For months now, every sort of complaint has been lodged against Daniel Craig playing James Bond. "He has no charisma!" "He doesn't look the part!" "He has big ears!"You name it, people have said it. Hell, even a website was created to complain about his casting. Personally, I saw the Casino Royaletrailer before Borat, and he just looked too rough. Isn't Bond supposed to be smooth and saucy, clad in a suit that seems as natural to him as his own skin? Craig is definitely an action hero, but Bond? I'm not sure.

In the latest GQ, Craig is speaking out against his critics, equating them with schoolyard bullies. He definitely has a point, and people are going to surprising lengths to express their disappointment. But should he be surprised? Fans and creaters have both vehemently hit back at casting choices of literary heroes, let alone film icons who have been around for decades. Sometimes people eat their words, like Anne Rice retracting her thoughts about Tom Cruise playing Lestat, and others are proved right, like those who were unhappy when Alicia Silverstone put on the Batgirl suit.

However, the British press is starting to review Casino Royale, and aside from a mediocre review from The Guardian, other publications like The Sun and The Daily Mail are "gushing." It is even being said that Craig is the best Bond since Connery. Are they right? Or, did someone put drugs in the ventilation system?

[via exposay.com and Dark Horizons]

categories Movies, Cinematical