1. I would have liked to see Craig wear a white dinner jacket. It seems like he’s in a setting where it would be appropriate in summer Shanghai. Bond has only donned dark dinner jackets since Roger Moore and I’d like to see some variety.

    Just my opinion.

  2. I love that dinner jacket/tuxedo. And Bond is going to wear these superb suspenders again. I would love to see suspenders with suit on Bond, but nowadays suspenders are even more unusual than in Connery’s era.
    It’s fine that Craig is going to wear gray suit (he just wear one in CR, but it was very bright summer suit without tie and with short-sleeved shirt), but the cut is terrible.

  3. I think he looks great, although I know there will be an avalanche of comments on here about the fit being “too tight” and how he should be wearing an undarted sack suit with high-rise pleated trousers 😉

    • He actually does wear proper pleated trousers with his dinner suit. As for sack suits, Bond never dressed American and I don’t think anyone wants to see that.

      • Why should the only alternatives be too tight or a sack suit? Once upon a time proportion and moderation were hallmarks of good taste!

  4. I am pleased to see that some people like this new look. It’s interesting to confront different opinions. I will share mine -even if I know it’s always easy to criticize rather than appreciate- : I am definitely not mad about this new look for Craig. If he wants to have suits that move with him and are close to the body, why not considering Connery’s style and do a modern interpretation of it ? I remenber a short video of Anthony Sinclair talking about his “Connery” Conduit Cut suits and I can’t help thinking it is the kind of cut that would suit Craig. But the actual Tom Ford cut definitely looks too trendy and tight in my opinion -very different from QOS. When I see Craig wearing these beautiful white braces with such low-waisted trousers, it seems a non-sense. And with a short and tight jacket, sunglasses and hands-free headset, he makes me think to a bodygard. I am not mad of the association of a short peacoat & a suit either ^^

    Personnaly, I think that the best cut for Craig was the one of the QOS suits and the Casino Royale dinner jacket, but I prefer the CR Brioni style ; Tom Ford is a little flashy I think for a Bond close to Fleming.
    Anyway, the film looks great, and that’s the most important, even for a Bond movie. So peace 🙂

  5. The too-tight lower leg/ankles look has always irked the hell out of me. It looks childish, and far too flashy for someone who is supposed to be a spy.

  6. I think it’s actually quite ridiculous for anybody to call the suits here – from what we have seen – particularly ill-fitting. Yes, the jacket could be a little longer and is pulling a bit (in what GQ is trying to sell us as fashionably “Italian” style). Yes, the leg opening could be a little larger, the trousers a little longer. And yes, the jacket has a single vent (urgh). Nevertheless, these all are to a certain extent matters of taste and may vary with what suits the wearer best. Of course the suits are well cut, even if they might not be the most flattering for Craig’s body type.
    Plus, the argument about the actor not looking “not enough like a spy” has gotten stale since it can be applied to every Bond with the exception of Connery maybe. As a matter of fact, even Connery was too well dressed to not be noticed. Truth is, who cares? Nobody wants to see Bond dressed in a graphic t-shirt, jeans and dirty sneakers for authenticity’s sake.

    • As you said, “they might not be the most flattering for Craig’s body type.” That means the suits are not well cut and don’t fit well. You did a great job at pointing out all the reasons why the suits don’t fit well. Sure, they are well-crafted suits and would look very nice if they fit better, but the number one importance in wearing a suit is fit and you pointed out some of the major problems it has.

      • I don’t see at all how they aren’t flattering for Craig’s body type. He’s slim and ripped. People with his body type are the only ones who can pull off this cut.

      • He’s muscular, which means he’s not all that slim. Brosnan in GoldenEye was very slim, and the idea is usually that very slim men need a suit that’s a little larger to fill them out. Craig doesn’t need to be filled out, but he needs something to hide his muscular build. A well-tailored and flattering suit drapes smoothly over the body and shouldn’t show off muscle. When it looks like he’s bursting out of his suit it makes him look beefy and that’s not particularly elegant.

