I can't be the only one who thinks Pierce is the best Bond, can I?

I think Pierce is a close second to Connery. I didn’t like his first couple of movies, but the one’s he’s done lately have been topnotch. The writing seems to be a lot sharper lately, too, which may have much to do with it. Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day have all been excellent Bond films, and I can’t see anybody but Connery doing as good a job as Brosnan with the role.

Yep. Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond. Connery is a close second. Then I’d have to go with Dalton, Lazenby, then Moore.

Although, I think Moore suffered unfairly from being Bond during the era when everything was high camp. Many of those movies were just so incredibly silly (Moonraker, anyone?) that they came off almost as Zucker brothers productions. If Moore had been given darker, more serious films, he might have been a great Bond.

After watching him on the Ellen Show right after the announcement was made, I got the impression that Brosnan thought that the role belonged to him. In the interview, which was amazingly dull, Brosnan said that the Fleming Family, who owns the Bond trademark (or whatever it is) decided to go in a new direction. That, IMO, was double speak for “They wouldn’t pay me what I thought I deserved.” I could be wrong, but that’s the impression I got.

I do like Brosnan in the role, much more than I like Dalton or Moore. Brosnan is terribly handsome and dashing, but IMO he doesn’t have the twinkle in his eye that Connery had. My ideal man, above all else, has a ripping good sense of humor. Brosnan, for all his great qualities, lacks the ability to laugh at himself.

The next Bond? Hugh Grant. :slight_smile:

Previous Bond Threads:

The James Bond Film Festival. Part 1: Dr. No
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 2: From Russia with Love
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 3: Goldfinger
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 4: Thunderball
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 5: You Only Live Twice
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 1: Dr. No
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 2: From Russia with Love
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 3: Goldfinger
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 4: Thunderball
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 5: You Only Live Twice
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 6: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 7: Diamonds are Forever
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 8: Live and Let Die
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 9: The Man with the Golden Gun
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 10: The Spy Who Loved Me
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 11: Moonraker
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 12: For Your Eyes Only
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 13: Octopussy
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 14: A View to a Kill
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 15: The Living Daylights
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 16: License to Kill
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 17: Goldeneye
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 18: Tomorrow Never Dies
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 19: The World Is Not Enough
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 20: Die Another Day
The James Bond Film Festival. Part 21: Casino Royale (1954)

Brosnan could’ve been the best. But Connery still is. Lemme explain.

When I saw Brosnan in “Tailor of Panama”, he blew me away. That’s exactly the way I’ve always pictured Bond - a total asshole caring about himself as priority number one and his duties as a distant second - and then only because they let him continue live the way he does, in some shadowland between good and bad, right and wrong.
The malice Brosnan projected, his carelessness combined with mischief for its own sake. I just loved it. And I could easily see him do that in a Bond movie.

Problem is EON production is no longer interested in the character or the stories. They’re into product placements, tie ins, VGs, soundtracks, shoes and glasses. So they don’t want anything to disturb the anachronistic, cardboard character they’ve created.
A shame. It could’ve been good.

Any Bond fan should see ToP to check out what Brosnan could’ve brought to the part.

I am not a big Bond fan, I only watch the movies when they come on television. That said, I always thought Brosnan was best suited for the role. If they allowed Moore to play Bond until he was very old and wrinkley and completely unbelievable in the role then they should at least give Pierce another 10 years to play Bond, at least he’s still sexy.

What? No votes for Woody Allen?

I haven’t done The James Bond Film Festival. Part 22: Casino Royale (1967) yet. :wink:

I go along with this.

Jason Bourne? Please. He barely rates against George Lazenby.

He already is the new Bond.

George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, and Pierce Brosnan:

Actors who have played James Bond. Some better than others.

Sean Connery is James Bond.

I’m not sure I completely follow you, EC. Are you saying you didn’t like the first of Brosnan’s Bond films? And then you say that Goldeneye (the first Bond film with Brosnan) was excellent?

