Let's rank the Bond actors

I did a search on this topic, and found nothing.

Anyway, I think it would be interesting if we were to rank the Bond actors; see who we consider the "best" and the "worst".
My rankings:

1. Brosnan
2. Craig
3. Moore
4. Connery
5. Dalton
6. Lazenby

Been a while since I've considered my rankings. Current mood:

1. Connery
2. Dalton
3. Moore
4. Brosnan
5. Lazenby
6. Craig

I always find this difficult and am rarely consistent but after my last Bondathon I will go with:

1.Moore
2.Connery
3.Brosnan
4.Craig
5.Lazenby
6.Dalton

Need to do my own Bondathon soon but for now:

1. Broz
2. Connery
3. Rog
4. Laz
5. Craig
6. Dalton

Ordering the first three was easy. Next three could go any way but that's how they land today.

No love for Dalton here it seems.  

Finding it impossible to rank in a 1 - 6 fashion. Will share my thoughts on each instead.

Connery - the original, and best. The toughness underlying the easy charm, the dark ironic humour, the insouciance ... he just 'got it' from the off. Even Fleming came to approve to the extent that he gave book Bond a Scottish father. Never Say Never Again was probably a mistake, though.

Lazenby - Mr 'One-Shot' ... but what a shot it was. The debuting actor shoulders the closest novel adaptation and a more vulnerable Bond with aplomb. Without the outside influences convincing him that Bond wasn't going to survive, who knows what might have been in the 70s?

Moore - after the Scot and the Aussie, the quintessential English gent steps up. Arguably takes him until his third film to completely 'nail' his particular take on 007 (lighter than his predecessors, although he had his ruthless moments ... dispatching Locque in FYEO, for example). Did one (maybe even two) film(s) too many IMO ... although if he hadn't, he wouldn't be the actor who had appeared in the most official series entries to date.

Dalton - Fleming's Bond, essentially. He deserved at least 2 more (and there was 'room' for them between '89 - '95, too). His willingness to throw himself into stuntwork where possible was very welcome after the increasingly 'spottable' stuntmen of the last couple of Moore films.

Brosnan - Bond for the post Cold War/beginnings of PC era. A solid 'Greatest Hits' mix of his predecessors who never really bettered his Goldeneye debut, although TND mostly runs it pretty close. He probably deserved a better final film than DAD.

Craig - Bond for the post 9-11 era. His movies have been a mixed bag, with the desire to go 'down 'n' dirty' sometimes sitting a bit awkwardly with Bond's more escapist elements ... that said, Skyfall got things just right. We wait to see what No Time To Die will bring ... it's just a shame that circumstances have delayed its release for 18 months.

well.

No.1 Dalton
Lazenby
Connery
Brosnan
Moore
Craig

Boom. Cheque please.

Good to see some Brosnan love here.

1. Connery and Brosnan
Equal parts danger and charisma. Both effortlessly oscillate between all shades of the character.

2. Lazenby
His natural physicality has a suitable arrogance necessary for Bond. Combine that with a sensitivity needed for OHMSS, resulting in a raw complexity. A underrated Bond.

3. Moore
By virtue of quantity. From the lighter 70s era to the tougher and sometimes offbeat nature of 80s films, there's enough to satisfy any mood. His affable presence is always a pleasure but sometimes- and mostly in his 70s films - we do see the cracks in his acting ability. Had it not been for his 80s films I'd rank him lower than:

4. Dalton
Very good, if not somewhat bookish. He doesn't have the same magnetism the above Bonds have but he has an intensity that Moore, for most part, doesn't. Hence why they're interchangeable, depending on my mood.

