Best Bond?

[Jon]

The casting people certainly deserve an honourable mention for giving Craig the role as from an outside view he not Bond.....but it just worked!!

didn't really take a genuis casting director.

Anyone who has seen Layer Cake (great film) would have realised that Craig would make an excellent Bond.

[Nigel]

The casting people certainly deserve an honourable mention for giving Craig the role as from an outside view he not Bond.....but it just worked!!

didn't really take a genuis casting director.

Anyone who has seen Layer Cake (great film) would have realised that Craig would make an excellent Bond.

Did you really think that when watching Layer Cake Jon....Hmmmm? :winkold:

Anyway there is a lot of difference between thinking he would make a good Bond and putting your money/reputation where your mouth is, for that reason he/she deserves cudos!

[mjmooney]

Can't believe that anyone would vote for Moore. Hopelessly distant from the character in the books, comically untalented as an actor, and generally about as unsuited to the role as George Bush is to be a professor of moral philosophy. He has two expressions, face at rest and face with one eyebrow lifted. He has one pitch of voice. he came to prominence because he's tall, and has regular features which appeal to some in a matinee-idol way.

Connery is the business, and Craig can outdo him if given the chance. Some of the others weren't bad, but Moore is the Doug Ellis to Connery's Randy Lerner; out of place, out of depth, out of time.

absolutely 100% spot on Peter.

I am quite shocked by some of the posts here in support of Moore.

he is nothing at all like the Bond Fleming created. He's a wooden comical cartoon version of him, who got the part thanks to his outings as Simon Templar in the Saint.

Moore was not helped by the increasingly comical scripts for his Bond films, but i've yet to see Moore excel in a serious acting role, and the Bond role is (or at least should be) a serious role.

Agree with you both.

Daniel Craig has the capability to become the best overall but at the moment he is certainly reviving the franchise.

Add me to this camp. Connery the best, by a mile. Moore the worst, also by a mile.

How could Roger Moore ever hope to be James Bond? Everybody knows he's THE SAINT.

Haven't seen the new one yt, but Craig looks quite promising.

Mike

[Rocafella]

Bond needs to be rough (Connery), he needs to be elegant (Brosnan), he needs to have the natural ease with ladies (Moore) and he needs to fit the role as a an agent for the British government. Daniel Craig is an instant action hero, I totally liked Casino Royale, but it is not a classic, it did not have any real characteristics of being a Bond-movie other than the given plot, music and effects. You never got, well I didn't get the "feel". I am a Moore-fan, but I think he and Sean Connery were (equally good) the best characters, and the third best in Brosnan was more of a modern Bond.

Roger Moore - 6/6 (Elegant and great with the ladies, natural fighter and brought with him skiing to the movies, which is cool. Yeah it was actually his idea, 7 movies

You who say he is not a real Bond, what are you talking about??? He was Bond the longest, and he kept it interesting after Connery quit)

Sean Connery - 5+/6 (The oldest Bond, old movies and footage. Yet he is recognized as the best. He was the best fighter, did lack a bit in the elegance department, but that was also due to the time he was Bond, which was the 60's primarily. He played 6 movies. -0,5 for his involvement in "Never Say Never Again", which sucked!)

Pierce Brosnan - 4+/6 (Easily a great Bond in my eyes. Natural elegance and probably the best handler of weapons. Looks great as an agent, cool guy overall)

Daniel Craig - 4/6 (Remember I am rating as Bond, not action figure. Does not really convince me as a lady handler, but he is a great fighter and agent. Bond is very much down to being bullish with the ladies, and it just didn't seem very natural. I would have wanted Julian McMahon to be Bond, he would be awesome)

Timothy Dalton - 3 (He was OK, but never good enough to continue for long. His movies was also in the 80's, which made them much too Miami Vice)

George Lazenby - 2 (His looks was boring, his voice was weird and his fighting was pretty dull. Didn't last very long and rightly so)

[Rocafella]

Can't believe that anyone would vote for Moore. Hopelessly distant from the character in the books, comically untalented as an actor, and generally about as unsuited to the role as George Bush is to be a professor of moral philosophy. He has two expressions, face at rest and face with one eyebrow lifted. He has one pitch of voice. he came to prominence because he's tall, and has regular features which appeal to some in a matinee-idol way.