Connery was the best Bond. Maybe my opinion is shaped by the fact that he was first. I don’t care.

I like Dalton and Brosnan about equally in the role, but the two Dalton movies were pretty weak except for the lead. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is sort of the opposite, the movie is good and sort of carries Lazenby along with it.

My biggest issue with the James Bond franchise is that I would love to see the movies ditch the megaton explosions and uber-gadgets and just let Bond be Bond. When I think back on the best moments from the movies, it’s Robert Shaw holding a gun on Sean Connery in a train compartment, or Gert Frobe gloating about his own cleverness. My favorite scene in Goldeneye is when Bond first meets Jack Wade in St. Petersburg. (Ex-KGB type. Tough mother. Big guy with a limp. Name’s Zukovsky. Valentin Dmitrovitch Zukovsky? Yeah, you know him? I gave him the limp.) There’s no tension in jumping a motorcycle over a helicopter. Hell, give me an invisible car and Bad Guy homing missiles and I could save the world myself.

Strangely, I’ve only seen one of his Bond movies…and I absolutely agree.

I’d seen most of the Connery Bonds before (movies a large group of people can agree on), and couldn’t quite get into the whole thing. But there’s a moment in Goldeneye with Pierce in a tank. And while watching it I thought “that’s all I’ve ever wanted in my entire life.” And the Bond thing made sense.

David Niven!

(Seriously though … Sean Connery. He’s the only actor who’s captured the BRUTISHNESS of the role. Bond isn’t just suave sophistication. He needs to be a THUG at heart. What makes the character interesting is this constant tension between civilization and wildness. Connery is the only one who got it right.)

I have to agree with this, and I’m going to change my vote back to Connery. He owns the role.

As for being brutish… It’s been a long time since I saw Dr. No, but wasn’t there a scene where he threatens to torture a bad guy unless he told him what he wanted to know - in which case he’d kill him quickly. And he did go on to kill him.

Can’t see the new Bonds doing that.

Sean Connery wil always be the best Bond.
Then, in descending order:
Timothy Dalton
George Lazenby
Pierce Brosnan
David Niven
Bob Simmons (Connery’s stunt double)
Bary Nelson
And finally, Roger Moore.

Just my opinion; I do not claim to be objective:

  1. Brosnan. Suave, sly, dangerous. I was devastated when he couldn’t get out of his Remington Steele contract.
  2. Moore. He had the role when I was going through puberty; that’s when my impression of Bond was formed.
  3. Connery. I can’t get past the way the older films are slower and talkier, and therefore, so were his performances.
  4. Lazenby. Kinda scary, but if he’d played it more than once, he might be remembered more favorably.
  5. Dalton. Meh.

Next up: Hugh Jackman? Pleeeeeeeze? Failing that, I could dig Ewan McGregor. Hugh Grant? Not even.

That’s why my favorite scenes in DAD were the ones in Cuba, where all of Bond’s equipment added up to one (1) revolver and one (1) vintage automobile, and yet he still managed to get the job done.

As for Bourne - there’s no real point in comparing the two characters. Bourn is the anti-Bond. While Bond is a superstar, Bourne is an anonymous killer, a face in the crowd. I have a feeling that if actual superspy assasins exist, they’re grey men like him, rather than suave seducers. A real killer doesn’t go gambling in Monte Carlo - he goes undercover as a dealer or a busboy.

I suspect the people who like Brosnan best imagine JB to be the well-tailored, oh-so-suave, sophisticated spy (probably Moore’s legacy), which PB fits to the bill.

But James Bond is more. He’s, essentially, a bastard. Casually ruthless and callous when he needs to be, and Connery was 100% convincing as a scrapper. He didn’t need to overemote to sense a real ice-cold killer beneath the glamorous surface. PB (who’s the next best Bond, IMHO) just can’t capture that, and that’s what prevents him from being the best.

Well, that and his movies have been largely crap. I will concede that Connery benefits from being the first in that he had some of the best stories before the franchise became a virtual self-parody, mired in boring formula.