious as one for acting )
It's really too much to hope for...lest we 'true believers' appear greedy... :v Better to simply be satisfied by thunderous box office success B-)
:007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, 2006 could hardly be considered a vintage year in terms of quality filmmaking. Now would appear to be as good a time as there will ever likely be for a Bond film to receive a nomination for an Oscar in the writing or acting department.
Daniel Craig & Casino Royale continue to surprise and exceed expectations. Will there be one last surprise?
I really don't see it happening. Even though the American press are urging a nomination for Craig, I suspect that the American film industry have no intention of nominating an actor for playing James Bond. They're too involved in the snob factor.
I think you're right- it's as if they think only films which appear to be 'highbrow' (i.e. popcorn flicks about someone who is mentally disabled or stars an attractive actor who was willing to be made up to look ugly- gasp!) deserve these awards, whilst not noticing that delivering a finely engineered piece of escapism requires just the same amount of, if not more, skill. Why are there never any comedies in the best film section? I'd say making someone laugh is much harder than making them cry.
[quote=emtiem I think you're right- it's as if they think only films which appear to be 'highbrow' (i.e. popcorn flicks about someone who is mentally disabled or stars an attractive actor who was willing to be made up to look ugly- gasp!) deserve these awards, whilst not noticing that delivering a finely engineered piece of escapism requires just the same amount of, if not more, skill. Why are there never any comedies in the best film section? I'd say making someone laugh is much harder than making them cry.[/quote]
Totally agree. It's ridiculous that the Oscars don't have an award for comedy. I'd much rather watch Tom Hanks in his early movies than in the so-called serious ones that won him loads of awards. I'll take 'Bachelor Party' over 'Philadelphia' every time.
I can't comment on the legitimacy of this source--it's The Daily India, a Jacksonville, Florida, based publication--but it claims that bookies are putting some good odds on DC's chances for getting a nomination. For those who don't like clicking links, here's the story:
Daniel Craig is Punters' Favourite for Oscar
London, Jan 15(ANI): Daniel Craig's chances of bathing in Oscar glory indeed look bright this year, as millions of gamblers seem convinced the actor is a top punt for the award.
Bookies all around the US and the UK have splurged thousands on Daniel winning an Oscar, reports The Sun.
The shortlist for February's Oscars is not even announced until next week. But Dave Stevens, from bookies Coral, said: "We've had to slash Daniel's odds after we took so much money."
One Londoner wagered 1,000 pounds at 3/1 on Casino Royale winning an Academy in any of the categories.
Meanwhile, Daniel's debut 007 film, Casino Royale, has already been nominated for nine BAFTAs - the UK Oscar equivalent - including outstanding British film of the year.(ANI)
Surprised 'United 93,' isn't among the Best Picture nominee's. The Academy are completely out of touch. I suspect they're going to finally give Scorsese the Oscar he deserved years ago, although for a film that's basically a copy of another filmmaker's work. However, I've got a feeling that the pompous 'Babel,' might pull of a 'Crash' style surprise victory. All in all it's a really underwhelming line-up.
I haven't seen any of the nominees, so I suppose I shouldn't knock them. But I've got a feeling this is Scorcese's year and that's bad news for "The Departed," as far as I'm concerned. The Oscars have an uncanny knack of ignoring a huge talent's best work, only to come back and give them the nod for an adequate, but lesser effort. The idea of such an original guy as Scorcese winning for a remake like "The Departed." Can you say "Al Pacino" for Scent of a Woman? That's "scent" as in "stinker" as far as I'm concerned. And Pacino -- who was reknowned for his ability to play subtle -- has played everything at the top of his lungs ever since. How
"Paul Newman" in The Color of Money? The Academy apparently didn't see him play the same character in The Hustler.
Can you say "Al Pacino" for Scent of a Woman? That's "scent" as in "stinker" as far as I'm concerned. And Pacino -- who was reknowned for his ability to play subtle -- has played everything at the top of his lungs ever since.
Thank God there is somone out there who agrees with me! I love Pacino but I thought Scent of a Woman was dire and you are absolutely correct that he just shouts these days. I haven't seen Pacino in anything decent for years.
