Who was the best actor to Play James Bond?

shadowcomplex

And why do you think this?

eyeball kid

David Niven.

endacl

eyeball kid wrote: »

David Niven.

Me hole.

Barry Nelson ftw.

Harry Palmr

Pierce Brosnan

Dalton for me, it was a pity that he got the role just as Bond was hitting a bit of commercial and legal low point (between Danjaq and MGM/UA). Living Daylights is definitely one of my favourite action/adventure films.

galljga1

Woody Allen

fruvai

George Lazenby

I think Dalton is the best actor out of all of them but Connery is the best/my favourite Bond

Boskowski

George Lazenby

Sean Connery is James Bond. But I like the Daniel Craig ones too.

Sad Professor

Rodger Moore

Lazenby. He’s the only one who fully pulled off the physical side of Bond, which lets face it is most of the character. Unlike Dalton and Moore, he looked like he was tough enough to win a fight. Unlike Connery (who looked tough but fought like a mountain man) he looked like he had actual training. And unlike Craig, he didn’t look like he was gym fanatic who got up at 5am every morning to lift weights. He was also handsome enough to be attractive to women and elegant enough to blend in at a supervillain’s party without looking like (as Craig does in Skyfall) an SAS commando in a suit.

the_monkey

Timothy Dalton

No question here, it's not even a debate.

Best Bond ever and he should still be playing Bond - Roger Moore

/thread

ricero

George Lazenby

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Dalton for me, it was a pity that he got the role just as Bond was hitting a bit of commercial and legal low point (between Danjaq and MGM/UA). Living Daylights is definitely one of my favourite action/adventure films.

He's joint second for me along with Craig. I love Connery and the very early bond films before he left and lazenby took the role were excellent. Dr no, goldfinger, from Russia, octopussy and you only live twice are great movies.

I love Dalton in licence to kill, way ahead of its time.

Chevolution

Connery, just pure classic as bond Dalton a close second, not as much charm connery but more of a "ill batter ye" attitude which is also good.

Victor Meldrew

Craig. I think he is the best written and acted Bond, and the best acted. He feels uncomfortable and on his own in a way that Connery's bond just was not. Dalton tried that, but could not do the brutality that Craig masters. Brosnan and Moore were poseurs / comedians.

Mourinho

While Connery will always be my favourite, Brosnans Bond in Goldeneye was very good imo if he had kept his Goldeneye Bond performance for the rest of his outings he would be much better received.

Duggy747

Dalton for me, he helped deliver a fresh Bond after Moore and looked like a cold-blooded bastard whose job weighed on him. A pity he dropped out before Goldeneye because of the long hiatus considering it had been written with his Bond in mind.

He probably would've been remembered more fondly with that film on top of Living Daylights & LTK, though the trade-off being Brosnan would've been stuck with those increasingly cheesy flicks of his :pac:

Avada

George Lazenby

Sean Connery for me. Although I do think Craig is a very good bond in a different sort of way.

Birneybau

Bob Holness.

Cold War Kid

Daniel Craig

Brosnan in my opinion. I think he got the dramatic and comedy balance right.

SnakePlissken

Pierce Brosnan

shadowcomplex wrote: »

And why do you think this?

Timothy Dalton, that motherfu#$er be bad ass. Villianous motherfu$%ers be like, yo dawg, why did I get put up against this cold ass nig$%r why cudn't I come up against that bitch Remington Steel.

Thepoet85

Alan Partridge

BuilderPlumber

I think all the actors who played Bond were good. If I had to pick, it would be a toss between Connery and Craig because both had the best films.

But each Bond and each film were a product of their times and since 1962, we have obviously seen huge changes. Connery played Bond as a serious but charming hitman who got the job done. Lazenby more or less copied this. ALL Bond films of this era except Goldfinger were pretty much Bond v Blofeld/SPECTRE (Goldfinger may also have been aligned to SPECTRE too but this is never mentioned).

Moore had to rethink Bond outside of dealing with SPECTRE. He also brought a lighter more humorous tone to Bond. By now, the storylines of the original books were been rewritten more and more. The Spy Who Loved Me was more or less 100% a new story with only the Jaws character based on a character in the original book. The essence of many of these films was a Blofeld/SPECTRE like enemy whose story was contained in just one film.

