Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
"Second only to Sean Connery"
With the Bond hype kicking in again with the release of a new Bond film I couldn't help but notice how many critics and the general public rank Daniel Craig as the second best Bond after Connery.
As we all know, Connery will always be regarded as the best of the bunch. As for his successors it's actually quite fascinating that generally every newcomer/current 007 has always been regarded as "second only to Connery".
Lazenby: not very well-received but the second Bond actor, so technically regarded as the second best after Sir Sean.
Moore: with Lazenby not being a critic's favourite, also seen as the second best during his tenure.
Dalton: I seem to recall that Tim was considered to be better than Moore during his short period as Bond (for instance, Ebert's LTK review clearly states how good Dalton is in it).
Brosnan: between 1995 and 2002 widely regarded as Sean's true successor, the allrounder who comebined all aspects of his predecessors.
Craig: well, have a look around the internet.
The current Bond seems always quite popular and considered the second best after Connery.
Any thoughts?
As we all know, Connery will always be regarded as the best of the bunch. As for his successors it's actually quite fascinating that generally every newcomer/current 007 has always been regarded as "second only to Connery".
Lazenby: not very well-received but the second Bond actor, so technically regarded as the second best after Sir Sean.
Moore: with Lazenby not being a critic's favourite, also seen as the second best during his tenure.
Dalton: I seem to recall that Tim was considered to be better than Moore during his short period as Bond (for instance, Ebert's LTK review clearly states how good Dalton is in it).
Brosnan: between 1995 and 2002 widely regarded as Sean's true successor, the allrounder who comebined all aspects of his predecessors.
Craig: well, have a look around the internet.
The current Bond seems always quite popular and considered the second best after Connery.
Any thoughts?
^ 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
My vote for second best; Moore
.... Sean Connery ;)
Controversial!!
It really is borderline at the moment as to who is best between Sean and Dan. I think one more film of a similar standard will see Dan take the crown.
They both have 2 corkers (DN/FRWL & CR/SF), 1 not far behind (GF & SP) and 1 dud (TB & QOS) in their first 4. If Dan does one last film I would expect it won't need too much to be better than YOLT and DAF combined.
Where Dan has the edge is in the level of his performance. In DN & FRWL Sean is perfect. In GF he's still pretty damn good but (2nd half especially) he's starting to let a bit of complacency in. By TB he's just playing himself and in cruise control.
Dan on the other hand maintains the same level in all of his performances.
If we swap their films around and Sean has to cope with P&W's scribblings while Dan gets access to all that Fleming material would this even be a debate?
Ooh, Dan working with a Richard Maibaum script? One can only dream.
Also, if you forget the films and concentrate only on the actor playing Bond, YOLT and DAF are the weakest of the franchise.
Roger would probably be able to sell me an arsenic cocktail.
In Dr.No, his introduction in the casino, is so simple. Yet so effective. He arrives on screen fully formed. No explanation. He doesn't need a back story. Everything you need to know is in Connery's first cigarette aided delivery of the immortal line - 'Bond. James Bond.'
I think Craig has been great in the role. He is absolutely committed. And has delivered strong performances despite the poor scripts. If EON had managed to maintain the quality since CR, he would know doubt be considered on par with Connery.
Yet, EON hasn't managed that. As a result, Craig has been at a distinct disadvantage. He doesn't have Fleming stories to work with. And today, the writing is absolutely dreadful.
I think the main problem (and why every actor is always considered second to Connery) is that they simply don't stay faithful to the character. EON are a business. They believe they need to shoe-horn the Bond character into the contemporary. Trying to keep him 'relevant' in order to rake in the bucks.
CR showed that this was unnecessary. Yes, it was contemporary - but they took a risk and kept pretty faithful to the book - the tension-filled, drawn out game of cards, the torture scene...
Yet regardless, the problem is the writing. And it affects everything. They keep deconstructing the character - focusing on the backstory - always making it personal – EON are slowly eating away at the mystique. It's all soul searching over swagger. Apologetic masculinity. It doesn't really work.
Bond is Bond. Next time, I hope EON simply embraces the fact. No more self-conscious apologising for the character. People still love a mysterious stranger in a suit. Just look at how the world went nuts for Don Draper...
Moore: Suave but too light in most his films. However, you can't slate this national treasure.
Dalton: Fleming's Bond.