I think Mirren will get the nod for 'The Queen.' I wasn't overly impressed with it when I saw it. I thought it was more like a TV movie. Still, what do I know? I always seem to really dislike films that do well at the Oscars. American Beauty, The English Patient and Lost in Translation to name but a few.
I'm not upset that CR has missed out.Oscar seems to have a knack of destroying someones career so maybe thats the secret to Bonds longevity )
I love the Oscars so this is one of my favourite times of the year. Nonetheless I must be honest (with myself) and address a few points that were mentioned above.
It is absolutely true that the Academy tends to give Oscars for lesser works (or performances) to make up for the artist missing out on works for which they should have won. That is why Forrest Whitaker is no certainty to win Lead Actor for The Last King of Scotland. Peter O’Toole could very well win for Venus. O' Toole has been nominated seven times before, for no wins, has an honory Oscar, but this could be his last chance to win a competitive Oscar. In fact this could be the year of the veteran/makeup Oscar: O' Toole, Helen Mirren for The Queen (not a makeup oscar but a veteran nonetheless) and of course Marty.
Here's the thing; I adore Martin Scorsese. I really love him, and if I had to pick one favourite director, it would be him. I am delighted that he is being nominated yet again (sixth director, eighth career nomination) for The Departed and if he won, I would be overjoyed for him. Not because I think he deserves to win for The Departed (although I think it is a very good film, I think it is very overrated due to it being a Scorsese-directed cop/gangster film) but because IMO he should have won for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and could have challenged for several other films. Hence, although I'm not thrilled that if he wins the Oscar it will be for a lesser work rather than for one of his masterpieces, I am incredibly happy that he has the opportunity to get the Oscar which he has long desired. I only hope De Niro presents it.
Although I agree with LR and HH that Pacino got the Oscar for the wrong performance (I would have given it to him for The Godfather Part 2) I nonetheless think that he was terrific in Scent of a Woman. I don't think it should have been the film for which he won an Oscar, but I do think Pacino was very good in it.
Four last comments:
1)I was quite pleasantly suprised that Mark Wahlberg, and not Jack Nicholson, was nominated for The Departed. Although I love Jack, I think he was OTT and if he had been nominated, I believe that it would have been based primarily on his reputation.
2)I can not believe that Babel has done so well. Seven nomiantions including Picture, two acting nominations, director and screenplay? With the possible exception of one of its acting nominations (for Adriana Barraza) I think that most of its nominations (particularly the main ones) are entirely undeserved and IMO Babel takes the title of the most overrated film in 2006. I really hope that it doesn't win Best Picture.
3)I was absolutely delighted that another of my favourite directors, Clint Eastwood, received picture and directing nominations for Letters from Iwo Jima. {[] There was some talk that he would miss out, so I'm absolutely thrilled that this master of cinema got in. -{
4)I won't comment on CR's lack of success (as I don't want to be kicked off this site :v) other than to send out my sympathies to those who are indeed upset that Oscar and CR won't be getting together.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
I am hoping, but probubly to no avail, that he would at the very least get nominated for his role. As the link posted above states, not many people thought he was up for the job and he silenced those critics (with the exception of the India newspaper, but what do they know anyways).
Craig is a good actor, who has been lurking under the radar for a few years. I had never seen him before Munic. When I found out he was the new Bond I was elated, his performance in that movie was excellent though it was in the background for most of the time. I think Casino Royale is the first MAJOR film in which he stared.
I hope he will gain much from this. He certianly deserves some sort of recgonition simply because of the hell he had to go through from the media till the movie was released.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2006/12/looking_ahead_t.html
Scribe, look at the post by highhopes at the very top of this page. It's always a good idea to look before you link.
http://www.variety.com/awardcentral_article/VR1117956663.html?nav=news&categoryid=1985&cs=1
'Damon is flying now. Leonardo DiCaprio has become the actor promised for so long. Daniel Craig can probably do what he wants.'
Not an Oscar nomination, but high praise from Thomson, the kind of highbrow critic who would never have anything to do with a Bond film.
There's a link here if anybody's interested in reading the rest of the article, although that's the only mention of Craig.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/thomson/story/0,,1982829,00.html
Eva's actually been nominated for the "Rising Star", acknowledging new young talent. A coup none the less.
