Sean Connery, No contest.
Sue
Sue
Favorite Bond
- Thread starter F16WarBird
- Start date
I had a very strong feeling this poll would be showing up any day now.
My vote's for Connery.
My vote's for Connery.
What?! Dalton is more popular than Moore? Madness!
- Thread starter
- #24
I never really got into Dalton's version, and Lazenby was only one film.
I think he could've done something with it if he didn't hose the opportunity of a lifetime by passing on "Diamonds are Forever".
Roger Moore reminded of an English butler with a bad case of hemmoroids.
By far, his finest work was "Live & Let Die" & "The Man With the Golden Gun".
"Moonraker" started off strong and went completely limp by the silly outer space crap. "The Spy who Loved Me" wasn't a complete disaster, but still a tad campy.
I liked Pierce Brosnan. In fact, I couldn't stand him on "Remington Steele" because I thought he was a wannabe Bond. When he was cast in "Goldeneye", it was like the proverbial glass slipper fitting.
Until I saw "Casino Royale", it was always Sir Sean in my opinon as "THE" James Bond. After all, he is the benchmark that everyone else is compared to.
However, in the past Bond flims have an ebb & flow between serious drama and gadgets. The best Bond films were a balanced harmony between the two.
I almost threw my remote control at the tv when Bond's car became invisible in "Die another day". I was really irritated that they went that far overboard.
The antithesis was Dalton's films which focused more on his scowl and less on Q branch.
"Casino Royale" was great because everything was plausible. Well, except for the premise of a high stakes poker game to pay off a debt, but what the hell. It's a movie.
So, I rank them as:
I think he could've done something with it if he didn't hose the opportunity of a lifetime by passing on "Diamonds are Forever".
Roger Moore reminded of an English butler with a bad case of hemmoroids.
By far, his finest work was "Live & Let Die" & "The Man With the Golden Gun".
"Moonraker" started off strong and went completely limp by the silly outer space crap. "The Spy who Loved Me" wasn't a complete disaster, but still a tad campy.
I liked Pierce Brosnan. In fact, I couldn't stand him on "Remington Steele" because I thought he was a wannabe Bond. When he was cast in "Goldeneye", it was like the proverbial glass slipper fitting.
Until I saw "Casino Royale", it was always Sir Sean in my opinon as "THE" James Bond. After all, he is the benchmark that everyone else is compared to.
However, in the past Bond flims have an ebb & flow between serious drama and gadgets. The best Bond films were a balanced harmony between the two.
I almost threw my remote control at the tv when Bond's car became invisible in "Die another day". I was really irritated that they went that far overboard.
The antithesis was Dalton's films which focused more on his scowl and less on Q branch.
"Casino Royale" was great because everything was plausible. Well, except for the premise of a high stakes poker game to pay off a debt, but what the hell. It's a movie.
So, I rank them as:
- Craig
- Connery
- Brosnan
- Moore
- Lazenby
- Dalton
Of old I would say Connery, but I have to say Craig could turn out as my favourite. See how the next film turns out.
As I'm reminded, I really do wish that in the Brosnan era they'd kept Sean Bean's character as a recurring agonist. A sort of Blofeld for the 90s.
As I'm reminded, I really do wish that in the Brosnan era they'd kept Sean Bean's character as a recurring agonist. A sort of Blofeld for the 90s.
M
modern man
Sorry, never read the books.
I figure an English double agent sounded funny with a Scottish (SC) and Irish (PB) accents.
Craig was good but Connery and Moore are the classic Bonds.
Of course as a Scotsman it has to be Connery,but I do think Craig was good in Casino Royale.I also liked Lazenby.
I am not a huge Bond fan mostly because I think James Bond is not that great a hero. I have never been a fan of the novels, though- never read a single one, so maybe the portrayal is accurate to the books. James Bond always seemed a bit like a well dressed guy on the outside who deep down was an insensitive, narcissistic jerk who didn't mind hurting women and killing people. Maybe that's fair to the books, who knows. The Terminator with a nice suit and manners.