Brosnan: Unfortunately responcible for the worst Bond films (bar the solidly average GE)
Craig: 2nd best after Connery. CR is the best Bond film since 69.
I believe DC, good though he is, is too highly regarded at present. This is how it normally goes, as the OP notes. The incumbent has benefits. He too will be looked at with more fairness with time, unless his successor bombs.
However, I don't think there will ever really be any consensus on the "2nd only to". Each will have their fans, and that is what makes it interesting. We will have countless debates on here about it, as we have done.
For me personally, there is only one disputed #1. Sir Sean. The first, and still the best. Sir Rog gets an honourable mention (enough time has passed since he wore the PPK that I am objective about this assessment of mine). Dan is up there too, but I will have a better idea in time. His SP/SF performances have been mixed for me.
The fact that I secretly like AVTAK makes me realize I'd hate DAD a little less if he was still Bond around that time.
I'm surprised that you actually think SF is a genuine match to those early Bonds. Or that Craig's performance in SF comes anywhere close to Connery's masterful take on the character. Each to their own I suppose, but the current trend that suggests Craig is overtaking Connery strikes me as premature. It all reminds me of the Brosnan 'best since Connery' hype. Craig is a lot better than Brosnan, but still...
Only time will tell of course but I strongly doubt whether future generations are going to be quite as excited about Craig as people are today. His dour, rather monotone Bond definitely suits the times and has a nice consistency to it. Doubtless he's one of the Best Bonds.
But twenty years from now, is a young kid sitting down to watch their first Bond movie going to be blown away by Bond talking about his little finger or Connery making the best first appearance in the entire series?
Connery on the other hand will endure down the ages.
I am in agreement with @Getafix Too premature. As for the quality of Connery's performance, let us be fair here, and acknowledge that Connery was almost banging out a Bond a year. Craig has had 3 year gaps between movies. Connery was justifiably tired by YOLT.
As for SF, that film was an overblown tyre of hype, and the metaphorical air will leave the tyre over the years. As Dalton correctly points out, those early Bond films were cinematic revolutions.
I am surprised by the hate of QOS, and the over-love of SF. QOS to me was the better film. And looked more beautiful too!!!
SF is without doubt the most bizarrely overhyped film in the history of the series. I just cannot see it maintaining it's current high reputation in twenty years.
All Bond films are flawed (even OHMSS) but forgive me if I prefer some of the dramatic heft of SF (flawed though it is) compared to the tedious drudgery of TB.
I think the term 'classic' is bandied about a bit too freely. Just because something is a) old and b) stars Connery doesn't automatically make it classic.
DN - sets everything up and starts a lot of the iconography = classic.
FRWL - fantastic taut thriller in its own right which builds on the spadework laid down by DN = classic.
GF - perfects the formula for cinematic Bond and starts the Bondmania craze. Feels not as good as it used to be nowadays but it's influence can't be disputed = classic.
TB - took the bigger is better maxim and turned in a plodding 2 hours of Bond sitting around on the beach. The world is allegedly under nuclear threat yet there is absolutely zero tension. There are classic elements - the Spectre briefing, Fiona - but overall it's not great and was only such a success because it was piggy backing on GF's success and the public thirst for Bond. It's one of those that the public simply can't remember and is pretty much a by the numbers effort a la TND = far from a classic. Generic is a better description.
Those who cite TB being good because it's pretty faithful to the novel should note that a) it's far from Fleming's best and b) it's mostly just a bastardised screenplay by Jack Whittingham that Ian turned into a novel.
If they made a film of TSWLM starring Connery in his prime that was faithful to the novel would it be a classic? I don't think so because it's just a fairly mundane tale of Bond saving a bird from some cartoon gangsters.
Although classic is a rather vague term to define in the first place so who can say really?
If you do it on a point by point basis it's almost too close to call:
DN 8.5/10
FRWL 9.5/10
GF 7/10
TB 4/10
Total 29/40
CR 9/10
QOS 5/10
SF 8/10
SP 7.5/10
Total 29.5
I think it really will end up being decide by how SP settles. I feel it has the potential to go up to an 8.5 or possibly drop down to a 7.
Thats a rather disingenuous comparison.