She remains on the longlist for Best Actress.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6241339.stm
And to vote for her:
http://www.bafta.org/site/page276.html
@merseytart
It would be nice for the producers to receive some sort of recognition, but...
Personally I don't care if Bond wins any Oscars. Being a big film fan I used to watch the Oscars, riveted and excited to see which is the best film, best actor, actress etc.
But really at the end of the day what do the Oscars mean? Sure it's a prestigious award for the recipient, but to a fan?
The Oscars are voted for by the Oscars panel. And voting is apparently VERY political. It is often the film with the best campaign that wins.
If any awards are to be won, presonally I would much prefer Bond to win an award that is voted for by the public. Maybe an MTV award, the ceremony is a lot more fun to watch compared to the conceited, stuck up, bland (not including a few of the Billy Crystal hosted ceremonies
But really I don't care if Bond wins no awards, the only thing that means anything to me is the film itself. And awards or no awards that isn't going to change.
Anyway thats my thoughts on the Oscars!
Daniel Craig for a Best Actor nomination
From G. Allen Johnson of The Chronicle staff
With just a few days to go until votes for Oscar nomination are due, let me make a last-minute push for what on the surface might seem a laughable candidate -- but bear with me!
I am speaking of one Daniel Craig as James Bond 007 in "Casino Royale," and I am not joking. Craig has entirely remade the concept of James Bond as a character, and with 40 years of prehistory, that's hard to do. His Bond was not only totally unlike the performances of the five actors who had played Bond before him, but it was a fully realized character, with emotions, tough choices and real acting involved.
Plus, "Casino Royale" is a fine film, co-written by Oscar-winner Paul Haggis and featuring an excellent supporting performance from another Oscar-winner, Judi Dench, among others.
I am not suggesting that Craig win the Oscar -- that should be Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin in "The Last King of Scotland." But Craig should be one of the five nominated.
Can you name five better, more charismatic and riveting male performances in a 2006 movie?
. . .There is precedent for Craig, both in perfecting a role previously played by others and as an action star. For one, O'Toole was nominated for playing Henry II in "The Lion in Winter" in 1968 just four years after many thought Richard Burton defined the role in "Becket." For two, Sigourney Weaver was nominated as the hero of a kick-ass action film in 1986 for "Aliens" -- which was also a sequel.
So don't be shy, voters! On your ballots, the name is Craig. Daniel Craig.
Interesting, though I don't trust this guy's film knowledge--Peter O'Toole played Henry II in both Becket (Burton played the title role) and The Lion in Winter. But that's neither here nor there.
Anyone know what the other 8 nominations are for?
Screenplay: "Casino Royale"
The "Casino Royale" screenplay, by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade, working with Paul Haggis, is proof that there is (or can be) such a thing as a well-written action movie. But by any measure, this is a wonderful script, one that satisfies every craving you might have for smart interplay between characters, dialogue that moves with as much grace as the actors do, and the occasional spontaneous-sounding wisecrack. When a solicitous bartender asks Daniel Craig's Bond whether he prefers his martini shaken or stirred, 007 shoots back, "Do I look like I give a damn?" It's a clever, jazzy line, but it also serves the purpose of cluing us into Bond's concerns and frustrations at that moment in the plot -- an example of the way dialogue can simultaneously move a story forward and bring us straight into the mind of a character. The "Casino Royale" team get something else right, too, by writing Vesper Lynd (played by the terrific Eva Green) as a fully rounded character instead of just a "Bond girl." This is the sort of pleasurable, smart writing Hollywood needs more of.
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2007/01/12/oscar_wishes/index.html
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It's really too much to hope for...lest we 'true believers' appear greedy... :v
:007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Daniel Craig & Casino Royale continue to surprise and exceed expectations. Will there be one last surprise?
I think you're right- it's as if they think only films which appear to be 'highbrow' (i.e. popcorn flicks about someone who is mentally disabled or stars an attractive actor who was willing to be made up to look ugly- gasp!) deserve these awards, whilst not noticing that delivering a finely engineered piece of escapism requires just the same amount of, if not more, skill. Why are there never any comedies in the best film section? I'd say making someone laugh is much harder than making them cry.
Totally agree. It's ridiculous that the Oscars don't have an award for comedy. I'd much rather watch Tom Hanks in his early movies than in the so-called serious ones that won him loads of awards. I'll take 'Bachelor Party' over 'Philadelphia' every time.
