NEXT JAMES BOND odds favourite Tom Hardy has overtaken Richard Madden in the race to replace Daniel Craig after No Time To Die.
Daniel Craigs fifth and final James Bond movie No Time To Die hits cinemas this November. But after its release producers will begin their search for the next 007. There are a number of stars who are favourites with the bookies and most recently Tom Hardy has seen his odds cut.
According to Coral bookmakers, the Venom stars odds have been slashed from 8-1 to 4-1.
This sees Hardy overtake both Jack Lowden and Richard Madden.
However, McMafias James Norton is still the big favourite on 2-1.
A Coral spokesman said: “Tom Hardy is a real mover in our next James Bond betting and, as a result, he has only James Norton ahead of him now for the role as 007.”
They added: “Hardy ticks all the right boxes, and we think he has to be on the shortlist, at the very least, to replace Daniel Craig.”
Below are the best odds for the next James Bond right now
They include: “2-1 James Norton, 4-1 Tom Hardy, 5-1 Richard Madden, 6-1 Jack Lowden, 8-1 Tom Hiddleston, 8-1 Sam Heughan, 8-1 Michael Fassbender.”
Also: “10-1 Idris Elba, 10-1 Jamie Bell, 12-1 Aidan Turner, 12-1 Cillian Murphy, 12-1 Henry Cavill, 20-1 Henry Golding, 33-1 Tom Ellis, 100-1 Liam Gallagher.”
Earlier this year, James Bond expert and author of new book Quantum of Silliness: The Peculiar World of Bond, Robbie Sims argued: “Idris Elba would be great as Bond.
“I think hes missed the boat unfortunately since hes in his late forties now.
“So if they wanted him to do more than one film, theres a danger hes going to go into A View To Kill territory where hes a lot older than his leading lady.”
Despite his doubts surrounding Elbas chances, Sims reckons Hardy is still within a chance.
The Bond expert added: “Tom Hardy would be alright.
“And if Christopher Nolan got his hands on it, he might want to cast him as theyve worked together before.”
The 007 expert also brought up Superman star Henry Cavill, who lost out to Craig in the final round of auditions for Casino Royale.
Cavill was director Martin Campbells choice but was considered too young for the role being in his early twenties.
Sims said: “Hed be great, but its nice when they go for somebody who isnt already an established star. Im not sure you should have one actor playing two icons, its just too greedy.
“Youve got to get someone whos at least young in the tooth, to begin with.
“It means you can look at the character and not have him tainted by other things.”
‘Antebellum’ has a ‘Get Out’ vibe, but doesn’t live up to its twist
“Antebellum” is built around a provocative twist, and it’s a good one — as well as one that definite..
“Antebellum” is built around a provocative twist, and it’s a good one — as well as one that definitely shouldn’t be spoiled even a little. Once that revelation is absorbed, however, the movie becomes less distinctive and inspired, reflecting an attempt to tap into the zeitgeist that made “Get Out” a breakthrough, without the same ability to pay off the premise.
Originally destined for a theatrical run, the movie hits digital platforms trumpeting a “Get Out” pedigree in its marketing campaign, since there’s an overlap among the producing teams.
More directly, the film marks the directing debut of Gerard Bush + Christopher Renz, who have championed social-justice issues through their advertising work. The opening script features a quote from author William Faulkner, whose intent will eventually become clearer: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”
If that sounds like a timely means of drawing a line from the horrors of slavery to the racism of today, you’ve come to the right place.
The story begins on a plantation, where the brutal overseers carry out grisly punishments against those tilling the fields. A few have just tried to escape, led by Veronica (Janelle Monae), and they pay a heavy price for their resistance, which does nothing to curb her defiance.
Also written by Bush + Renz, the script take too long before revealing what makes “Antebellum” different, but the middle portion — a “The Twilight Zone”-like phase when it’s hard to be sure exactly what’s going on — is actually the film’s strongest. (Even the trailer arguably gives away too much, so the less one knows, the better.)
The final stretch, by contrast, veers into more familiar thriller territory, and feels especially rushed toward the end, leaving behind a host of nagging, unanswered questions. That provides food for thought, but it’s also what separates the movie from something like “Get Out,” which deftly fleshed out its horror underpinnings.