5. Craig.
I've said it so much I'm sure the members of BAB could fill in why.

I like the original five for different reasons. So this is not a ranking but general thoughts. I also argue that they never play the part the same way twice and tonally are very dependent on the film's approach of that period.
Connery had the rougher sardonic edge and Terence Young setting the tone.
Lazenby had Peter Hunt covering up all of his deficiencies and the most difficult story to tackle. His youthful arrogance injects an energetic freshness and helps to tie into Bond's growing self-disdain.
Roger had the more gentlemanly knight elements for sure but everyone overlooks just how damn amazing he was and that he could do it all on both lighter and darker sides. He started as a darker characterization, found a new path on TSWLM, did a riff on it in MR and then a new pathway was begun on FYEO.
Dalton has simply put the most conviction in the role on screen ever. You FEEL every moment along with Bond as you should and it brings together Fleming's Bond into the EON Bond beautifully. If there was one actor and attack on the role that if forced to choose the most accurate to Fleming's prose it is Tim without question.
Brosnan was concerned with peeling the onion layers back and getting into what makes the character tick. His Bond is to me the Bond of analysis and that's what the whole aim of GE was to prove Bond was still relevant in the post Cold War landscape. Unfortunately the scripts he had to work with never quite fulfilled his promise in the role and he truly deserved that fifth and final shot.


David Niven would have been a dream serious 50's Bond but it never came to be. Just as we get to see the dream darker Cary Grant Bond somewhat in NOTORIOUS, you see flashes of the Niven Bond that could have been in GUNS OF NAVARONE and even CR67.
Barry Nelson was saddled with playing the very thin Americanized Bond in the CBS Climax live TV version of CR in 1954 but for the extreme constraints on the program, filming and adaptation he gives it his all.



As you all know I don't like to talk about the automation.

Oh, if only Bond had started in the 50s. Niven would've been ideal and even Richard Todd.

50's Bond has so many possibilities in both established stars and younger actors. What amazed me most in Battle for Bond was that Fleming and everyone around even thought to say lets try some American stars. They thought of Jimmy Stewart who was in the midst of his career redefining psychological Westerns. And in some strange way I can see it working because he was in my mind the best screen actor that has ever been. In the Mann Westerns he displayed such a range of darkness amidst dark stories with brutal moments of violence.

Richard Todd is a good suggestion. He has some Bondian flourishes even in STAGE FRIGHT.

hegottheboot wrote:

I also argue that they never play the part the same way twice and tonally are very dependent on the film's approach of that period.

I think that is spot-on. I find it very hard to articulate all the moving parts -- what the script is doing vs. what the actor is doing.

Moreover, whenever we talk about the lead performances we're always comparing them to Fleming's character. Now I don't really think that his character has ever been truly and fully realized on-screen. But even his character changes throughout the books, so there's taking that into consideration as well.

For example, the Bond in CR is far less humorless than the one in the very next book. And he's far more prickly. Rog in TMWTGG reminds me of CR-Bond. The next three Fleming's are more or less consistent, the classic Book Bond. Pierce in GE comes close to this, I think. Then we get to FRWL and DN and he starts to get a bit more worn away, world-weary. Partly Brosnan in DAD, maybe parts of Tim in LTK.

That's a rough sketch, but you get the idea.

Bond himself might be less humorous in the book but the entire set up, assigned to gamble and bankrupt Le Chiffre, underpins a joie de vivre and a larger than life world. And then he also falls in love.

But yes, it's true. I remember a lot of people singling out the Brosnan films as being different from the last because the directors kept changing... but the Bonds from FRWL-GF-TB-YOLT are just as different. And yes, I know that we're talking, in some cases, minuscule differences, but the circumstances surrounding Bond changes, reflecting how we, as humans, respond differently when the circumstances and relationships change around us. It's no wonder Bond feels a little more relaxed in TB as opposed to how he was in FRWL when he's office for the next little while is the Bahamas as opposed to fringing the Middle East in Turkey.

And you're right Somerset. Bond changes throughout the books too. For anyone who says Bond is humourless I always point them to Property of a Lady.

Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang wrote:

For anyone who says Bond is humourless I always point them to Property of a Lady.

Yeah, that's a good example. I never got that criticism. He's not got the same sense of humor as he does in the films, but Fleming/Bond can be very funny.

Again, less so in CR. But that's another example of where that book has seemed to have a disproportionate sway over how most folks talk of the entire literary character when I think it is there where his character is most different than the rest.