Daniel Craig is Punters' Favourite for Oscar
London, Jan 15(ANI): Daniel Craig's chances of bathing in Oscar glory indeed look bright this year, as millions of gamblers seem convinced the actor is a top punt for the award.
Bookies all around the US and the UK have splurged thousands on Daniel winning an Oscar, reports The Sun.
The shortlist for February's Oscars is not even announced until next week. But Dave Stevens, from bookies Coral, said: "We've had to slash Daniel's odds after we took so much money."
One Londoner wagered 1,000 pounds at 3/1 on Casino Royale winning an Academy in any of the categories.
Meanwhile, Daniel's debut 007 film, Casino Royale, has already been nominated for nine BAFTAs - the UK Oscar equivalent - including outstanding British film of the year.(ANI)
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070121/LIFE/701210305/-1/NEWS01
True and interesting
"Better make that two."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6290905.stm
But that wonderful piece of art Poseidon gets an Oscar nomination, so surely it's not all bad! 8-)
@merseytart
"Paul Newman" in The Color of Money? The Academy apparently didn't see him play the same character in The Hustler.
Thank God there is somone out there who agrees with me! I love Pacino but I thought Scent of a Woman was dire and you are absolutely correct that he just shouts these days. I haven't seen Pacino in anything decent for years.
I think Mirren will get the nod for 'The Queen.' I wasn't overly impressed with it when I saw it. I thought it was more like a TV movie. Still, what do I know? I always seem to really dislike films that do well at the Oscars. American Beauty, The English Patient and Lost in Translation to name but a few.
I'm not upset that CR has missed out.Oscar seems to have a knack of destroying someones career so maybe thats the secret to Bonds longevity
Snobs
Can
Award
Rubbish
Offer
Snobs
Cash
Await
Reward
Obviously
Superior
Casino
Absolutely
Royale :007)
Oscar
Snubbed
Casino
Absolutely
Right......runs for cover {:)
It is absolutely true that the Academy tends to give Oscars for lesser works (or performances) to make up for the artist missing out on works for which they should have won. That is why Forrest Whitaker is no certainty to win Lead Actor for The Last King of Scotland. Peter O’Toole could very well win for Venus. O' Toole has been nominated seven times before, for no wins, has an honory Oscar, but this could be his last chance to win a competitive Oscar. In fact this could be the year of the veteran/makeup Oscar: O' Toole, Helen Mirren for The Queen (not a makeup oscar but a veteran nonetheless) and of course Marty.
Here's the thing; I adore Martin Scorsese. I really love him, and if I had to pick one favourite director, it would be him. I am delighted that he is being nominated yet again (sixth director, eighth career nomination) for The Departed and if he won, I would be overjoyed for him. Not because I think he deserves to win for The Departed (although I think it is a very good film, I think it is very overrated due to it being a Scorsese-directed cop/gangster film) but because IMO he should have won for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas and could have challenged for several other films. Hence, although I'm not thrilled that if he wins the Oscar it will be for a lesser work rather than for one of his masterpieces, I am incredibly happy that he has the opportunity to get the Oscar which he has long desired. I only hope De Niro presents it.
Although I agree with LR and HH that Pacino got the Oscar for the wrong performance (I would have given it to him for The Godfather Part 2) I nonetheless think that he was terrific in Scent of a Woman. I don't think it should have been the film for which he won an Oscar, but I do think Pacino was very good in it.
Four last comments:
1)I was quite pleasantly suprised that Mark Wahlberg, and not Jack Nicholson, was nominated for The Departed. Although I love Jack, I think he was OTT and if he had been nominated, I believe that it would have been based primarily on his reputation.
2)I can not believe that Babel has done so well. Seven nomiantions including Picture, two acting nominations, director and screenplay?
3)I was absolutely delighted that another of my favourite directors, Clint Eastwood, received picture and directing nominations for Letters from Iwo Jima. {[] There was some talk that he would miss out, so I'm absolutely thrilled that this master of cinema got in. -{
4)I won't comment on CR's lack of success (as I don't want to be kicked off this site :v) other than to send out my sympathies to those who are indeed upset that Oscar and CR won't be getting together.