He’s a brilliant actor with a penchant for balancing franchise commitments (Harry Potter to Twilight to The Batman to Dune: Part Three) with big, bonkers swings (Primetime, The Drama, Mickey 17, The Lighthouse). An A-lister who doesn’t take himself—or his press tours—all that seriously. A Brit who has been a global movie star almost since childhood, but still, somehow, feels far from mainstream. Someone who’s dashing and suave, athletic and steely, and entirely of the moment. For all these reasons, and many, many more, I firmly believe that Robert Pattinson should be the next James Bond.
Consider the other four actors he (apparently) competed against recently in the final round of screen tests: Callum Turner, Jack Lowden, Josh O’Connor and Nicholas Hoult—all handsome, clean-cut and very solid, credible choices. Among them, Pattinson, in some ways, feels like the outlier—with his weirder, wackier filmography, he seems more suited, perhaps, to the role of a Bond villain. But, I’d argue, that is exactly the reason to give him the top job.
Ever since Daniel Craig hung up his tux in 2021, there’s been much soul searching about the continuation of the Bond franchise. Isn’t it a misogynistic relic of a bygone era? Is it even worth updating it? The answer, I think, is complicated. No, we don’t need Bond–but I believe there’s a way for this cinematic universe to survive, thrive even; stunts, gunfights, femme fatales, martinis and all. That relies on it being fully and properly reborn.
Turn back the clock to the early 2000s, as Pierce Brosnan’s tenure as 007 ended, and you might remember that some of the same conversations were being had then. How do you revitalise such a long-standing and unquestionably formulaic film series? The answer was Craig – at that time, a less than obvious choice for the part. There was controversy at the fact that he was blonde. At under 6 foot, he was deemed too short. Tabloids labelled him as bland. He wasn’t particularly well-known by the film-going public. A petition calling for his removal received hundreds of thousands of signatures. But, thankfully, the franchise’s producers dug in their heels. Casino Royale—in the eyes of many, the best Bond movie ever made—followed a year later. Craig’s critics were silenced. All of which to say, sometimes the most unlikely choice is the best one.
There’s been endless hand-wringing about Amazon’s takeover of the series—without the steadiness of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson (the children of Albert R “Cubby” Broccoli, the legendary producer of the original James Bond films), who had been overseeing the empire since the ’90s, would the streamer turn this big-screen behemoth into a small-screen laughing stock with endless spin-offs? Maybe they eventually will… but it’s worth adding that the next instalment is being produced by two veterans of the movie business: Amy Pascal (the Spider-Man franchise, Little Women, Challengers, Project Hail Mary) and David Heyman (the Harry Potter films, Marriage Story, Barbie, Artificial). And it’ll be directed by Denis Villeneuve (Sicario, Arrival, the Dune series) and penned by Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight.
Villeneuve’s appointment offers the biggest glimmer of hope—here is an auteur with endless ambition and vision and style, practiced at reviving franchises (let’s not forget Blade Runner 2049, in addition to the sandy sci-fi epic which is concluding soon). In the past, big-name directors including Christopher Nolan and Danny Boyle have come close to helming Bond movies, but been deterred by a lack of creative control – for Broccoli and Wilson, consistency in tone and, at times, a kind of franchise-friendly uniformity, seemed to be a priority, over a flashy writer-director really putting their stamp on Bond. That had its advantages—Bond movies have been mid and forgettable, but rarely car crashes. But, there is something very exciting about this new era of 007 opening the door to more boundary-pushing creators. Perhaps Pascal and Heyman are keeping Villeneuve on a tight leash, but his involvement suggests a loosening of the strictures around this IP, at the very least. Villeneuve—a four-time Oscar nominee, French-Canadian, with defined interests and a very distinct, slick aesthetic—doesn’t feel like a director who’d have been in the mix in the age of Broccoli and Wilson. Would they have picked Turner, Lowden, O’Connor or Hoult? Possibly. Would they have considered Pattinson? I don’t think so—which makes him, for me, the most galvanising choice.
In the end, the best decision, I think, would have been to choose a total unknown to play Bond—someone with whom we have no prior relationship or associations, who can make the part their own and benefit from their new global platform. In the age of monoculture, where the same 10 people are seemingly cast in everything, why not take a chance on someone new? But it appears that Amazon, for whatever reason, disagrees. If the final five is, indeed, Turner, Lowden, O’Connor, Hoult and Pattinson, why not, at least, go with the most off-the-wall pick from that shortlist?
It should go without saying that Pattinson would make a real meal of it. From his snarling villainy in The Odyssey to his madcap antics in The Drama to his stilted transformation in Primetime, this is a performer who holds nothing back, and has been on quite the roll recently. He ticks all the required boxes—action star credibility (he’s literally Batman), awards-worthy acting chops, the ability to look very dapper in a suit (he’s the face of Dior Homme, for crying out loud)—but also feels like a fresh, unexpected choice; exactly the kind of shot in the arm this 64-year-old film series desperately needs. So, I say, cast him right now—the future of the franchise may depend on it.