Daniel Craig in Casino Royale was the first Bond movie I thought had believable characters and more depth to Bond. I also thought George Lazenby's brief role as James Bond was interesting. Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan will always be the classic James Bond, though, but I like Daniel Craig's portrayal the best. Maybe it's not the most faithful portrayal but I like the movie.
Daniel Craig in Casino Royale was the first Bond movie I thought had believable characters and more depth to Bond. I also thought George Lazenby's brief role as James Bond was interesting. Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan will always be the classic James Bond, though, but I like Daniel Craig's portrayal the best. Maybe it's not the most faithful portrayal but I like the movie.
In short Craig is THE Bond of the novels. If you haven't read any of the Fleming Bonds you're missing out as they are a worthwhile read. Casino Royale of all the Fleming titles does show Bond at his most merciless. There are others in the Fleming canon that come close but the first novel is the purest distillation of the character. Your impression of the character isn't wholly inaccurate but it is heavily if not in your case wholly influenced by the movies. This isn't necessarily a good thing. For instance it's essential because of what he does that Bond not mind killing people. I don't see him as a narcissist though. Extremely confident and self assured yes but if he weren't he couldn't do the job...at least not for long. In the movies the first three possibly four portrayals of Bond by Connery come the closest to the essence of Fleming's creation with Dr. No edging out the field. Past that and even the Connery portrayals start to veer ever so slightly into the camp portrayals that sullied so many of the late sixties and early seventies spy movies. For some reason it was a cardinal sin to take yourself seriously in this kind of fare and present yourself as bona fide adult entertainment. Will (Doc Mottern) mentioned that Lazenby's error was to simply be in a bad Bond movie. That's true. His constant voiceovers were a distraction. Half the dialogue must have been done in post production. Although he was a drastic change compared to the urbane Connery and at the time those were big shoes to fill, given better material and direction he might have done something with it I don't know. He was certainly one of the few actors to play Bond who did his own stunts and was willing to give anything the college try if it meant making it a better picture. He was very popular with and well respected by the Broccoli/Saltzman crew as a result of this "all for one and one for all" attitude he exhibited.
I always thought that while Moore made an excellent Simon Templar he wasn't Bond material. He struck me as too much of a daytime soap actor for the Bond role. It didn't help matters that during his tenure the Bond movies went from slight camp to high camp and finally degenerated into self parody. I went many years without being able to sit through a Bond movie.
Dalton's first portrayal in The Living Daylights was a return to form and came the closest to Fleming's creation at the time. I had started reading some of the Fleming books by then and I could appreciate this. A darker, grittier Bond was long overdue. I hoped they would continue this trend with Licence to Kill but alas it was not to be. That film never really clicked with me and there were a few things in it that were a bit over the top and certainly not in keeping with the Bond I wanted to see on the screen.
I was pleasantly surprised by Brosnan's portrayal. I didn't think he would pull it off either but he did. I echo the sentiments of jokerjon when he says they should have kept Sean Bean around as a recurring nemesis. The man's an excellent actor and a movie always gets a bounce when he's in it as far as I'm concerned. By the end of the Brosnan run things were starting to become too formulaic and the franchise needed a boost.
Enter Daniel Craig...
Daniel Craig came to the role amidst a maelstrom of controversy surrounding his choice to play the role. I still marvel at the number of people who took violent exception to it. They wrote letters of protest, they demonstrated, they started websites like craignotbond.com, they threatened to boycott the films until Craig was gone, and so on and so forth. It was infantile. Firstly, if they elect to boycott the film how would they know if he suited the role or not? Secondly, what was wrong with giving the guy a chance? Many were just as vociferous in their denunciations of Pierce Brosnan when he took over the role and he did okay. Admittedly for me Craig had underdog appeal but I was also desperate to see a true Fleming's Bond on that screen and the talk of jump starting the franchise with a return to form got me to thinking...and hoping.