Connery is the business, and Craig can outdo him if given the chance. Some of the others weren't bad, but Moore is the Doug Ellis to Connery's Randy Lerner; out of place, out of depth, out of time.

absolutely 100% spot on Peter.

I am quite shocked by some of the posts here in support of Moore.

he is nothing at all like the Bond Fleming created. He's a wooden comical cartoon version of him, who got the part thanks to his outings as Simon Templar in the Saint.

Moore was not helped by the increasingly comical scripts for his Bond films, but i've yet to see Moore excel in a serious acting role, and the Bond role is (or at least should be) a serious role.

Fleming wrote books, the Broccoli's make movies.

JRR Tolkien wrote LOTR, Peter Jackson made the movies.

I am certain Tolkien would hate several things about the lovely movies.

Bond is not known for the books, the movies have made "him" and the story one of the most well-known ever, which is pretty incredible. Look at the years they have gone by! Bond is a package, Roger Moore has that package no matter what you say, why did the popularity stay for so long and why did he make the most movies? Because he was perfect for the role, easy as that. You can criticise the movies, but that would be another thing

You have to distance the books from the movies

[mjmooney]

Bond is not known for the books

He is to me. I read all the books (in publishing sequence) before I saw any of the films.

OK, I realise that I'm in a minority here, but for me the films are (post-Connery at any rate) irrelevant. The books are where it's at.

Mike

[Oaks]

The casting people certainly deserve an honourable mention for giving Craig the role as from an outside view he not Bond.....but it just worked!!

didn't really take a genuis casting director.

Anyone who has seen Layer Cake (great film) would have realised that Craig would make an excellent Bond.

Did you really think that when watching Layer Cake Jon....Hmmmm? :winkold:

Anyway there is a lot of difference between thinking he would make a good Bond and putting your money/reputation where your mouth is, for that reason he/she deserves cudos!

I did i remember coming out of the cinema really enjoying Layer Cake and saying, he could be a very good Bond, but i never expected him to get it because of his look.

[Oaks]

Bond needs to be rough (Connery), he needs to be elegant (Brosnan), he needs to have the natural ease with ladies (Moore) and he needs to fit the role as a an agent for the British government. Daniel Craig is an instant action hero, I totally liked Casino Royale, but it is not a classic, it did not have any real characteristics of being a Bond-movie other than the given plot, music and effects. You never got, well I didn't get the "feel". I am a Moore-fan, but I think he and Sean Connery were (equally good) the best characters, and the third best in Brosnan was more of a modern Bond.

Roger Moore - 6/6 (Elegant and great with the ladies, natural fighter and brought with him skiing to the movies, which is cool. Yeah it was actually his idea, 7 movies

You who say he is not a real Bond, what are you talking about??? He was Bond the longest, and he kept it interesting after Connery quit)

Sean Connery - 5+/6 (The oldest Bond, old movies and footage. Yet he is recognized as the best. He was the best fighter, did lack a bit in the elegance department, but that was also due to the time he was Bond, which was the 60's primarily. He played 6 movies. -0,5 for his involvement in "Never Say Never Again", which sucked!)

Pierce Brosnan - 4+/6 (Easily a great Bond in my eyes. Natural elegance and probably the best handler of weapons. Looks great as an agent, cool guy overall)

Daniel Craig - 4/6 (Remember I am rating as Bond, not action figure. Does not really convince me as a lady handler, but he is a great fighter and agent. Bond is very much down to being bullish with the ladies, and it just didn't seem very natural. I would have wanted Julian McMahon to be Bond, he would be awesome)

Timothy Dalton - 3 (He was OK, but never good enough to continue for long. His movies was also in the 80's, which made them much too Miami Vice)

George Lazenby - 2 (His looks was boring, his voice was weird and his fighting was pretty dull. Didn't last very long and rightly so)

The problem with Brosnan was he wasn't "elegant" he was slimy. You watch his interaction with Berry in Die another day, and you realise he had to go. Dalton was a great Bond, because as with Craig, he could act, so brought depth to the roll there previous "actors" couldn't bring.