Yeah. Though as I said, a sense of humour doesn't simply manifest itself in Bond's dialogue in the books. It's through the set up and world Fleming has created. The aforementioned, dangerous assignment of bankrupting a target at the tables is ridiculous for a spy, or exploring how 17th century treasure is funding Soviet activity amid the backdrop of voodoo culture is about as absurd as it gets-- and these are plots of the two earliest, supposedly humourless books. Then to battle it out with a villain who throws a razor-edged hat, or a Samurai warrior by a Garden of Death, or a giant squid, surrounded by women named Pussy Galore, Trembling Leaf and Honeychile Ryder, etc.... you wouldn't know James Bond occupies this ostentatious world by watching CR06.

1. Daniel Craig

It feels like half the fanbase agrees that Daniel Craig is the best Bond and that the other half grows wild in the eye at the very thought. Whether by age, devotion to the source material, or a clutching onto the established idea of Bond like so many pearls, Craig at #1 is controversial to some. It’s a given for me. He’s the best actor with the deepest understanding of the character and his cinematic history in the most well-made films of the franchise. Bow down.

2. Roger Moore

My love for Roger Moore knows no bounds, but he’s not a better James Bond than Daniel Craig in my eyes. That said, there is a sensation akin to the steady warmth of a cozy blanket on a chilly night that washes over me while watching Roger Moore’s films. He’s my childhood favorite, my perpetual pick-me-up, and my go-to comfort Bond. Nobody did it better.

3. Sean Connery

Sean Connery deserves all the praise and respect in the world. Even though he set the tone, and is massively important to the franchise’s enduring presence in the culture, I don’t think Connery played Bond the best and I don’t enjoy his characterization the best. No one gets my gears turning quite like him though, and his successes are undeniable. Things are classic for a reason.

4. Timothy Dalton

The prospect of a longer Timothy Dalton Bond career is the greatest “What if?” in the franchise’s history. On my bolder days, I rank Dalton higher than Connery. However, the fact that he only has two films to his name really hurts his case for overtaking the iconic innovator from Scotland. If he even had just one more film, he probably would have been my #3. Oh, Dalton, we hardly knew ye…

5. George Lazenby

Was George Lazenby a good actor? No. Was George Lazenby an all-time horndog? Yes! Was George Lazenby a good Bond? Maybe? Lazenby was never going to be as good as Dalton was and is, but he’s right there beside him in terms of coulda-woulda-shoulda scenarios. He’s in one Bond film and that film is one of the most distinct, artfully inventive, emotionally resonant entries in the franchise. Say what you want, but Lazenby went out on top.

6. Pierce Brosnan

I’m sorry Brosnan fans, but I just can’t do it. I get that my age puts me in the sweet spot for Brozz appreciation. I’m fully aware that Brozza was saddled with a slew of shit directors and writers, save for Martin Campbell. The Brozz’s bad luck is not lost on me…and neither is his self-consciousness in the role. No hard feelings, Brozzman.

Seems like Brosnan is the only one with an entirely negative impression there. I honestly feel like we’ve been lucky to have all six of the fellows we did. Can’t say my final impression of any of them is entirely negative, even Dalton who I think least of on most days.

Somerset wrote:

Seems like Brosnan is the only one with an entirely negative impression there. I honestly feel like we’ve been lucky to have all six of the fellows we did. Can’t say my final impression of any of them is entirely negative, even Dalton who I think least of on most days.

Not entirely, but his run is definitely the one I least look forward to during sequential rewatches, and I find myself rarely selecting one of his films if I’m viewing at random. All Bonds have played critical roles in keeping the franchise alive, though, and there are aspects of Brosnan I really like. I just think he was a bit out of his depth despite having the look.

Somerset wrote:

Seems like Brosnan is the only one with an entirely negative impression there. I honestly feel like we’ve been lucky to have all six of the fellows we did. Can’t say my final impression of any of them is entirely negative, even Dalton who I think least of on most days.

Whatever Brozza hate I temporarily had has dissipated TBH. He always performed admirably with scripts that were a mixed bag and his movies were fun (except GE which has a somewhat dour note, but I still regard it as his best).