Dalton's Bond brought us back to the serious hitman type Bond, with an emphasis on avoiding killing if it can be avoided. His first film The Living Daylights thematically was like Moore's Octopussy: a story of bad Russians trying to gain power from the good Russians. Set very much in the era of improving relations between the 2 superpowers, Dalton's last film Licence to Kill ditched political/world domination themes altogether and instead pitched Bond against a violent drug dealer. Miami Vice with Bond? Love/Hate in the sun? Yes! It feels like this and it worked. A good revenge movie.

Brosnan's films were among the poorest of the series I thought. While he was good in the role, the material was often not there. Goldeneye was solid but lacking, Tomorrow never dies was good but the plot was a little silly (plus, it was a remake of The Spy Who Loved Me with a Chinese Bond girl instead of Russian). His last 2 were the 2 worst of the series and one wondered if that was it from Bond.

Craig revived what had become a series that had lost its way by 2002. Casino Royale was the antidote to its predecessor Die Another Day. With its unfinished business ending, it kept things open. Quantum of Solace was another solid one but its plot about control of water was hard to comprehend. Skyfall was excellent and one now feels the series has moved miles from the bad old days of 1999-2002. SPECTRE, the next film, may well be the best yet.

blue note

George Lazenby

Connery - the correct answer
Lazenby - the i clicked the wrong answer
Moore - the he's the one I grew up with answer
Dalton - the hipster answer
Brosnan - the I'm irish answer
Craig - the "people always say that Connery is the best because he was the first, but Daniel Craig is actually the best" answer

Iranoutofideas

Pierce Brosnan

Dalton is the one who is closest to the Bond envisaged by Ian Fleming. Though Fleming did like Connery enough to add Bond's Scottish heritage to the character.

Brosnan was good in Goldeneye but the rest of his films are atrocious and the worst in the series.

I'd put it.

Connery/Dalton tied for top.
Then Lazenby
Craig
Moore
Brosnan


I hope when Craig is done that Fassbender gets it if he's interested. He'd be a brilliant Bond.

Daniel S

This would be my list:

1. Daniel Craig
2. Timothy Dalton
3. Sean Connery
4. George Lazenby
5. Pierce Brosnan
6. Rodger Moore

BuilderPlumber

Iranoutofideas wrote: »

Dalton is the one who is closest to the Bond envisaged by Ian Fleming. Though Fleming did like Connery enough to add Bond's Scottish heritage to the character.

Brosnan was good in Goldeneye but the rest of his films are atrocious and the worst in the series.

I'd put it.

Connery/Dalton tied for top.
Then Lazenby
Craig
Moore
Brosnan


I hope when Craig is done that Fassbender gets it if he's interested. He'd be a brilliant Bond.

I agree. Dalton was a very very good and underrated Bond. I think if he did more films, the series would have gone from strength to strength. His two films were very good overall.

With regard to Brosnan: Himself as Bond was grand. BUT the deplorable content of his films was not forgivable. Goldeneye was grand but not a patch on Licence to Kill and The Living Daylights. It felt more like a homage to Roger Moore's era but it was entertaining and had good action scenes. Tomorrow Never Dies was also in my book grand but the daft plot and it copying elements from Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice showed at this stage they were just remaking old films. BUT the next 2 were dreadful. Whatever entertainment and action was in his first two, The World Is Not Enough combined a poor plot, dull action scenes and a very poor conclusion. But it was an excellent film compared to Die Another Day. This started off ok with the North Korean capture but after that it fell apart to become the single WORST Bond film ever. A Korean turns into an Englishman (far fetched and borrowing from Goldeneye's baddie who changes his looks too), all those annoying remakes of scenes from earlier Bonds and worst of all the invisible car. Time to be changing things around at this stage.

I think with Dalton the series had decided to go down a more serious, thriller route and he was doing exactly what Craig is doing today. But I think half the team were not committed to this direction and went back to Moore territory with Brosnan. And that then turned into the disaster that was Die Another Day eventually. Maybe The Man With The Golden Gun is the 3rd weakest entry in the series (or 5th: one could argue that all 4 Brosnan films are poor) but that is a far better film than Brosnan's last 2.

BuilderPlumber

I think most rate Connery, Dalton and Craig highly with mixed views for the rest. I think that ALL Bond actors did well when they had the material but some were given very poor fare to deal with.