I can just as well ask is a young kid sitting down to watch their first Bond be going to be blown away by Bond dressed in a pink shirt beating Bambi and Thumper by the renowned martial arts technique of holding his hand on their heads or by Bond strangling Obanna to death after a brutal bloody fight then pouring himself a scotch while he tends his wounds in the mirror?
And I'm not about to defend TB on here. It's a similar case to SF to me - an overhyped and bloated movie. All I would say is that there are scenes and characters in it that I much prefer to those in SF.
Neither did I refer to 'classic' Bond in my post.
Any way, my issue is with the alleged 'dramatic heft' of SF. I just don't see it. Which scene exactly in SF matches in dramatic terms Bond's first appearance in DN, Prof Dent in Dr No's interrogation room, Bond's killing of Dent.
If you feel the 'thematic' approach in SF trumps the quality of the writing, individual performances and overall dramatic quality of the first three Bond films, then all I can say is that I think you're wrong. Very wrong.
I don't think Craig's tenure will end up getting dumped on in quite the same way that Brosnan's has, but I strongly suspect the shine (what there is of it) will wear off. He'll come to be seen as a solid but pehaps slightly dull and joyless characterisation.
Terribly sorry old chap for some reason I saw the word 'early' Bond's and for some reason read classic.
Nonetheless I was speaking in general terms of the Craig era as a whole. As you see I did score SF less than DN and FRWL but I currently have it slightly ahead of GF.
Yes there are issues with SF but there also some really good scenes (the psychiatric evaluation, the scene in M's flat, Silva's intro, Tennyson) that are certainly better than anything GF has to offer in terms of acting and characterisation.
GF is a blast for the first half but has a really dull half hour before we get the raid on Fort Knox (and let's not even start on the indefensible falling down soldiers which is cringeworthy).
Obviously only an idiot would pretend the writing was better in the Craig era than what we got earlier but it strikes me that this because they were using a Fleming spine. As soon as they got hold of some unused Fleming they managed to turn in as good a film as any in the series in CR. So I suppose it all boils down to having a hefty chunk of Fleming to draw on perhaps?
Anyway I feel there is sometimes this notion that Sean is untouchable.
To my mind he made roughly 2.5 'great' Bond films in DN, FRWL and half of GF.
Added to that he made about 1.5 good films (the 2nd half of GF plus the second half of YOLT and assorted odds and sods from TB and DAF).
But he also made some real dreck.
There's nothing in the Craig era yet that stoops to the level of the dismal second half of DAF or the uninspired first half of YOLT.
In addition I feel Craig's performances across the board are a lot more even. In CR he hits it out of the park - perfect Fleming Bond, in QOS he's a bit dour but still the best thing in the film, SF he brings a slightly lighter touch and SP he gets a nice mix between cinematic Bond and Fleming Bond.
Sean is also perfect Fleming Bond in DN and a tiny bit more cinema Bond in FRWL (but still nigh on perfect).
With GF he perfects cinema Bond (in the first half especially) but it's with TB onwards that his boredom and irritation with Cubby and Harry shows through and he just plays himself, something he went on to make a career of (The Hill and The Offence excepted). Don't get me wrong Sean playing Sean is still bloody good entertainment but it's not quite Bond.
I feel that currently Dan is almost on a par with Sean (that he isn't is certainly down to the writing) and one more very solid entry could see him top over into top for the time being.
Of course no one knows how his films will fare in 30 years. 10 years ago I used to think GF was top 5 all day long but now I doubt it makes my top 10.
PS - I never really need much of an excuse to smash TB. Gets way too much respect round these parts for my liking.
I'm not sure how seriously I can take an argument that posits SF as better than GF. In the cold light of day, once the hallucinogens have worn off, I think you will see things differently. In SF I will give you Silva's entrance and that's probably it.
I agree that Craig's performances are (so far) more even, but I'd argue that this is largely due to his range being much less than Connery's. Craig is brute force Bond, with a good line in surly moodyness. He's doing less with the role, so almost by definition he's going to turn in a more consistent portrayal.
The other reason is that Craig's only done four and he's stilll enjoying the role. Connery's last two clearly stray into self-parody territory. Frankly, I think I enjoy them all the more for the fact Connery is in on the joke by that stage. His DAF performance is still highly enjoyable and (as you acknowldege) even bored Connery is still worth a watch. His DAF performance almost fully anticipates Roger's interpretation in the way he no longer takes the character very seriously.