      • She specifically said that they were trying NOT to hide his muscular build. That’s the point for them.
        And to be fair, Craig is not always bursting out of these suits and they’re not always tight.
        It doesn’t matter how much people complain, Bond is going to be dressed with a element of fashion and that fashion currently is trim-cut suits. Whether we like it or not.

        Bond films are not only made for apparel aficionados. Even if they should be!

      • I’m somewhat taken aback by your comment that a proper suit for Craig should “hide his muscular build”.

        I’m not prepared to say that the fit in these clips looks great (I do think it is bit too tight)…but IS the purpose of the perfect fit to hide bodily imperfections (not that many would consider a build like Craig’s unfortunate), or to accentuate the flattering aspects of the physical form?

        The easy answer would be to say “both”, but you seem to want a suit that erases the markers of the individual and makes every man look the same.

        I would disagree. If you have an athletic form, I think it is perfectly acceptable to have your suit cut to match. You would probably think my jackets were to tight at the waist, but I have broad shoulders and I like the V-shape a cinch waist gives me.

        Now on the issues of the jacket’s length and the pant leg’s width…you have a point. Those are true trends or even a designer’s personal flair that should be toned down to keep Bond more timeless…BUT, on the issue of the low rise pants, I think you and the guys here need to accept the inevitable. Low-rise or mid-rise pants are the norm now. They have transcended trend. Whether we like it or not, Craig’s Bond would look out-of-place in modern society with the kind of waistline you’d like to see.

        Just my opinion. I have my flame-retardant jacket on, so fire away.

      • I didn’t say that a jacket shouldn’t be form fitting and accentuate the V-shape of a man’s figure. Indeed I think it should accentuate the shape of Craig’s body overall, and the waist should be tight, but not so tight that it creases. Look at Huntsman’s suits to see a very tight waist that works. And I think the suits Tom Ford wears himself show how a suit can be tight but still look very neat. I’m not suggesting that Craig wear full-cut suits like Connery wore, though his suits hid his athletic build quite well. And the trousers don’t need to be as high as what Connery, Moore or Brosnan wore. I’d be happy if they were up to the height of the trousers Craig wore in Quantum of Solace. Low rise trousers aren’t flattering to Craig’s shorter stature (compared to the other Bonds), but his height seems to no longer be an issue. Low-rise trousers decrease the leg line, making him appear shorter. Quantum of Solace showed these fashion trends in moderation and in a tasteful way. A man in his 40’s wearing what runway models in their 20’s are wearing to me looks immature and unsophisticated. Not what I think we should expect from Bond now long past his first mission.

      • What you say about shorter men and low cut trousers are normally true, but not for Craig. I myself have the same type of body as him (I don’t mean the muscles, I mean the overall proportions) and I’m just an inch shiorter, and we both have pretty long, big legs in comparision to our upper bodies, slim waist, big buttocks and broad shoulders. Now, if I, or Craig, dress in trousers that are as high cut as those worn by Connery, it’s going to look like our legs are even longer. Instead we look better in low cut trousers, wich evens it out. I also dress in a jacket with classical lenght to help balance the proportions even more, although Craig makes the mistake of having a modern slimfit jacket, wich is short and makes his legs look even longer. He looked much more even in QoS than here. But overall, the high cut vs. low cut trousers and jacket are not only about wheather you are long or short but wheather your leags are long in comparision to your upper body or vice versa.

      • I can agree that Craig can benefit proportionally from a lower rise, and the low rise he wore in Quantum of Solace looked good. These trousers have a rise over an inch lower than that, which only creates an unsightly gap below the jacket button and waistband. Cutting the front skirt more closed to cover the gap doesn’t help the height problem. The rise and button stance need to work with each other, but if the button stance were as low as the trouser rise it would look silly and definitely wouldn’t lengthen his legs.