I think there was a time with the films that the makers had to make sure certain things were all replicated in each film. In other words, let's take the car chase from Goldfinger, the ski chases of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the underwater scenes from Thunderball, the climatic shootout from Goldfinger, the fight on the train from From Russia With Love and hey presto we have a Bond film! Have a bad guy who wants to dominate the world like Blofeld, have 2 Bond girls one of which gets killed, and most especially have some gadget that saves Bond's life at the end of the film. Films made completely on this basis tended to be the weaker more formulaic of the series and were just going over scenes from old Bonds. In later years, the dynamic air chase was also popular. Brosnan's films ALL smacked of this.

blue note

George Lazenby

My actual ranking by the way;

1. Connery - for me he is James Bond. He was charming, sophisticated, playful and I always believe the violent edge to him. I think to be fair I'll always rank other bonds as how similar they are to Connery.

2. Brosnan - I think he's underrated because of the turkey movies he got. I really like Goldeneye, one of my favourites, TND was okay, TWINE was not as bad as people say but it was awful and DAD was possibly the worst Bond film made. But as a Bond I always loved him. He was easily the most sauve Bond we've seen and looked the part 100%. I thought he worked well in the fight / action scenes too. If he'd gotten better movies, I think people would be arguing he was the best.

3. Craig - He's excellent and gets the physical / tough sides to his character just right. And he's the Bond needed for today's world of cinema. However, I never believe that he enjoys the sophisticated side to the character.

4. Dalton - I think often he's the most overrated Bond. I don't remember TLD very well (really must watch it again), but LTK is one of my very favourites. But in spite of the good films, I never warmed to him too much as a Bond. He never had half the charm necessary for the part in my opinion.

5. Moore - I just never really liked his Bond. Always seemed a bit of a toff, even a bit camp. Some of his films were pretty good, but he was too old for Bond from the start and there was never any bite to him. He was unfortunate with the style the films went in (as Brosnan was), but I still don't think he was a good bond.

6. Lazenby - Maybe I'll watch his one again, but I remember thinking it was a complete bore when I saw it and that he was a complete bore in it.

TheDoc

Pierce Brosnan

Feels like this type of thread comes up every few months

I'll always go with Dalton. While I love James Bond, as I went through my early teens and was exposed to more adult natured action films and just general film, I started to find a lot of James Bond cheesey and frustrating. I could never watch a Roger Moore film without feeling incredibly uneasy and frustrated. Dalton's two are my favourite, and he was my favourite bond. I think he had a brilliant balance between being a womanizer and being a ruthless assassin.

Moore for me verged way too much on the cheese and eccentric. I find it interesting that after Brosnans films descended into the farcical, and the success of Nolan bringing outragous ideas grounded in reality and grit, how the franchise wanted to move to a more dark, troubled, grounded bond. Something Dalton had done two decades previous.

Wedwood

It's interesting the way peoples view on Bond actors change with the times.

As the current preference is for 'serious' Bond movies, the likes of Dalton/ Lazenby are back in vogue. 10 years previously they were considered the worst, Dalton in particular for being 'humourless', now he was ahead of his time !

Brosnan was considered the best at the time he was Bond because he 'had a bit of everything' that people liked in previous Bonds, now he's considered one of the worst.

Before them it was 'are you Connery or Moore' ?

Echoes675

George Lazenby

In order of preference:
1. Sean Connery
2. Timothy Dalton
3. Daniel Craig
4. Rodger Moore
5. Pierce Brosnan
6. George Lazenby

Connery has always been the iconic Bond for me. It's a really close call between Dalton and Craig. I like the cold and calculating character they portrayed Bond to be. I really disliked the Brosnan films.

Sleepy

Pierce Brosnan

Oddly, although Roger Moore was "my" Bond, in that his were the first films I watched, he's my least favourite: camp, corny and utterly unbelievable as a man of action.

Dalton will probably always be my favourite. He's simply the most believable as a covert operative: cold but not merciless, tough but not so physically menacing he could never blend into a crowd, charming at times but not the class clown commanding the room etc. He's how I imagine an MI6 agent / assassin would be in the real world.