I don't personally accept the first half of YOLT is uninspired - the whole Tokyo set up is one of my favourite sequences in a Bond movie. Gotta love Tiger and the Toyota 2000gt. YOLT is underrated round here in my opinion.
I guess it boils down to how much you rate Conners and Craig as actors. I have felt for a long time that Craig's acting ability and range is actually slightly exaggerated. He's a good Bond and I'm not here to slag him off. But I don't get the mind blowing quality that others seem to perceive when watching him. Connery on the other hand continues to wow me every time I watch those first three. His apparently instinctive ability to get pretty much every scene spot on is astounding - he managed to turn even the most mundane sequence into something electrifying.
May be it's all subjective and "everyone's right", but since I know the short shrift you rightly give such wishy washy nonsense, I'm going to say it how I see it.
Conners: 10/10
Craig 7/10 (I think I'm being generous)
The first three Connery's Bond are classic. Yes even GF. It's so iconic, that even repeated viewings can't quite dilute the thrill. Yes they are issues in GF, @TheWiz pointed them out. Plus GF has fallen (in ratings and opinions) quite considerably in the time that I've been on this forum, thus I see it as something as an underdog.
TB isn't as good as DN and FRWL, yet I rate it slightly better than GF due to its sadistic nature, as opposed to GF's more stylised violence.
Onto the performance of Connery, his first four films are superb, IMO. Starts out with a Fleming's 007 in DN and FRWL, and yet gradually evolved into the cinematic Bond. I found the performance of Craig in CR and QoS, to have similarity to Connery's performance in DN – both have a slight uncouthness to them. This “rough diamond” that Connery and Craig share has been completely smoothed over, laying the foundations for the cinematic version of 007, in Connery's case in FRWL and Craig's case in SF.
Pre Fleming – CR/QoS
Fleming's 007 – DN/FRWL
Cinematic 007 – GF (with some notable exceptions – TB, OHMSS, TLD, LTK)
Smeg knows where I would put SF and SP into this.
Timothy Dalton said that he would've liked have appeared in CR, as there was so much “meat on the bone”. I wonder what the other five actors would do, if they had Craig's story arc (From CR to SP)? It's a bit unfair judging Craig by the same standard as the other Bonds – they just didn't have such juicy material to sink their teeth into. Yet Connery had the sparkling Maibaum's scripts to work with, plus the much vaunted Fleming spine.
And rattling to the crux of the question, "second only to Connery", I think this case, it is probably true. Well, either Craig or Dalton. Maybe Moore.
PS - Thunderball rules! :P
Connery on cruise control in the earlier part of YOLT is just sublime. Even his intro scene in that film just cracks me up. This chap is the real deal I tell you.
I think @TheWizardOfIce is suffering from a debilitating bout of Brosnanitis - a once widespread but now thankfully rare neurological illness that causes the sufferer to believe the current Bond actor is the best since Connery. In rare cases, like this, patients even go as far as saying the actor might be better than Connery.
Side effects can often appear years later and include attacks of acute embarrassment, shame and self recrimination.
I'm sure we all wish him a swift recovery. A good dose of FRWL usually clears it up straight away.
See - Connery was really pushing himself there.
To continue in the same vein as @royale65's Red Dwarf reference above - what on earth are you drivelling about?
Connery has a better range than Craig??
Would that be when he's playing the Russian sub captain with a Scottish accent or the Irish Chicago cop with a Scottis accent?
Or having a convoluted backstory made up to explain why his character has a Scottish accent?
There are some actors out there who are movie stars - Sean, Michael Caine, Tom Cruise, Clint Eastwood - who basically just portray themselves in every film.
This shouldn't really be confused with acting in the Daniel Day Lewis sense of the word. Not saying Craig is in that league but the scene where he looks into the mirror after killing Obanna is acting not merely playing Sean Connery which is all Sean generally does. I'm not saying it's not a good trick but I really can't see Sean playing Hamlet where I could see Craig doing it.
If he did they'd have to throw in a line like 'Forsooth Hamlet doth returneth from the barbarians of Scotland. How didst thee find this land of heather and whisky during your 10 year voyage?' to explain why he spoke with a Scottish accent instead of Danish.
Just watch the whole scene. His mannerisms, his voice, the way he walks, the way he leans on the desk...it's the birth of an icon that all others hope to aspire to be like nevermind superseding it.