  7. It’s all a matter of degree; George lazenby’s suits emphasized his V-shaped torso without pulling, and his pants were trimly fitted without bunching up around the ankles.

  8. Bravo Matt for your last reply to wm. Excellently said. Bond should look like he can effortlessly blend into upper stratas of the world of business. Which, as you said, means he should look he is aware of current trends and dresses accordingly, but is not a slave to fashion.

    I wish we could get a Bond film where Craig wears suits in the QOS cut, but the Skyfall fabrics and colours. Apart from the issue of his ties being way too long in QOS and there being a touch too much flair to his jacket skirts, I’m overall very fond of the cut and style of those suits. I think they flatter Craig’s athletic physique without being obvious and uncouth. If only we could replace the flashy mohair tonic with the understated Prince of Wales checks and such, we are seeing in Skyfall.

  9. Having finally watched the video, I think Craig and his suits look quite good. They do reflect 2012 standards, but I think they should. As classic as Sinclair ’63 or Haywood ’81 are, both styles would not fit in today. And those suits themselves reflected the fashions of the times, without going overboard. Calling them “classic” or “timeless” ignores that they fit in with the prevailing look of the time in which they were designed. I think the suits here basically fit in with that paradigm. I am not a fan of the short jackets, but Craig’s here manage to avoid the very -trendy short-and-tight looks I see around Beverly Hills. And the basic look (plain, solid ties, grey suit, etc.) is very reminiscent of basic Bond suits from 1963. For some reason, that last observation has proven controversial before, but I am not talking about the trendy sartorial details but about the basic colors and look. I look forward to the Skyfall…

    • So people actually wear the short and tight suits in Beverly Hills? I only see them occasionally in New York. Only two men in my office dress somewhat like that, but they also are both much smaller than Daniel Craig. Sinclair is only dated by narrow lapels and Hayward is only dated by a low button stance, but far more elements of Daniel Craig’s suits here are elements of current fashion so I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.

      But I do agree with Brandon that the cloths look very nice and are more appropriate than the mohair tonic from Quantum of Solace.

      • Matt,

        Yes, I have seen the ultra-fashionable, short-and-tight suits around Beverly Hills. They seem to be everywhere. I have seen the same suits on attorneys I run into around the LA legal field. It is disturbing…but I figure the trend will swing back soon as I think we have reached about the limits of short and tight. I do agree with the comment above though, how low-rise and mid-rise is the norm, and one I prefer.
        More seriously, I agree with you that Craig’ s suits here are more fashionable then we have seen in awhile.

      • While I agree with Christian about the color scheme of Craig’s wardrobe, I’m with Matt on the issue of fit. Just take a look at the previous post from The Man Who Haunted Himself. Such seemingly effortless perfection of fit is indeed timeless.

  10. Matt,

    I apologize in advance for posting this here, as it pertains to an old entry, so if you prefer, please repost it in the proper place. I saw Goldfinger last night, and are you sure that the suit Bond wears at Fort Knox is brown? I mean, it could be, but it really looked charcoal, or even black. Only a few times did it barely look brown. I wonder if the variation has to do with the color processing of each format (film, DVD, Blu Ray), so I was just wondering if it is possible to track down the original color.

    Also, for anyone in Los Angeles, UCLA Film and BAFTA are, in conjunction with American Cinematheque, screening all of the Bond films this month. This weekend (through tonight) covers from Dr. No to OHMSS. And LA Times reports that the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is screening the films on Thursday nights in July and September. A great opportunity to see the films as they were meant to be seen.

  11. I’ve no doubt that, back in 1989, the Bond producers were also telling us about how tasteful and modern Dalton’s wardrobe was at this time. Indeed, in a recent interview with Dalton, reminiscing about his Bond days, he referered to a “beautiful suit” he wore in “Licence to Kill”. Odd, but I must have missed this!

    Good tailoring is good tailoring irrespective of the timeframe and anyone with an appreciation for this will recognise it instantly. Ms Termine knows nothing about good tailoring judging from her comments on this video blog. Ditto Craig himself and the current crop of Broccoli’s.