I'd agree with those saying that Brosnan was served very poorly by his scripts (aside from the wonderful scene with Travelyan taunting him in Goldeneye) but he never got across the killer/assassin aspect of the character for me.

I'm enjoying Craig's movies, particularly the "troubled" aspect to his Bond but Sad Professor's comment about an SAS commando in a suit rings very true for me: brutally effective in a close quarters fight but I just can't see him ever being able to fly under the radar and actually act as a "secret" agent.

BuilderPlumber

blue note wrote: »

My actual ranking by the way;

1. Connery - for me he is James Bond. He was charming, sophisticated, playful and I always believe the violent edge to him. I think to be fair I'll always rank other bonds as how similar they are to Connery.

2. Brosnan - I think he's underrated because of the turkey movies he got. I really like Goldeneye, one of my favourites, TND was okay, TWINE was not as bad as people say but it was awful and DAD was possibly the worst Bond film made. But as a Bond I always loved him. He was easily the most sauve Bond we've seen and looked the part 100%. I thought he worked well in the fight / action scenes too. If he'd gotten better movies, I think people would be arguing he was the best.

3. Craig - He's excellent and gets the physical / tough sides to his character just right. And he's the Bond needed for today's world of cinema. However, I never believe that he enjoys the sophisticated side to the character.

4. Dalton - I think often he's the most overrated Bond. I don't remember TLD very well (really must watch it again), but LTK is one of my very favourites. But in spite of the good films, I never warmed to him too much as a Bond. He never had half the charm necessary for the part in my opinion.

5. Moore - I just never really liked his Bond. Always seemed a bit of a toff, even a bit camp. Some of his films were pretty good, but he was too old for Bond from the start and there was never any bite to him. He was unfortunate with the style the films went in (as Brosnan was), but I still don't think he was a good bond.

6. Lazenby - Maybe I'll watch his one again, but I remember thinking it was a complete bore when I saw it and that he was a complete bore in it.

This is it exactly! Most people tend to follow much of this.

Connery = Bond. Yes, everything will be compared to his portrayal. He was the first and he was excellent in the role.

Brosnan: what you said echoed what I said. His last 2 esp. his last were very poor. His second last had ok moments but his last one was the nadir of the series. I agree his portrayal of Bond was excellent and he is a great actor. I would have liked to have seen him get better material but the management team were not adventurous at the time. I think it took Die Another Day to wake the producers up. This film was just an ego trip and it did not care.

Craig and Dalton: I like them and their films. With 3 so far, Craig has delivered 2 of the best. Dalton did 2 of the best too. I would have liked to have seen him do some more. I think though he achieved a lot across 2 films.

Moore = action meets comedy. Some love it, some hate it. He had his good films, some better than many remember.

Lazenby: overall, I liked him and it is hard to judge him just on one film. Even though it was in the original book, the ending was not a typical Bond film ending (it would be more what you'd want in Love/Hate: Nidge series 5, Darren series 3). But whereas Fleming followed it up with a revenge film in the books, the films didn't. Something a lot to do with the Kevin McClory dispute? The main problem though with the film I find it the overlong part in the middle where Bond is undercover with the girls and talks geneology, etc. The start and end are great action though and make up for the dull middle part!

BuilderPlumber

Sleepy wrote: »

Oddly, although Roger Moore was "my" Bond, in that his were the first films I watched, he's my least favourite: camp, corny and utterly unbelievable as a man of action.

Dalton will probably always be my favourite. He's simply the most believable as a covert operative: cold but not merciless, tough but not so physically menacing he could never blend into a crowd, charming at times but not the class clown commanding the room etc. He's how I imagine an MI6 agent / assassin would be in the real world.

I'd agree with those saying that Brosnan was served very poorly by his scripts (aside from the wonderful scene with Travelyan taunting him in Goldeneye) but he never got across the killer/assassin aspect of the character for me.

I'm enjoying Craig's movies, particularly the "troubled" aspect to his Bond but Sad Professor's comment about an SAS commando in a suit rings very true for me: brutally effective in a close quarters fight but I just can't see him ever being able to fly under the radar and actually act as a "secret" agent.

I think that Moore and Brosnan were both often left down by their scripts. And that someone felt the humour was as important as action and suspense in these times? Fleming's Bond was not a man of humour and those who criticised Dalton's Bond were those who had become so used to Moore's.

