It's been about a week since the anticlimactic announcement that Daniel Craig would play the next James Bond in a straightforward adaptation of Casino Royale. And I find myself upset with the Internet. This news drew a lot of attention, particularly because the man's hair is blondish, but no one bothered to ask what I find to be an obvious question:
Isn't James Bond supposed to be handsome?
Even the photo from the link above had to be taken from a distance to minimize his wrinkly face. Daniel Craig? More like Daniel Crag. And this advance promo pic, which looks way airbrushed, can't quite solve the problem of his receding hairline. I'm disappointed.
Yeah, I'll probably see it anyway. Can't deny the fact that Indians love James Bond. It's like Germans and David Hasselhoff, only slightly less cheesy.
55 Fiction Friday preferred the Q stuff anyway.
Tom kept the rustling of plastic to a minimum.
“You’ll embark upon an incredible journey… in bed.”
“Surprises await you and a special someone… in bed.”
“When lost, you must stop and ask for directions… in bed.”
His giggling was enough for Nancy, who sat up. “Honey, please don’t eat those fortune cookies in bed.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I would have supported this decision, as Goran looks the part more, and certainly needs to be rescued from the sinking ship of a show he's on.
After posting this entry, I began to think about the nationality of previous Bonds.
Scottish: Sean Connery
Australian: George Lazenby
British: Roger Moore
Welsh: Timothy Dalton
Irish: Pierce Brosnan
Hold on. Australia? That was only a British colony. Heck, so was India. This gets me thinking, but not for long. The three biggest Bollywood stars are too ugly, too short, or too gay. I'm not naming names.
Hey Neel! glad to see a fellow law student posting on something other than the law. keep making us look good.
my pic would HK (another Brit colony) and my pic would be: Jackie Chan. Aww yeah.
Post a Comment