Rank the Bond actors

[Relayer1]

Venardhi wrote:

---

There are hints of it here and there, but overall I agree. I haven't seen Skyfall yet, but there is a definite lack of opportunities for his Bond to enjoy himself thus far. We may enjoy watching his adventures and his action and whatnot, but he never seems to be having a good time and it brings the character down.

For me the top two are Connery and Brosnan, Craig and Dalton would stand a bit above Moore and Lazenby in my book.

Go read Fleming - Bond isn't dashing and funny. Bond doesn't enjoy himself. At best Bond extracts pleasure in an almost cruel way. He's dark and embittered as well as charming and sophisticated. Joy doesn't really come into it.

[Joel_Kirk]

My ranking:

-Daniel Craig

-Sean Connery

-Timothy Dalton

-George Lazenby

-Pierce Brosnan

-Roger Moore

[Venardhi]

Relayer1 wrote:

---

Go read Fleming - Bond isn't dashing and funny. Bond doesn't enjoy himself. At best Bond extracts pleasure in an almost cruel way. He's dark and embittered as well as charming and sophisticated. Joy doesn't really come into it.

Don't care what the character is like in the books. Books and film are entirely different mediums. If they made a Bond TV show they could get away with the dourness and the angst and the bitterness and slowly develop the character in a way that won't turn us off of him. The Bond film franchise on the other hand is about watching a spy sashay through a party, kill an assassin, disarm a bomb and save the world all without spilling his watered down martini.

[Kai "the spy"]

Relayer1 wrote:

---

Go read Fleming - Bond isn't dashing and funny. Bond doesn't enjoy himself. At best Bond extracts pleasure in an almost cruel way. He's dark and embittered as well as charming and sophisticated. Joy doesn't really come into it.

I've read Fleming. And while I agree, the literary Bond is more serious than most of the movies pre-Craig, I'm also getting a bit tired of Craig fans arguing, Fleming's Bond was as dark and gritty as Craig. Actually, Fleming had a sense of humour about Bond and his adventures.
Why else would he give the girls names like Veper Lynd (a pub on West Berlin), Tiffany Case, Gala Brand or Pussy Galore?
Why else would he have larger than life villains like Dr No or Auric Goldfinger?
And why would he write Bond into quite fantastic plots like in 'Moonraker', 'Dr No', 'Thunderball' or 'On her Majesty's Secret Service'?
Have you ever read 'From a View to a Kill'? It has a subterranean Russian secret hide-out accessed through a sliding rock.

Granted, the dark and gritty outwheighs the more funny and fantastic in quantity in the novels, but that doesn't mean the dark and gritty Bond is the only valid one.

Besides, I find Craig to be even more brooding than Fleming's Bond. When we talk actor's interpretation being close to the novels, I'd say Dalton was closer than Craig. And not barely, either.

That said, as someone who prefers his Bond-movies not as dark and gritty, I've reached the state of mind that I'm content with the current movies just not being to my taste, because it doesn't mean they'll stay that way forever. There's been dark and gritty before (although to a lesser degree) and it passed, so this, I guess, won't be any different.

[Relayer1]

Kai "the spy" wrote:

---

I've read Fleming. And while I agree, the literary Bond is more serious than most of the movies pre-Craig, I'm also getting a bit tired of Craig fans arguing, Fleming's Bond was as dark and gritty as Craig. Actually, Fleming had a sense of humour about Bond and his adventures.
Why else would he give the girls names like Veper Lynd (a pub on West Berlin), Tiffany Case, Gala Brand or Pussy Galore?
Why else would he have larger than life villains like Dr No or Auric Goldfinger?
And why would he write Bond into quite fantastic plots like in 'Moonraker', 'Dr No', 'Thunderball' or 'On her Majesty's Secret Service'?
Have you ever read 'From a View to a Kill'? It has a subterranean Russian secret hide-out accessed through a sliding rock.

Granted, the dark and gritty outwheighs the more funny and fantastic in quantity in the novels, but that doesn't mean the dark and gritty Bond is the only valid one.

Besides, I find Craig to be even more brooding than Fleming's Bond. When we talk actor's interpretation being close to the novels, I'd say Dalton was closer than Craig. And not barely, either.