While some of Moore's films were actually quite good, each did have a corny scene in them designed to lighten the tone. To me, Octopussy was a very good film but there are elements of humour in there with the Q scenes (that were actually even continued in the Dalton era) and Bond dressed as a clown. For Your Eyes Only had Margaret Thatcher put in cheekily at the end. Spitting Image was a major 1980s satirical comedy and it seemed Bond was prepared to borrow from anyone from Indiana Jones and Rambo to Tommy Cooper at this time!!

So, I think there are 2 continuums of Bond:

The first is: early Connery -> Dalton -> Craig.
The other is: middle-to-late Moore -> Brosnan.

The later Connery, Lazenby and early Moore was where one morphed into the other.

omnithanos

endacl wrote: »

Me hole.

Barry Nelson ftw.

Nelson, of the shining fame, was the first but his was an americanised version called Jimmy Bond so I'll go for Peter Sellers.

Looper007

I do love Connery like nearly all of us do but for me Daniel Craig just has that something about him that makes him slightly more cooler and dangerous for me plus has any actor playing Bond ever looked cooler then Craig in Casino Royale (still the best Bond film in the canon for me) plus Craig gets better and better as Bond. I do think Connery has a run for his money with Craig as the Best Bond.

Plus he has two of the best Bond films in CR and SF. And a underrated one on QOS (I'm a die hard fan of that film, probably Craig's best performance as Bond is in that film)

Iranoutofideas

Pierce Brosnan

Looper007 wrote: »

I do love Connery like nearly all of us do but for me Daniel Craig just has that something about him that makes him slightly more cooler and dangerous for me plus has any actor playing Bond ever looked cooler then Craig in Casino Royale (still the best Bond film in the canon for me) plus Craig gets better and better as Bond. I do think Connery has a run for his money with Craig as the Best Bond.

Plus he has two of the best Bond films in CR and SF. And a underrated one on QOS (I'm a die hard fan of that film, probably Craig's best performance as Bond is in that film)

Yes,

Harry Palmr

Pierce Brosnan

Yesh I think you meant to say

salmocab

Big fan of Moore, always like watching his movies, love the way he played Bond always cool and felt really quite chauvinistic toward the women.

BuilderPlumber

salmocab wrote: »

Big fan of Moore, always like watching his movies, love the way he played Bond always cool and felt really quite chauvinistic toward the women.

Moore is often underrated at best and dismissed at worst. But let's look at the positives:

Live And Let Die: a great action thriller that balanced the action, story and humour very well. This was a good continuation of the series at a time when the 2 preceding films had 2 different actors doing Bond. And it was nice to see something different to world domination for a change. We were not served a Blofeld copy here and we had a fresh story and concept (the dictator of the fictional central American fascist state Saint Monique hiding behind voodoo (mirrors ISIS etc) and doubling as a drug dealer in the US).

The Man With The Golden Gun: Perhaps the poorest of Moore's Bonds, it still had charm and memorable aspects. The good points: the exotic settings, the karate fight was good, Christopher Lee was good. The bad points: the story got as far as possible from Blofeld and world domination that they actually have Bond up against a villain who, ahem, actually didn't do anything to harm the world or anyone!! Also, the car chase was one of the poorest. Also, would have liked to original plan to have an Iranian setting for part of it too: Bond in Iran, Thailand, Hong Kong and Macau in the one film would have been cool.

The Spy Who Loved Me: yes, it is basically Bond v Blofeld now renamed Stromberg. But it is excellent and we did not have a film like this since You Only Live Twice. Moore really came into his own here and it is big budget Bond with great action and a great climax at its best.

Moonraker: One can criticise this film in numerous ways. Some pan it for being just a cash in to take adv of the space craze of the era. Some pan it for being just The Spy Who Loved Me remade. Some do not like it because it deviated from what was considered to be one of the best books. But all that said and done, this film actually is again a good action adventure with lots of good sequences.

For Your Eyes Only: Proof that Moore can do an almost entirely serious thriller was showcased by his first film and here again. The added twist of who was good and bad in this kept things taut. The climax was inventive and once more covered new ground.

