Unfortunately there is a very real danger that the critics will do to this what they did to CA& - and going back in time, what they did to GC.Germangirl wrote:Exactly the kind of critisism, I knew would happen. And maybe its even right at this point, even though I absolutely believe, C&A would have been the hit, they expected, had it been a better film. Nothing to do with DC, but they always look for the easy way out.
I say, the prods knew, who is is and knew, he hadn't exactly blown away audiences apart from Bond ( well, apart from the die hard fans like us ) - so, nothing has changed. Obviously they hired, who they thought was best for the role and he never lets anybody down on this prospect. I really don't believe, they overestimated his star power. Why would they? Based on what?
On the other hand, I believe, people, who will go and see the film, will do it regardless, who the actors are. They want to find out about the new Lisbeth and how the film compares to the swedish version, so yes, maybe advertise Lisbeth a bit more. She IS the more interesting character and the one, people are going to see. When they find out, there is a great MB as well - even better.
I think, Tattoo is THE career defining film for him. God beware, it tanks..after opening Friday, word of mouth will make or break it. IF the film is good and they don't nail him on his non-existant accent, everything will be fine and his arse is save for the moment.
This is the headline, I wanna see after opening weekend:
Daniel Craig - born to be James Bond? That was yesterday. After the last weekend its clear, he was born to be Mikael Blomkvist
In that case the critics ran yellow in the face of powerful religious groups in the US who were determined the film was going to sink like a shipwreck, with a lot of noise and many casualties. The fact that it succeeded in the rest of the world proved it was not the flop some say it was.
It's also unfair to blame Daniel for the loss of awards for Defiance. The reason it "came up empty" was mostly political imo, and I'm not talking showbiz "politics".
Yes, C&A was nowhere near as good as it could have been. But it was a lot better than the critics encouraged people to think it was by their carping snipes, even before the damn film had been given a chance.
Maybe I'm just paranoid and overly-sensitive, but there seems to a concerted effort by many critics, primarily in the US, to sink anything that Daniel appears in.