[Rocafella]

Bond is not known for the books

He is to me. I read all the books (in publishing sequence) before I saw any of the films.

OK, I realise that I'm in a minority here, but for me the films are (post-Connery at any rate) irrelevant. The books are where it's at.

Mike

Of course they are, and I agree with you on that, but like I said they are two different things. The movies are on its own, as well as the books. We can all agree that they are great though.

I am not speaking with much experience though, I have read only one book. I am a passionate film lover though... I have the collection box so Bond gets a lot of time in my DVD player

[Pelle]

Moore for me. And less for you... :? Anyway, the reason is the same as for Tegis. I think I saw almost all his Bond-films before I saw anuone else so he became Bond for me. Have to say that I was surprised that Craig was so good. Excellent. He, Moore and Connery are the best dalton was pretty good but too boring. Brosnan ok, but only in Goldeneye. Lazenby just boring.

[Grant(aka_eddy)]

Bond is a package, Roger Moore has that package no matter what you say,

Thats not a view that many people share and whilst you're entitled to think that Moore had 'the package' others are entitled to disagree.

In fact it would seem most people see him as perhaps the most one-dimensional portrayal so far. If you happen to like that dimension then fair enough and i did enjoy alot of the films. Moores portrayal was perhaps most fitting with 70's light-hearted innuendo filled britain.

why did the popularity stay for so long and why did he make the most movies? Because he was perfect for the role, easy as that.

Perhaps he was the best at the time for the role they wanted. I definitely couldnt see the same sort of 'actor' leading the role now and I think Craig's appointement was a step in the right direction.

You can criticise the movies, but that would be another thing

I'd actually praise many of Moore's movies and say they were what caused the longevity rather than the actor himself.

You have to distance the books from the movies

You dont.

You can if you want to and if you prefer the character that way, but equally you can want the character to stay closer to the books. Luckily for alot of us we're getting that now with Daniel Craig and you have Moore on re-run to keep you happy, so we're all winners!

[Oaks]

I still can't believe that camp slime ball Brosnan has more vote than Craig and Dalton put together. Come on who voted Brosnan, whos seen Die another Day/ The world is not enough/ Tomorrow never dies?????

[leviramsey]

Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies each have some of the best portrayal of the film Bond character until about 40-50% of the way through (Iceland for DAD and leaving Hamburg for TND) when the script moves into Die Hard/Speed clone territory with machine guns etc. My complaints about those two lower-end-of-the-table outings have naught to do with Brosnan's portrayal.

TWINE is in the running with From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale for best of the series; the only complaint I have is the lackluster ending fight with Renard. Again, that has not a thing to do with Brosnan's portrayal, more to do with Purvis & Wade's inability to write an ending that lives up to the earlier parts of the film.

[Oaks]

Die Another Day and Tomorrow Never Dies each have some of the best portrayal of the film Bond character until about 40-50% of the way through (Iceland for DAD and leaving Hamburg for TND) when the script moves into Die Hard/Speed clone territory with machine guns etc. My complaints about those two lower-end-of-the-table outings have naught to do with Brosnan's portrayal.

TWINE is in the running with From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale for best of the series; the only complaint I have is the lackluster ending fight with Renard. Again, that has not a thing to do with Brosnan's portrayal, more to do with Purvis & Wade's inability to write an ending that lives up to the earlier parts of the film.

[R.I.C.O.]

Connery by a country mile.

[davepez]

Bond should be a womanizer, a bastard, hard, cool and sophisticated. A mans man. Roger Moore just isnt a good bond. I wouldnt want to be Moore's Bond. Hes a right bellend. You should think "quality", but you really do think "bellend"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hev]

Pierce Brosnan for me - because he was so handsome as Bond - I used to really look forward to the new Bond films as I would go hot under the collar when he did his smoochy scenes!

Sorry, I guess that's not what we are supposed to decide on though is it!

(I haven't seen Casino Royale yet)

[rjw63]

Basildon Bond - Russ Abbott