I wanted Bond to go in a more gritty direction after the Brosnan era but the mumbling, overwrought, blundering Craig isn't really what I had in mind although I was willing to give him a chance. Dr No, From Russia With Love, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only and the Living Daylights showed that you could make a lean, intriguing spy thriller which was still recognizably a Bond film.
People go on about Fleming's Bond, well Fleming's Bond had a casual grace and economy and a dry sense of humour, something which we haven't seen with Craig. I think Dalton had the right balance but I voted for Moore because he was the Bond I loved growing up. Also "and that's for 009" is a far more badass line than anything Craig has said (mumbled) in the last two films.
Sean Connery, he had that cruel streak which was apparent in the Fleming novels. Reading the books, Bond was an unpleasant character really..nothing like Roger's version, which was more playboy than ruthless agent.
Timothy Dalton was under-rated in my opinion, his movies weren't the best, but he more or less nailed the character.
I don't think it's hip to claim that OHMSS is a classic, i just think that it is.
If you look beyond the Lazenby issue, it's a really good action thriller. There's no doubt in my mind that if Connery had done it, it would be seen as one of his best.
The problem is I think the things that make OHMSS such a classic would have been done differently if Connery had been in it. I just can't see him pulling off the romantic hero who is devestated by his wife's death. Lazenby, whilst a tad wooden, did pull it off for me.
Not to mention how out of shape and jaded Connery already looked in You Only Live Twice. He really changed a lot in just 5 years between Dr. No and YOLT. He went from a handsome fit chap to a toupee wearing greasy skinned old geezer in next to no time. :-)
Anyway, OHMSS is my favourite. But Roger is my Bond. His films might not have been the best, but they entertain me, aside from OHMSS, more than any others in the series.
Could never stand the Bond films until Pierce Brosnan took over, then I became a fan.
Sean Connery is before my era - my mother likes him. Roger Moore played it all too flippantly.
Pierce, in my opinion, played Bond to perfection for that time. He looked the part, and he tried to inject some humanity into the character while still remaining lethal.
I was dreading someone new taking over, but I must admit Daniel Craig did a superb job in Casino Royale. That film was absolutely brilliant. Craig worked hard to bulk up and produce a body that looked capable of doing all the stunts, he can really act, he was suitably hard, but we also saw the most tender love scenes with Vesper.
Sadly the follow up, Quantum of Solace was horrendous, and didn't appear to be a Bond film at all.
To echo the words of another poster, I have high hopes for Skyfall and hope we see a return to the Bond traditions including Q; some humour; the line 'Bond, James Bond; and martini shaken not stirred.
Sean Connery was so the right person to play Bond. The way he talked, the way he walked — he was just so right for that part.
For the period. Watching him when he returned for Diamonds are Forever, and in the non-canon Never Say Never Again and he looks out of place, not least because he had aged obviously. For each of the actors who have portrayed Bond, they are certainly representative of their respective decades.
Timothy Dalton was my favourite as his two films were absolutely brilliant in my opinion. He was also the closest (and so is Daniel Craig) to Ian Fleming's James Bond character from the novels.
For me Connery set the mould for 007. Moore was good but i'd place him in third. Brosnan is the closest we've had since the Connery days and I really enjoyed his first few films. I don't see Craig as bond, a good actor perhaps but just not James.
Voted for Dalton. Shame he never did a third movie imo.
Here’s how I see them:
1) Timothy Dalton(burnt out killer feel to the character - a rebel that doesn't care. He has the look, a romantic/softer side, he has the dark wit/humour and while the films are darker they also retain some of the classic elements of the series)
2) Daniel Craig(he's the "blunt instrument" that Fleming intended the character to be but he's a little too raw at times imo. I think he is vastly underrated but I just don't think Craig is as good an actor as Dalton. Another thing that demotes Craig to second is that he is doing what Dalton did only years later. He's still very good though, especially in 'Casino Royale'. The just need to get the balance right with the character. I like that as the his films are progressing this version of the character seems to get wiser and the series elements are slowly being reintroduced)
3) Sean Connery(he pretty much plays himself in every film he's in, but he does have the looks, charm, wit, womaniser type thing going on and his first three films especially are brilliant and very good '60s spy thrillers (especially 'Dr. No' and 'From Russia With Love')
4) Pierce Brosnan(The Bond I grew up with. I like him, he's a decent actor, he stars in my favourite Bond film - 'GoldenEye' - and all the elements are in place. I just feel that his last film seriously let him down - why did Brosnan even agree to do it?! I'd have walked if I had read that script! - and as I have rewatched his last three films I do feel like, 'GoldenEye' aside, he does try to be the perfect Bond by rolling aspects of all the previous ones into his portrayal rather than being different)
5) George Lazenby(Only one film to go on for this guy, but I think it's a very good Bond film and I don't think Lazenby is as bad as people make him out to be. I think part of the reason is because he followed Connery. He's really good in the action scenes too which is a bonus)
6) Roger Moore(I've nothing against Moore, he seems like a nice bloke and I rate three of his films ('Live & Let Die, 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and 'For Your Eyes Only') but the rest of his era is very hit and miss and although the humour/puns/one-liners are funny I do think it made Bond into a bit of a parody. I also think he outstayed his welcome. By the end it was like watching your grandfather getting off with your girlfriend - not a pretty sight :eek:)
Comments
On Her Majesty's Secret Service did very well at the box office.