    To echo other comments, of course, I would also like to see variation in Bond’s sartorial palate; white dinner jacket, tan suits (which as Matt has pointed out in a previous post, would suit his complexion perfectly), the occasional blazer. Then again, I’d like to see an actor in the role and a direction taken by the producers which struck a balance which combined action, spectacle and a lighthearted touch. This is why I have studiously avoided Craig since witnessing his debut.

  12. David,

    Once again I agree with everything you said; I also wonder why they didn’t have Craig wear something “tweedier” for the Scotland scenes – Lazenby and Moore carried off the tweedy look very well, without looking in the least geriatric or professorial. When all is said and done, Craig’s outfits are just not very interesting, setting aside for the moment considerations of style and fit.

  13. Observe how the jackets pull, especially in the gunfight scene shown here. Luxurious thought the material might be, the fit does leave something to be desired.
    I’m all for something that flatters Craig’s build, but this isn’t it.
    For a look that is both contemporary and well-tailored I would point to Christian Bale’s suits in The Dark Knight.

    • While Bale’s suits are very nice, they are not at all suited for Bond. They are classic Italian tailoring with built-up shoulders, a relaxed fit, double reverse pleats, and full breaks. The overall look is well suited to a tall man like Bale, but I wonder if the baggier fit would not make Craig look short and blocky.

      Do not take the above comments as indicating any preference for Craig’s current Tom Ford wardrobe. I just don’t think Bale’s suits would work much better. Craig just needs some proper English tailoring. Now that many of the top Savile Row shops are doing made-to-measure and ready-to-wear collections, I don’t think the old excuse of looking to Italian/American fashion houses to mass produce suits for the films’ action set pieces applies anymore.

      • That’s true. I know Richard James, for one, and perhaps Kilgour produce ready-to-wear suits.

  14. I think it’s right to note that the suits, especially for Bond, are quite trendy. But all Bond films are influenced by the trends and fashion of the time. It would be nice if this wasn’t the case, but if they’re going to be influenced by trends, at least they have people who recognize what that means….Jany Temime alludes to the basic, classic “English gentleman”, but with a 2012 touch. I would point out the colors and fabrics of the suit are not ridiculously flashy or showy, although the cut might be quite slim and close-fitting. I would also like to point out that, as a fashion-forward thinker and a slim, trim guy, I’m extremely happy that trends have swung towards slim suits–it’s appropriate, therefore, that Bond should reflect that in some ways. He is, after all, the top secret agent in the world, a guy that all guys should presumably want to be in terms of physique, style, charm, etc.. For some, that means wearing trendy, close-fitting suits. While that might be a bit too much keeping with those current trends, if there’s anyone to emulate in terms of male style, I would think for some it would be James Bond, for the reasons I mentioned above. The clothing aside, I’m intrigued to see the movie.

  15. I don’t really want to appear either over dogmatic or dismissive of the subjective opinions of others when I say this; but I firmly believe that as great deal of criticism of past Bond fashions and the lauding of the fashion sense of whoever happens to be the current incumbent in the role, comes down to the uncritical nature of a great many people. How many people believed, in 1973 that Moore’s Bond offered a more fashion forward role model than Connery’s slightly monotone 007 and was therefore, “better”? I’m easily old enough to remember 1989, when the collective thinking of the time was that Timothy Dalton’s wardrobe was much better and cutting edge fashion than dull, staid old Roger Moore (though, even then, I personally hated it)? Fast forward to 1997 and most viewed Brosnan’s 3 button Brioni suits as peerless compared with past Bond fashions, especially Dalton’s unstructured, over loose suit styles, by then passé. By the time Craig took over this had changed again and he offered a new take, lauded by most but essentially all of these appraisals were based on a slavish attitude to fashion of the time deeming it as being somehow, innately, unquestionably superior to what preceded it. I am certain 90% of people criticising safari suits, leisure suits, towelling beachwear, wider lapels and shoulder padding now would have, equally uncritically, viewed them as perfectly acceptable clothing at the time.