That said, as someone who prefers his Bond-movies not as dark and gritty, I've reached the state of mind that I'm content with the current movies just not being to my taste, because it doesn't mean they'll stay that way forever. There's been dark and gritty before (although to a lesser degree) and it passed, so this, I guess, won't be any different.

I would think the way that the film reboot is going, putting in place the new M, Q and Moneypenny, they will develop a slightly lighter touch and bring back a bit more humour in the next couple...

[Captrek]

Venardhi wrote:

---

Don't care what the character is like in the books. Books and film are entirely different mediums. If they made a Bond TV show they could get away with the dourness and the angst and the bitterness and slowly develop the character in a way that won't turn us off of him. The Bond film franchise on the other hand is about watching a spy sashay through a party, kill an assassin, disarm a bomb and save the world all without spilling his watered down martini.

Sometimes it's good to get away from a franchise's comfort zone. The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock have a darkness and emotional brutality to them that differ sharply from what we normally think of as Star Trek, but are nonetheless the high point of the franchise.

As Relayer1 says, the reintroduction of Moneypenny and the final line of dialog may be signs that they plan to return to a more traditional Bond after this.

[Rush Limborg]

Lonemagpie wrote:

---

I love TSWLM as it's the first one I saw in the cinema, but that scene bugs me as an adult cos the correct answer would have been "Well I killed somebody there, but never saw his face, so I've no idea if it was him or not..."

To be fair, he does say that...at first. But Anya clearly doesn't buy it--all the facts pretty much lead to a "yes" answer.

[davejames]

I'm surprised Roger Moore is getting ranked so poorly. I realize most of his movies were campy and pretty terrible, but I've always found his smooth, debonair Bond to be fun as hell to watch.

I always thought it was kind of badass how he could kill tons of people and be so utterly charming and polite about it.

My list:

Connery
Moore
Craig
Brosnan
Lazenby
Dalton

[sidious618]

If we're talking about them as actors then Connery would have to be pretty low on my list as he's capable of playing only one character. If we're talking about their acting as Bond then he'd be a little higher. Assuming we're talking about the latter:

-Craig
-Dalton
-Connery
-Brosnan
-Moore
-Lazenby

[Warped9]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

1. Tie - Connery and Craig. Never thought that the great Scot could be matched but Skyfall confirmed what Casino Royale hinted at - that Craig has made the role his own and completely reinvented the part.

Agreed.

[Starkers]

davejames wrote:

---

I always thought it was kind of badass how he could kill tons of people and be so utterly charming and polite about it.

I agree completely. In many way’s Moore’s Bond was more dangerous than Connery’s, I mean you knew Connery was dangerous, it’s his default (some would say only) setting. But Rog…Rog could be charming, urbane, amiable…then drop you off a rooftop, kick you off a cliff, shoot you in the balls. And he is a better actor than people give him credit for, much like Shatner he became a bit of a parody of himself, but he could be very subtle. See his seething anger when Scaramanga suggests they’re two peas in a pod or, my favourite moment, the look in his eyes when Anya mentions Tracy…

In terms of him being a cold blooded killer, people should watch The Wild Geese, particularly his opening scene...shit that man is cold)

Anyway I need to differentiate them from their acting as Bond to their acting elsewhere I think…

As 007

1. Dalton My Bond, managed to give Bond a harder edge without pushing him over into being depressing, more of a dangerous assassin than Craig’s thuggish action man, yet keeps that note of distain for what he has to do as a 00 agent. Manages to utterly convince as a killer (the scene in Pushkin’s mistresses’ hotel room is brilliant “If I believed Koskov we wouldn’t be talking.” But also as a human being, his love affair with Kara is not only convincing, but sweet and romantic, probably even more naturally romantic than Lazenby/Rigg. Plus no one does seething anger like Dalton.

2. Craig Great actor and a great Bond, like Dalton is funnier than people think, just so long as you keep the humour dry. My main complaints are the battering ram approach he sometimes uses, in conversation he comes across like Bond, but sometimes in the action scenes he could just be AN Other action hero. One thing I love about him, which people rarely pick up on, is the way he disposes of things. Watch him, car keys, mobile phones, guns, girls, even people (Mathis) when they’ve served their purpose. It does at times seem like his Bond has no pleasure in life however.

