It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
In fairness my granddad wasn't as keen on Bond as I was either. Hence, he preferred Moore and hadn't read much Fleming.
He always took the attitude it was all just a load of nonsense,
He is also the perfect mix between light hearted Bond and Dark and gritty Bond.
He is the best of Both worlds and he is the whole thing you look for in James Bond
Bingo.
I'll tell you why....quote from Peter Hunt...."Sean really was a very sexy man. There are very few film stars who had that sort of quality. He could basically walk into a room and f**k anybody" ......That's charisma, that's the perfect 007.
He made the legend and set the gold standard everyone aspires to beat. No one has yet, but half the fun is seeing how the new kids on the block measure up.
Most of the other actors have brought something worthwhile to the table, but none has really surpassed Connery. I'd argue only Moore came close, because he so totally redefined the role and was so massively popular.
Wow. I love the audacity. I love Dalton as Bond. But... No way.
Not audacity, just preference. I'd argue that Connery isn't the most universally loved aspect of Bond, Llewelyn's Q is. So it should hardly be surprising that Connery doesn't feature at the top of at least one Bond actor ranking.
I'd say John Barry's music is also universally loved.
I'm very surprised you didn't make case to put your favorite guy Timothy Dalton as the Best
James Bond and belive me you have one which is being the Closest to Ian Fleming.
Anyway i guess i also admit Sean Connery is the best even though my favorite is Pierce Brosnan.
I also love Sean Connery and always put him beside Pierce in My ranking of my favorite Bonds actors with with both as my number 1 but if i had to pick just one favorite id go with Pierce since he is the one i saw first but i guess very deep inside i've always admited that Sean is the best.
Yes, there's another one. When it comes to Bond actors, objectively, Connery has strong opposition from Moore. When it comes to Q, or the scores, though there have been others, they're pretty much one horse races when it comes to ranking them.
I can see why someone would argue for DC's acting, but in terms of charisma, Connery is light years ahead.
So outside of Bond
Do you prefer a George Clooney over a Daniel Day Lewis ?
Nothing wrong with it, between my favorite actosr i have guys from both spectrums( Thespian/ Chameleons and Movie star actors).
I love with Capital letters Pierce Brosnan, Liam Neeson, George Clooney and Brad Pitt but also love with the same Passion Daniel Day Lewis, Ralph Fiennes and Geoffery Rush )
I would agree with that.
I have never bought Connery (or Moore, for that matter) as a dangerous agent/assassin. Not that that matters; I don't view the early Bond films as nothing more than fun. (heck, I didn't buy Chris Reeve as Superman either, but so what???) But DC does play a killer and plays him better than anyone who came before. Part of that is the material. Part of it is the depth DC brings to the part. The scene in CR when he's cleaning off his bloodied face is a work of art.
I'd say Connery wins on the acting front as well. Hands down. I find the suggestion Craig is a better actor unconvincing. Bonds physical and dramatic performances as Bond are pretty much flawless.
You might argue its Sean Connery playing Sean Connery, but I'm not sure that's fair.
Craig is a decent actor but he is nowhere near as powerful a big screen presence as Sean. May be Craig's a better stage actor or better at small character parts, but frankly who cares? The issue at hand is surely who is a better actor when it comes to playing Bond, and the evidence is IMO up there on the screen for all to see. I don't get these arguments about "he might be the better Bond but he's not the better actor". In my book, the guy who gave us the best performance as Bond is also the best actor.
That, to me, is Connery in his first four outings. His looks, acting, charm, line delivery, ... he is Bond, just like his successors, but just a bit more Bond than them. The others got to ten, he got to eleven. The FRWL Bond is the quintessence of double-oh-seven.
I am a Daltonite, and I will defend Craig as the ultimate alpha-Bond. Connery's tenure is sadly averaged out downwards by weaker performances--YOLT and DAF and, if so desired, NSNA. Connery shone brightest in '63 and '64, and he was awesome in '62 and '65. But his retirement and comeback film(s) received less impressive work from Connery, while Craig, for one, remained consistently strong. Evidently, history shows that this comparison is unfair. The capital called Connery was spent, the capital called Craig was cleverly invested. A happy Connery could have turned the near-perfect OHMSS into an even bigger blast. But alas that's the way it is. Connery started out as the ultimate Bond. He didn't quit as one. And I find that regrettable. Because his awesomeness cannot be disputed.
Can't put it any better than that, tbh.
It does pose the question for future Bond actors though: how far can that 'natural talent' get you when an actor is uncommitted to the role?
An uncommitted actor equals a death sentence to his tenure as Bond. Craig's are mighty big shoes to fill. An audience can smell a lack of energy. Take Jennifer "can't smile" Lawrence, who turned her role as Mystique into a tormented "I don't wanna", as opposed to Rebecca Romijn who was absolutely going for it. Yet Mystique was a secondary character. Bond is the face of our beloved series. If the next actor decides to phone it in, it's game over right away.
Never ever have I understood where the "Craig hates Bond" nonsense comes from! It makes no sense unless one is inclined to unfairly zoom in on his wrist-slitting comment, which was dropped after an exhausted Craig had crawled out of the trenches of a challenging production. The man clearly put his back into it; he gave it his all. He trained hard to stay in shape, sat down with the producers and screenwriters to see where they should take the character next, and did a lot of promotion work. It's one thing to not like where Craig helped take the character of Bond, but to call him a hater of Bond is downright absurd.
You can make a list of Sean's strengths, declare them to be the key to a great Bond, and then tautologically declare Sean the best by virtue of his being the most Sean Connery-like, but the other actors all brought things to the table that Sean didn't do as well, or at all.
Sean is probably the most unrelatable and least human of the bunch, for example. He doesn't seem to have great affection for any of his women, or strong distaste for his villains. He's easily the most invincible of the bunch. Even in his imperial phase (FRWL, GF, TB), he kind of cruises through the movie until he is saved by his leading lady. Thunderball is the only Bond film where Bond is never captured; in Goldfinger, he's comfortably captured most of the time with little to do but act cool.
Now I wouldn't want to trade those cool, danger-free moments from these films, but having the more human touch of the other five Bonds is not a bad thing, and is generally probably what you want in a hero character--Fleming's Bond certainly had it.
So Tim may be less of a ladies man, and Roger may not always seem quite as deadly, but from moment to moment, their Bonds seem a bit more engaged and concerned about the job at hand.