Octopussy: Again, the good outweighs the bad here in what is ultimately an exciting, nonstop action film. Elements from earlier films, like secret agents getting killed in action, were revived. This was also perhaps the first film that had 2 climaxes. With the chases, fights and bomb disposal in Germany and the revenge shootout in India. The theme and this double climax would be used in Dalton's debut film too.

A View To A Kill: Again, I feel this is underrated. True, Moore seems often tired, 'old' and out of it. But Christopher Walken's villain is awesome here and totally deranged. The way he machine gunned down his innocent workers was a huge departure from the usual Bond climaxes and again this film like its predecessor and followup featured a double climax.

Yes, it was obvious time was up for Moore by his last Bond film but his set of films were overall interesting. While he was not Connery, he made the character his own. This ultimately proved healthy as Dalton, Brosnan and Craig would also do the same. If everyone had copied Connery, the series would not have lasted as long. Each actor had to be true to themselves and make Bond their own.

sonic85

its a toss up between timothy Dalton and Daniel craig for me. my two favourite bond actors.

the only film I wasn't mad about between the two of them was skyfall.

Slutmonkey57b

George Lazenby

I think it depends on whether you've read the books. If you're a fan of the books, then your favourite bond should be Moore/Brosnan, purely because the quality of the stuff they were given to work with was fcking awful. I mean, utter dog****. Terrible, terrible, cheesy, badly thought out crap.

Best Bonds were Connery, Craig and Brosnan.

Moore was playing Roger Moore and clearly didn't give a toss about the character (nor should he have) and Lazenby and Dalton were just boring.

Skyfall was one of the worst Bonds ever. A pointless mish-mash of in-jokes, sly references, and scenes stolen from other films. Hopefully Spectre gets back onto the track that Casino Royale/QoS laid down.

The Strawman Argument

Rodger Moore

Connery's just out and out in front cos he had the best films and was such a charismatic presence, Connery is so key to the series success that I dunno if there even can be a better Bond without the series becoming something completely different altogether.

Dalton was actually my favourite as a kid, I find that a bit weird now because he's probably the most mature Bond (at least up until Craig). His films were always a welcome departure from the Roger Moore stuff when they were being aired on television, dunno if Dalton can be blamed too much for lacking the charisma of Connery as they were clearly trying to get away from a lot of Bondisms that Moore had beaten into the ground.

Brosnan was everything they wanted Moore to be, he suffers a bit from arriving at a time when the series was really struggling to figure out what it was anymore but I don't think he'd've suited a more up-to-date Bond even if it had happened in the 90s. The hiring of Brosnan after Dalton definitely was a regressive move.

Moore was just dreadful, the only two Moore films I ever enjoyed were Octopussy and A View to a Kill; even when I was kid I knew the only reason I liked them (fantastic Duran Duran theme tune for the latter aside) was that they were so silly they were funny. Moore's films always felt much longer too, can't be bothered checking right now if they actually were.

Can't really judge Craig until some time has passed.

Lazenby was nothing, it was like "can we put a mannequin in so we can see what we have here without Connery?"


So yeah, Connery > Dalton > Brosnan > Lazenby > Moore
Craig'd probably go in one side of the Dalton

fryup

Pierce Brosnan

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

Lazenby was nothing, it was like "can we put a mannequin in so we can see what we have here without Connery?"

but he had the physique and looks, and that movie on her majesty's secret service was ace, great fight scenes

BuilderPlumber

The Strawman Argument wrote: »

Connery's just out and out in front cos he had the best films and was such a charismatic presence, Connery is so key to the series success that I dunno if there even can be a better Bond without the series becoming something completely different altogether.

Dalton was actually my favourite as a kid, I find that a bit weird now because he's probably the most mature Bond (at least up until Craig). His films were always a welcome departure from the Roger Moore stuff when they were being aired on television, dunno if Dalton can be blamed too much for lacking the charisma of Connery as they were clearly trying to get away from a lot of Bondisms that Moore had beaten into the ground.

Brosnan was everything they wanted Moore to be, he suffers a bit from arriving at a time when the series was really struggling to figure out what it was anymore but I don't think he'd've suited a more up-to-date Bond even if it had happened in the 90s. The hiring of Brosnan after Dalton definitely was a regressive move.