3. Brosnan In many ways the best Bond, because he manages to straddle all the other iterations (certainly before him) he can be funny and ruthless, cold blooded and vulnerable. Of course this is also his curse, he represents all Bonds, but the downside is there isn’t anything new or unique he particularly brings to the table which every other Bond has. That said there is a certain boyish glee he has, which I think comes from Brosnan himself. Unlike DC he did at least seem like he loved being Bond. Watch the scene with him in the back of the BMW in TND. You can almost hear Brosnan’s inner voice “I’m James Bond, I’m bloody James Bond!

4. Moore Stayed in the role too long and did become too much of a parody, but certainly in the early days perfectly cast

5. Lazenby Has a very natural physicality, and a vulnerability no other 007 has had. The only Bond who you feel might actually be mortal, who doesn’t seem to be always in control of the situation. Lousy actor of course but…but…that final scene is truly superb, which is why he’s above…

6. Connery Yeah I know controversial eh? The trouble with Connery’s Bond is that, when it comes down to it, I just don’t like him (as in his Bond not Connery) He has no weaknesses, precious few emotions, he doesn’t care about anyone so why should I care about him? Just try and imagine Connery doing the final scene in OHMSS, it would have been terrible, because Connery’s Bond could never care about someone that much

As actors

1. Craig
2. Dalton
3. Brosnan
4. Connery
5. Moore
6. Lazenby

[gblews]

sidious618 wrote:

---

If we're talking about them as actors then Connery would have to be pretty low on my list as he's capable of playing only one character.

And Connery is the only one of the bunch who has an Oscar -- and not from playing Bond.

[Captaindemotion]

gblews wrote:

---

And Connery is the only one of the bunch who has an Oscar -- and not from playing Bond.

Much as I love Connery, I think he ought not to have won the Oscar for the Untouchables as a result of his awful 'Oirish' accent in it.

Having said that, I don't agree that he can only play one character. Yes, there's his Bond/John Mason (from The Rock) tough guy template, but there's Brother William from The Name of the Rose, the sadistic guard from The Hill, the devious ex-con from The Anderson Tapes, the bookish Henry Jones from The Last Crusade and his wonderful performance in The Man Who Would Be King.

I don't think he's any more limited than Jack Nicholson, Michael Caine, Clint Eastwood and many others.

[davejames]

Starkers wrote:

---

3. Brosnan In many ways the best Bond, because he manages to straddle all the other iterations (certainly before him) he can be funny and ruthless, cold blooded and vulnerable. Of course this is also his curse, he represents all Bonds, but the downside is there isn’t anything new or unique he particularly brings to the table which every other Bond has. That said there is a certain boyish glee he has, which I think comes from Brosnan himself. Unlike DC he did at least seem like he loved being Bond. Watch the scene with him in the back of the BMW in TND. You can almost hear Brosnan’s inner voice “I’m James Bond, I’m bloody James Bond!

Ha ha, so true.

I used to really love Brosnan's Bond, but watching Goldeneye for the first time in a long while, all I could notice was just how lightweight and paper-thin his Bond was.

Pretty much everything out of his mouth was either a quip or a double entendre, which got tiresome really quick. I know Moore was kind of the same way, but he had least had some real screen presence to back it up. Brosnan I'm afraid comes across even MORE like a TV actor now-- especially compared to Craig's Bond.

[gblews]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

Much as I love Connery, I think he ought not to have won the Oscar for the Untouchables as a result of his awful 'Oirish' accent in it.

Accent or no accent, I thought Connery was superb as "Jimmy Malone" and richly deserved the Oscar.

Agree 100% with the following, particularly in the case of "Last Crusade" and "King".

Having said that, I don't agree that he can only play one character. Yes, there's his Bond/John Mason (from The Rock) tough guy template, but there's Brother William from The Name of the Rose, the sadistic guard from The Hill, the devious ex-con from The Anderson Tapes, the bookish Henry Jones from The Last Crusade and his wonderful performance in The Man Who Would Be King.