He is an exceptional actor with a knack for successfully balancing major franchises (from Harry Potter and Twilight to Batman and Dune: Part Three) with unusual, daring film projects (Primetime, The Drama, Mickey 17, The Lighthouse). A Hollywood A-lister who doesn’t take himself, or even his promotional tours, too seriously. A Brit who has been a global film star almost since childhood, yet somehow remains far removed from the mainstream. He is charming and debonair, athletic and determined, while also being perfectly in tune with the spirit of the moment. For all these reasons, and many more, I firmly believe that Robert Pattinson should be the next James Bond.
Related: 6 Denis Villeneuve films to watch before the next James Bond
Related: Who will be the next James Bond?
Just look at the four actors he reportedly competed against in a recent final round of screen tests: Callum Turner, Jack Lowden, Josh O’Connor and Nicholas Hoult. All are handsome, well-groomed and highly credible candidates. Among them, Pattinson stands out as something of an outsider. His more unconventional, slightly eccentric filmography might suggest he would be better suited to playing a Bond villain. Yet that, I would argue, is precisely why he should get the lead.
Ever since Daniel Craig hung up his tuxedo in 2021, there has been much debate about the future of the Bond franchise. Isn’t it a misogynistic relic of a bygone era? Is there any point in trying to modernise it? I don’t think the answer is straightforward. No, we don’t need Bond, but I believe this cinematic universe can still survive, and even thrive again, with all its action sequences, shootouts, femmes fatales, martinis and other signature elements. For that to happen, it will have to undergo a complete and carefully considered transformation.
Let’s go back to the early 2000s, when Pierce Brosnan’s tenure as 007 was coming to an end. You may remember similar debates taking place then. How do you refresh a film series that has been running for decades and relies on a fairly established formula? The answer was Daniel Craig, who did not seem an obvious choice for the role at the time. His casting caused controversy because he was blond. At under 183 centimetres tall, he was considered too short, and the tabloids described him as uninteresting. He wasn’t particularly well known to mainstream film audiences, while several hundred thousand people signed a petition calling for him to turn down the role. Fortunately, the franchise’s producers stood by their decision. The very next year brought Casino Royale, a film many consider the best Bond outing ever. Craig’s critics soon fell silent. All of this shows that sometimes the least expected choice is also the best.
Related: Everything we know about the new James Bond film
Amazon’s takeover of the franchise has raised plenty of questions. Without the steady leadership of Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, the children of legendary original James Bond producer Albert R. Cubby Broccoli, who had overseen the development of this cinematic empire since the 1990s, there are concerns that the streaming platform could turn one of cinema’s biggest franchises into a laughing stock by burying it under endless small-screen spin-offs. Perhaps that will ultimately happen, but it is worth remembering that two experienced film producers are working on the next instalment: Amy Pascal, known for the Spider-Man franchise and films including Little Women, Challengers and Project Hail Mary, and David Heyman, producer of the Harry Potter films, as well as Marriage Story, Barbie and Artificial. Directing is Denis Villeneuve, known for Sicario and Arrival, as well as the Dune series, while the screenplay is being written by Steven Knight, creator of Peaky Blinders.
Villeneuve’s appointment as director offers the greatest cause for optimism. He is a filmmaker with a strong vision, grand ambitions and a distinctive style, who already has experience in reviving major franchises. Just think of Blade Runner 2049, or the science-fiction spectacle Dune, whose conclusion is expected soon. Acclaimed directors, including Christopher Nolan and Danny Boyle, have come close to directing Bond films before, only to walk away because of limited creative freedom. Broccoli and Wilson seemed to prioritise tonal consistency and, at times, a certain uniformity tailored to the franchise’s needs over allowing a writer-director to leave a strong personal stamp on Bond. That approach had its advantages: the Bond films may not always have been particularly exciting, and were often quickly forgotten, but they were rarely complete misfires. Still, it is very exciting to think that a new era for 007 could open the door to filmmakers willing to push boundaries. Pascal and Heyman may be keeping Villeneuve on a tight leash, but his appointment alone suggests that the rules governing this franchise could become more flexible. Villeneuve, a four-time Oscar nominee and French-Canadian director with clearly defined interests and a highly distinctive, polished visual style, would hardly have been in the running for this job under Broccoli and Wilson. Would they have chosen Turner, Lowden, O’Connor or Hoult? Possibly. Would they have considered Pattinson? I don’t think so. That is precisely why he seems the most exciting choice to me.
Ultimately, I believe the best solution would be to cast a complete unknown as Bond, someone audiences have yet to form a relationship with or develop any preconceived associations about, who could put his own stamp on the character and make the most of the global exposure the role brings. At a time when the same ten actors seem to appear in almost every film, why not give a new face a chance? Yet, for some reason, Amazon seems to disagree with that approach. If the choice really has come down to Turner, Lowden, O’Connor, Hoult and Pattinson, why not choose the most unexpected among them?
It goes without saying that Pattinson would know how to make the most of this role. From his terrifying portrayal of a villain in The Odyssey, through his zany antics in The Drama, to his unusual transformation in Primetime, he is clearly an actor who isn’t afraid to go all the way. And in recent years, he has been delivering one notable performance and project after another. He ticks every box: he has action-hero credentials (he did play Batman, after all), an acting range worthy of major awards, and the ability to look impeccable in a suit (he is the face of Dior Homme, after all). At the same time, he is a fresh and unexpected choice, exactly what a 64-year-old film series urgently in need of renewed excitement requires. So I say: give him the role now. The future of the entire franchise could depend on it.