Moore was just dreadful, the only two Moore films I ever enjoyed were Octopussy and A View to a Kill; even when I was kid I knew the only reason I liked them (fantastic Duran Duran theme tune for the latter aside) was that they were so silly they were funny. They always felt much longer too, can't be bothered checking right now if they actually were.

Can't really judge Craig until some time has passed.

Lazenby was nothing, it was like "can we put a mannequin in so we can see what we have here without Connery?"


So yeah, Connery > Dalton > Brosnan > Lazenby > Moore
Craig'd probably go in one side of the Dalton

I like all the Bond films to a degree and can only say the 2 films I totally dislike are Brosnan's last 2. Especially his last one. BUT Brosnan himself was a good Bond despite the often poor fare he had to deal with. True, the series was trying to figure out what it was to be at this time. Dalton had attempted the gritty Bond but the world was not ready for it in 1987. But in 2006, they embraced it completely with Craig.

I like Moore's last 2 films. Ironically, I think Brosnan was meant to have been in these but was under contract elsewhere. It would have been nice to have seen Brosnan in For Your Eyes Only (with his real life wife!!), Octopussy and A View To A Kill.

The Living Daylights was the bridge between Moore's style and the Dalton style. Many elements of the Moore era were present (such as General Gogol, the chase in a cello cover! and the humorous end where the Russians and the Taliban were in the same room and introduced to each other!). Brosnan could have done this film too and so could Moore (and it was a very good film) but only Dalton could pull off Licence to Kill.

Simon2015

Pierce Brosnan

I wish Dalton was in goldeneye he was miles better than Brosnan .

BuilderPlumber

Simon2015 wrote: »

I wish Dalton was in goldeneye he was miles better than Brosnan .

It would have been interesting what these films would have been if Dalton was still doing Bond. Dalton's 2 films were the best Bond films in years and had the feel of Connery's films updated for the times. Craig continued on that tradition with Casino Royale being the best Bond since Dalton's. Of the post-Roger Moore Bonds, I'd but them in this order:

First 4 positions: Toss up between Casino Royale, Skyfall, The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill.
5. Quantum of Solace.
6. Tomorrow Never Dies.
7. Goldeneye.
8. The World is not Enough.
9. Die Another Day.

I'm in the minority I know preferring Tomorrow Never Dies to Goldeneye. The latter was grand but was somehow lacking. Probably was comparing it to the Dalton films. TND had a silly plot but had great action sequences, a decent climax and I had probably got used to the Brosnan era style by then. After that, the next 2 were very poor. Remember coming out thinking that this was it for the series after both!

shadowcomplex

Moore is actually older than connery,and was in 7 or 8 films after him , why didn't conery just keep making them

Why is nobody mention David Niven? :pac:

Mr Craig I do not like. Looks unsophisticated, like no class.

Best fun Bond was Roger Moore. Connery first few were good, not so after.

So many votes Daniel Craig. Is it because all on internet are less that 25?

brianregan09

Pierce Brosnan

I picked Dalton I'm not a fan off all that comedy stuff that Moore and connery's movies were littered with goldeneye was great but I think alot of that was to do with sean beans great performance as the villain, didn't like the rest of brosnans movies, Craig is pretty good but I think we still have to see his best

Simon2015

Pierce Brosnan

Deleted User wrote: »

So many votes Daniel Craig. Is it because all on internet are less that 25?

I still can't get my head around Craig playing bond he just doesn't look the part.

BuilderPlumber

brianregan09 wrote: »

I picked Dalton I'm not a fan off all that comedy stuff that Moore and connery's movies were littered with goldeneye was great but I think alot of that was to do with sean beans great performance as the villain, didn't like the rest of brosnans movies, Craig is pretty good but I think we still have to see his best

When did the first real comedy elements come into Bond? I'd be thinking around the early 1970s. Diamonds Are Forever was a lot lighter than its predecessor and from that film onwards, a comedy part or a lighter dimension was added. Licence to Kill became the first film to ditch this (some comedic elements exist in The Living Daylights partly because there was a possibility Moore would still be doing Bond?) but Brosnan resumed this. Craig has ended this dimension.

In some films, the comedy dimension was grand and knew its place. In others, it threatened to take over the whole thing. Scenes like the whole Bambi and Thumper thing in Diamonds Are Forever and the reprise of the Pepper character in The Man With The Golden Gun were unnecessary and did not add much.