Roger Moore is my favorite James Bond, probably because he’s the star of my favorite Bond films (Moonraker, Live and Let Die, and Octopussy). Dr. No and Goldfinger were pretty awesome, so Connery is my second choice, but sort of before my time. I was just a pup when Roger Moore took the Bond role, so his early appearences are before my time, too, but in my mind he is the consummate and classic bond. It was Moore’s films that made me say 'Holy smoke - there’s a bunch more of these syp movies. Hey! Who’s that guy playing James Bond?!?"
ETA: Mods, feel free to move this thread if you think it belongs in Cafe Society.
Bond is a brute. When the fists or bullets start flying, you need more than a smile and a witty remark. These are the guys who can take a punch. The Good
Pierce Brosnan
Timothy Dalton
George Lazenby
I like each of these guys as Bond, but I think that other elements of their movies let them down. After the Moore era, they kept promising us a grittier, edgier Bond, but the producers didn’t have the guts to go through with it. (Goldeneye was close, but they fell back into old habits pretty quickly.) Lazenby’s hard to judge; it was the one time Bond was emotional, and the one time for him in the lead. It’s apples-and-oranges to compare him to the others. The Rest
Roger Moore
The low point in the series was Bond, on the run from villains in India, encountering a tiger and telling it to “sit!”. Maybe it’s not all Moore’s fault. He did have one occasion to be a badass and handled it well. Doesn’t Count
David Niven
The Guest/Hughes/Huston/McGrath/Parrish/Talmadge version of Casino Royale is too much of a carnival sideshow to even rate it with the others.
Should we rate our favorite Moneypennys as well? There have been three.
“My son once asked me in a restaurant, ‘Daddy, could you beat up anyone here?’ I looked around and thought ‘It’s mostly old people here’ and said yes. He asked, ‘But what about if James Bond came in?’ I said ‘But I am James Bond’ and he said ‘No, I mean the real one. Sean Connery.’”
It depends on how you see James Bond.
If you see Bond as a tough guy, a ruthless killer first and foremost, then Daniel Craig and Sean Connery are neck and neck.
Me, I’ve always seen Bond as a spy first and foremost, a con man in Her Majesty’s service, suaving his way into situations with his charm, although ready to put a bullet in your head if the need arises. That’s why I like Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore.
I’m shallow, I guess. Pierce Brosnan does it for me. Then Daniel Craig.
Roger Moore looks like an overstuffed sofa. And smug, if an overstuffed sofa can be smug.
Sean Connery is a repellant hairy ape much pleased with himself. He is interesting to watch in a retro way, in the movie versions of the original books. Very dated, and he creeps me out, but he is the original Bond and there are those who will have No Other Bond.
I was always firmly in the Connery fanclub until Craig came along. Craig is more in the Jason Bourne mold. Connery could be a badass, but was more a wiseass playboy. Craig is all business, and actually seems more like a normal human with human failings.
I like Brosnan best, as he seemed to be a great balance between the pure bad-assery of Connery and the wise-assery of Moore.
After that, probably Connery, then Moore, but it’s close.
Then Craig, then Dalton. I don’t need my Bond to be over-the-top humorous like Moore, but he should have a little twinkle in his eye as he goes about his deadly business, a rogue-ishness about him. I can’t take the character if played simply as a cold killer.
Lazenby wasn’t at all bad, but that kilt outfit, with the ruffly shirt, just kills the whole Bond aura for me. Not the actor’s fault, though.
Lazenby is best forgotten and Niven was an aberration. It’s too early to tell with the Craig reboot. Dalton and Brosnan didn’t leave much of an impression on me, but Bond was getting quite silly by then. So Connery it is, but Craig’s right up there.
For me, Sean Connery is best, followed by Danial Craig. I like Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan about equally. And I think George Lazenby did a much better job than he’s given credit for.
Roger Moore never impressed me as Bond (although For Your Eyes Only was actually pretty good).
And howcum you left out the very first James Bond, Barry Nelson?
Sean Connery is my favorite.
But I think Roger Moore is underrated. He gets unfairly dissed by Bond fans for hamming it up. The comic approach I think worked well though for his era. It also helped that Moore genuinely seemed to be having fun in the role and knew better than to take it too seriously, so you never really felt embarrassed for him. And he could still be a badass when the situation called for it.
Compare that with the Timothy Dalton era when the producers were going for edginess, while at the same time maintaining some of the comedic elements. Dalton was trying to be intense, even when a scene called for some cheekiness, and as a result his performance just fell flat .
Actual choice - Sean Connery. My first Bond was Goldfinger when it opened, and Connery was awesome. In the two earlier ones he played Bond more like in the books - a killer above all. Moore was way too campy for me. I haven’t seen the Craig movies yet, so I withhold judgment, but the rest are just blah Bonds.
Craig is promising, but if Casino Royale wan’t as good as it was, we’d be comparing him to Dalton–moody, broody, one-dimensionally rough around the edges, though Craig’s more of a lunkhead (not an insult). If the rest of his are as bad as Quantum, the bloom will vanish off his rose awfully fast.
Conversely, Brosnan never had a good film (Goldeneye being moderately tolerable), but he held up pretty well notwithstanding. Makes you wonder what he would’ve been like with better material.
Never, ever liked Moore, though some of the films themselves are fun. But the tone of Bond films changed dramatically post-Connery, and that seemed to happen to specifically cater to Moore’s own style, so he gets a much larger dose of the blame.
OHMSS has its strengths, but Lazenby isn’t one of them. He’s dismal.