    An individual’s personal sense of aesthetics cannot be properly fulfilled if governed only by current mood. Furthermore, passage of time is no reliable arbiter of anything as it merely allows people to criticise what they deem now to be “naff” or “tasteless” based purely on the fact that it is now dated, regardless of how well tailored or not it is/was. Therefore, flared trousers = 1970’s = bad taste and tight, low rise trousers = 2012 = stylish. This is sloppy, ropey thinking which most people, if they’re really honest, will privately concede is correct. It’s a tribal herd instinct common to most human beings which is easier than individual expression and whereby very few need raise their heads above the parapet. They simply accept the mood of the zeitgeist irrespective of whether or not they, privately, really “like” the item or not. This can apply to cars, architecture, home décor, music, TV, food etc. etc as much as fashion and style. I cannot honestly believe so many style conscious men would view Craig’s suits as shown in these stills as superior to, for example, Connery’s “Diamonds are Forever” or Moore’s “View to A Kill” tailoring.

    No decade or period of history has a monopoly on bad and good taste although, in my opinion, the general trend in relation specifically to sartorial elegance is one of diminishing returns. Believe me, I am 100% certain that these current suits will appear very badly dated to the mass aesthetic by a not too far distant date (though by then, given the current movement away from formality, sadly, the suit in any form will be viewed as anachronistic)

    • I’ll agree with you that there is most likely a large number of those who love today’s trend of super slim, low rise suits, because it is today’s trend, and will probably follow whatever trend follows next. I disagree with the assumption that everyone who likes it is one of these “slaves of fashion.”

      There are many people, including me, who vastly prefer suits (and all clothing items in general) that stay very close to the body and give a long and lean appearance. I myself used to weigh over 260 pounds, and now that I have dropped to 165-170, would not be caught dead in any kind of clothing that is going to add any bulk, or do anything besides show off my lean figure (I once got into a heated argument with a Jos. A Bank salesmen who insisted that pleated trousers were the only way to go, and that flat front trousers were the product of silly, European wannabe, young men [his exact words]).

      I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is a big difference between subjective opinion, and objective fact, and just because I prefer lower rise, flat front trousers, and slim suits in general, does not mean that I cannot possibly qualify as a well-dressed gentleman and am instead a “slave to the current fashion.” I fully believe that if we do come to this point in time where people are attacking Craig’s Bond wardrobe as people currently attack Moore’s, that I will be just as fervently defending Craig’s as I am right now. That, I will “publicly” concede.

      • I see your point, but Daniel Craig’s too-small suits in Skyfall don’t give him a long and lean appearance. Current fashion has made you think that it does, but that’s simply not true. Low-rise trousers jackets deemphasise height and a jacket that pulls at the waist and sleeves make one look bulkier, not slimmer. The suits here clearly make Craig look much bulkier and shorter than his did in the close-fitting—but not too tight—suits from Quantum of Solace. Classic styles and fits have been engineered to be more flattering than these current fashions. Look at H Huntsman for a classic close-fitting suit that optimally flatters a slim figure.

      • I don’t think that the low rise trousers make him look short (as her apparently is in real life), but I agree that the suit does not make him look lean. However, I don’t think it makes him look bulky either. To me it just emphasizes his musculature.

    • Very well said David, I think too often people concede to what’s in vogue, rather than develop opinions of their own.

      Though the stylistic details are all different and change with the times, I believe Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Brosnan, and Craig (in his first two films anyway) all look well-dressed in their tailored clothing. Details like number of buttons, trouser pleats and rises, shoulder construction, etc. vary widely, but much of this is, to me anyway, a matter of personal taste. You favor Moore, for example, and I have always been partial to Brosnan because this is what we like. Neither is right or wrong, just a difference of taste. You will always like Moore and his Hayward suits, I will always like Brosnan’s Brioni wardrobe regardless of whether or not it is popular at the moment, and I think that’s great, people should be able to formulate their opinions based on what they find aesthetically pleasing.