People go on about Fleming's Bond, well Fleming's Bond had a casual grace and economy and a dry sense of humour, something which we haven't seen with Craig. I think Dalton had the right balance but I voted for Moore because he was the Bond I loved growing up. Also "and that's for 009" is a far more badass line than anything Craig has said (mumbled) in the last two films.
Timothy Dalton was under-rated in my opinion, his movies weren't the best, but he more or less nailed the character.
The problem is I think the things that make OHMSS such a classic would have been done differently if Connery had been in it. I just can't see him pulling off the romantic hero who is devestated by his wife's death. Lazenby, whilst a tad wooden, did pull it off for me.
Not to mention how out of shape and jaded Connery already looked in You Only Live Twice. He really changed a lot in just 5 years between Dr. No and YOLT. He went from a handsome fit chap to a toupee wearing greasy skinned old geezer in next to no time. :-)
Anyway, OHMSS is my favourite. But Roger is my Bond. His films might not have been the best, but they entertain me, aside from OHMSS, more than any others in the series.
Sean Connery is before my era - my mother likes him. Roger Moore played it all too flippantly.
Pierce, in my opinion, played Bond to perfection for that time. He looked the part, and he tried to inject some humanity into the character while still remaining lethal.
I was dreading someone new taking over, but I must admit Daniel Craig did a superb job in Casino Royale. That film was absolutely brilliant. Craig worked hard to bulk up and produce a body that looked capable of doing all the stunts, he can really act, he was suitably hard, but we also saw the most tender love scenes with Vesper.
Sadly the follow up, Quantum of Solace was horrendous, and didn't appear to be a Bond film at all.
To echo the words of another poster, I have high hopes for Skyfall and hope we see a return to the Bond traditions including Q; some humour; the line 'Bond, James Bond; and martini shaken not stirred.
For the period. Watching him when he returned for Diamonds are Forever, and in the non-canon Never Say Never Again and he looks out of place, not least because he had aged obviously. For each of the actors who have portrayed Bond, they are certainly representative of their respective decades.
Roger Moore is popular, but just wasn't Bond for me!
The fact that Dalton and Craig are higher in the poll both stuns and upsets me.
And lets not forget the first actor to portray Bond - Barry Nelson(an American :eek:)
Casino Royale - 1954
Same here mate. I mean, Connery and Moore were great Bonds back in the day but Brosnan is BY FAR the best modern Bond we've had to date.
Daniel Craig has killed the Bond character, along with the films as they are just like any other action flick you see these days.
Also, to the person you referred Craig as the closest Bond from the Fleming books... you need help.
Why not? He's relates more to the novel Bond than some of the others on that list.
His James Bond was a spoof. It's not part of the Bond legacy.
Has anyone even bothered voting for him yet?
Top three:
1st: Connery
2nd: Brosnan
3rd: Moore
Here’s how I see them:
1) Timothy Dalton (burnt out killer feel to the character - a rebel that doesn't care. He has the look, a romantic/softer side, he has the dark wit/humour and while the films are darker they also retain some of the classic elements of the series)
2) Daniel Craig (he's the "blunt instrument" that Fleming intended the character to be but he's a little too raw at times imo. I think he is vastly underrated but I just don't think Craig is as good an actor as Dalton. Another thing that demotes Craig to second is that he is doing what Dalton did only years later. He's still very good though, especially in 'Casino Royale'. The just need to get the balance right with the character. I like that as the his films are progressing this version of the character seems to get wiser and the series elements are slowly being reintroduced)
3) Sean Connery (he pretty much plays himself in every film he's in, but he does have the looks, charm, wit, womaniser type thing going on and his first three films especially are brilliant and very good '60s spy thrillers (especially 'Dr. No' and 'From Russia With Love')
4) Pierce Brosnan (The Bond I grew up with. I like him, he's a decent actor, he stars in my favourite Bond film - 'GoldenEye' - and all the elements are in place. I just feel that his last film seriously let him down - why did Brosnan even agree to do it?! I'd have walked if I had read that script! - and as I have rewatched his last three films I do feel like, 'GoldenEye' aside, he does try to be the perfect Bond by rolling aspects of all the previous ones into his portrayal rather than being different)
5) George Lazenby (Only one film to go on for this guy, but I think it's a very good Bond film and I don't think Lazenby is as bad as people make him out to be. I think part of the reason is because he followed Connery. He's really good in the action scenes too which is a bonus)
6) Roger Moore (I've nothing against Moore, he seems like a nice bloke and I rate three of his films ('Live & Let Die, 'The Spy Who Loved Me' and 'For Your Eyes Only') but the rest of his era is very hit and miss and although the humour/puns/one-liners are funny I do think it made Bond into a bit of a parody. I also think he outstayed his welcome. By the end it was like watching your grandfather getting off with your girlfriend - not a pretty sight :eek:)