When I told my wife I wanted to see the new Bond when it came out she curled her lip and snorted. Never a fan of the franchise like most women she considered it sexist drivel. She said I could go by myself as she had no desire to waste time watching a "silly Bond movie." In the end though it worked out that she did attend the screening and she came away impressed and that's no mean feat for a Bond hater. She liked Craig's portrayal but didn't find him all that handsome but she did say he looked good in a pair of swimming trunks.
I was blown away. To date Casino Royale is the only Bond I have on DVD. Now I just hope and pray they can keep things on track. As good as the first one was, it's imperative that the next one be twice as good. I like what they are doing just keep doing it. For pity's sake don't "improve" anything. Stick to the Fleming formula because he got it right! If I have one quibble and it's a minor one, I wish that they would put a man in the M role. An actor like Michael Kitchen would be perfect. He was in one of the Brosnan films as an MI6 man and they should have put him in that role then. I like Judi Dench don't get me wrong she's an excellent actress but M was and should always be a man's role. But if they keep doing things the way they did them in Casino Royale I can more than live with that bit of miscasting.
- Thread starter
- #32
From what I've read, the people who supported craignotbond.com should change it to oopsmybad.com because they have all eaten a tremendous amount of crow.
The most pathetic part of their argument was that Bond can't be a blonde.
HUH?
Who the hell do they think they are? Queer eye for the spy guy?
GKY!
It took me a film or two to warm to Dame Judi Dench as "M". I grew up watching Bernard Lee. I mean, he's like the Sean Connery of "M"'s. As it turns out, I love her as the head of MI6. The only one I didn't like was the bloke who played "M" between Lee & Dench.
I'm going to go listen to people on the Battlestar Galactica forums ***** that Starbuck & Boomer can't be chicks.
The most pathetic part of their argument was that Bond can't be a blonde.
HUH?
Who the hell do they think they are? Queer eye for the spy guy?
GKY!
It took me a film or two to warm to Dame Judi Dench as "M". I grew up watching Bernard Lee. I mean, he's like the Sean Connery of "M"'s. As it turns out, I love her as the head of MI6. The only one I didn't like was the bloke who played "M" between Lee & Dench.
I'm going to go listen to people on the Battlestar Galactica forums ***** that Starbuck & Boomer can't be chicks.
Connery hands down...Moore was my bond during childhood, but there are just none cooler than Connery. While I liked Craig and Casino Royale, it seemed just way too "style" heavy...like the whole movie was a cologne ad from a magazine or something...I did appreciate the "grittiness" of it and all...but it just didn't feel right to me. Perhaps I am crazy.
- Thread starter
- #34
I Think you are. 
I like Gold Bond. Keeps my feet dry!! Seriously though, Connery all the way. He brought a "Dangerous" attitude to the character while Moore brought a little too much comedy, IMHO.
The other guys are just not believable. My $.02
- Thread starter
- #36
I think "Bond 22" will determine which direction the franchise goes.
Since they have made most of the books into movies, they will need
fresh, original storylines.
However, they did cast Giancarlo Giannini to play Rene Mathis again. There's definately a source of tension and intrigue, given what happened in "Casino Royale".
To date, no word on whether Jeffery Wright will reprise his role as Felix Leiter.
Since they have made most of the books into movies, they will need
fresh, original storylines.
However, they did cast Giancarlo Giannini to play Rene Mathis again. There's definately a source of tension and intrigue, given what happened in "Casino Royale".
To date, no word on whether Jeffery Wright will reprise his role as Felix Leiter.
Connery is my favorite Bond and From Russia With Love is my favorite Bond movie. Most of the Fleming books were very good or better, but most of the movies after Goldfinger were simply ridiculous.
Tim
Tim
Lazenby? Really? Is he even English? He has to be the worst Bond ever. I'm pulling for Craig. Casino Royale was amazing, not just an action themed movie with a familar character, but a solid movie on by its own right.
To me, Sean Connery is James Bond. The rest are just pretty boy actors playing James Bond.
Big difference.
Big difference.