      Further, I think if we put personal prejudices aside and view the films within their own context and consider the period in which they were made, each actor (perhaps with the exception of Dalton) is generally well-tailored. I totally agree with your statement “no decade or period of history has a monopoly on bad or good taste.”

      • Thanks Kyle. That’s about it. Brosnan’s suits were beautiful, well crafted and looked great on him. Both Moore and Brosnan are polished gentleman and they carried their clothes beautifully.

        However, what we saw with Dalton and see now with Craig here are extreme ends of the same spectrum; the former being excessively loose and jarring on the eye and the latter being excessively tight and jarring on the eye and, in neither case, well tailored. You’re right; whether they were Sinclair, Hayward or Brioni produced, Connery, Moore and Brosnan’s suits looked right for a spy with a British heritage. These other monstrosities do not.

        As I have only seen Craig in one movie I’m going on images of his clothing from the other two. The suiting from the previous two weren’t too bad but these are awful. What makes matters worse is the previously discussed lack of variation in Bond’s suiting. I mean, what is so wrong with, for example, an ivory dinner jacket in a warm climate. I’ve no doubt Ford produces these so it is a decision of the producers which, seem to have little taste or discernment.

      • I think the producers are hung up on Bond’s look being “timeless”, so they err on the side of conservative colors and avoid blazers, sportcoats, cream dinner jackets, etc., all the while making too many concessions to “fashionable” cuts.

      • Dan, ironically the result they will achieve will be exactly the opposite with this look dating very badly in a few years time.

        I notice from the piece shown in the videoblog that a number of other attendants at the party are wearing white dinner jackets. So, given the setting, why not Bond? Presumably the producers don’t deem the look appropriate or fashionable for 007 but then, are we to take it that he is attending a party for has-beens?

      • While images of these suits may look jarring, I think the true measure is how it looks on-camera, in the movie, as he’s moving around, running, jumping, or simply just walking into a room. That will be the true measure of whether these suits look awful or not; it’s all too easy to point out flaws in a still-frame photo, whether they actually exist or not. From what I’ve seen so far (and that’s not much, only the bits in the teaser trailer and the costume videoblog), they don’t look absolutely atrocious. Sure, they are slim-cut, and as you say, on the one end of the spectrum. Overall, I’ll be interested to see it on-screen.

      • Suits should look their best when one is standing in a natural pose. I don’t see how they are going to look any better in action. Seeing from the trailer, they don’t look any better, and being extra tight is no help to someone who needs to have good mobility. Plus, there is no way he could realistically conceal a firearm in that suit. Connery’s full-chested suits were great for that, but I’m not saying that Craig’s suits can’t be close-cut. And I wouldn’t call these suits “slim”; they are tight.

  16. Bravo Matt! I couldn’t have said it better. While there is some leeway in what constitutes a well-cut suit, by definition a well-cut suit will flatter its wearer, and Craig’s latest suits simply don’t flatter his chunky, slightly overmuscled build.

  17. I think some good points are brought up here, ones that I certainly agree with in some respects. However, I would agree with previous posters (Gabriel in particular) in that I myself have always preferred slim, close-cut clothing; therefore, finally seeing a fashion icon step up to the plate in an absolutely incredible suit (from my perspective, at least) is something that I fully agree with. I will definitely not be one to look back on Craig’s style and criticize him, even if fashion trends do change. I personally hope we never return to, for example, the days of Dalton’s overly-large suits; I’ll always prefer slim clothing over anything else, and I hope the general public will as well. As for Craig’s physique, I don’t necessarily think he’s overly-muscled. I think he’s as fit as every man should strive to be, and if people criticize his muscular build when compared with Brosnan’s comparatively less-fit physique, for example, then that’s disappointing.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.