aspiemike wrote:
Sean Connery here and considering there was only one movie he did that I didn't like (out of hte official Bond movies, 2 if you count that movie released in 1983).
George Lazenby wasn't bad, but I found his only movie to be very boring.
Roger Moore had three good movies out of the seven he did (Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only). And of the ones I didn't like or were mediocre at best, the only bright spot I could think of is Christopher Walken in a View to a Kill.
Timothy Dalton was enjoyable for me and I enjoyed his movies. I didn't particularly like the attempt at humour (if there was any at all.)
Pierce Brosnan was great as James Bond. His only real good movie was Goldeneye as Tomorrow Never Dies, and The World Is Not Enough were mediocre at best, and Die Another Day was excellent until the laser thing was brought into the plot.
Daniel Craig brings a refreshing change to the series and Casino Royale and Skyfall were good movies. Quantum of Solace was not as enjoyable IMO.
In order: Sean Connery, Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, George Lazenby. Timothy Dalton would be ranked higher if he did more movies. George Lazenby takes the bottom spot by default, and Roger Moore makes me laugh and I appreciated that about him in the role.
I agree with virtually everything you've said here. However, I do have to say, I think Daniel Craig may just have surpassed Sean Connery. It's true, Connery's Bond is classic-- a poised, witty, consummate professional and ladies man, so much a part of our social vocabulary that he is what most people think of first when you say the words "spy" or "Cold Warrior". He's the one who popularized "shaken, not stirred" and codified the formula that has been used in the Bond movies for 50 years now. I've been a skeptic of Craig's since the massive lavishing of praise that came out of
Casino Royale-- not that it isn't a good movie, but I wasn't sure what to think of his performance, and I wasn't a fan of the "series reboot" concept. I grew up knowing Brosnan's 007, and for that reason, Craig (who is a very stark contrast to Brosnan) seemed too tight and humourless for my tastes.
Quantum of Solace didn't do much to change my opinion, either. It just seemed to me like the one-liners had completely dried up, and that was one of the things about Bond that really made him a charming and interesting character. Even with a more serious and realistic Bond, I felt there should still be a touch of humour used as a psychological coping mechanism to deal with the harsh realities of espionage-- something that signified at least an
attempt at redemption.
All of that changed for me when I saw
Skyfall. Perhaps the circumstances (and I don't want to mention specifics, because they'd be spoilers) afforded Craig a much better position to be in. The tone of the movie was very different from previous ones, and, overall, much more suited to a serious delivery. The cinematography was some of the best I think I've ever seen in a Bond movie. At first glance, Bardem's villain honestly seemed unworthy to me, but that perception changed quite a bit over the course of the movie. And even as the movie was much darker in tone, I finally saw Craig loosening up and offering more comic relief.
Skyfall was, most certainly, the one that made me a Daniel Craig convert, and I think what he has done with the role is the most significant reinvention of the character since Connery's era-- which is ironic, because I think Craig is much closer to Ian Fleming's original vision of 007 than Connery was.
_________________
Mediocrity is a petty vice; aspiring to it is a grievous sin.