Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Daniel Craig is a poor match imo, he seems stilted and wooden, more doorman than secret agent.

I think he is the worst bond since lazenby, who was a male model, not an actor. The Movie bond requires more wit and humour imo.


He was very good in Layer Cake though.

Moore's movies were a little too cheesy for me but not horrible (and yes moonraker was way out there)

Sean Connery is classic

Craig is doing pretty well (quantum of Solace was just forgetable though)

Pierce Brosnan is the bond i grew up on i mean Golden Eye was a great movie

Also you know Sam Neill was considered before Dalton took the role at one time

Gibbsey wrote:Moore's movies were a little too cheesy for me but not horrible (and yes moonraker was way out there)

Pierce Brosnan is the bond i grew up on i mean Golden Eye was a great movie

Also you know Sam Neill was considered before Dalton took the role at one time

Sam Neil is a great actor. Not a bond imo though.

Live and Let die is one of my favourite bond movies.

As for Golden Eye... well, I know of one verrrry good reason why I like that movie.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Sam Neil is a great actor. Not a bond imo though.

Yeah i cant see him as bond, but i always remember him from jurassic park so watching event horizon (very 40k related ) was kind of interesting.

Wikipedia on Event Horizon wrote:while the ship's gravity drive did successfully open a gateway in spacetime, it leapt outside the known universe and into another dimension, described as "a dimension of pure chaos, pure evil."

Dammit people quit making teleporter / FTL drives that go through hell or equivilent (im looking at you doom).

Im stuck between Connery and Craig. I think Craig is doing a really good job as Bond personally.

Lazonby and Dalton were in too few films to be considered, Daniel Craig doesn't play james bond he plays Jason Bourne and Pierce Brosnan made half decent James Bond but, bar a few, the films he was in sucked. Moore is the only one who comes close to Connery but he's tainted by the fact he's a total dick irl.

Deffinitely Brosnan, though Connery is a close second.

I fething hate the new one; blonde haired, blue eyed and generic as hell action hero "James Bond"? no thanks.

Hmmm, it seems like i'm part of a minority that didn't like either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace...

Daniel Craig.

I find he brings actual character to the role, you can see in Quantum at least that he's a cold, almost psychopath and he doesn't really care for who gets in the way. He gets the women (and what women!), has great acting ability and i generally find fits the role perfectly. Admittedly, I've never read the books, nor do I intend to.
Connery, Brosnan second and third.

filbert wrote:I kind of agree although I think any Bond film would have struggled following on from Casino Royale which was a real tour-de-force. But yes, I think Quantum wasn't the strongest Bond film but Daniel Craig still impressed me - he just oozes 'Bond' whatever that may be.

I agree with this, and this:

Mannahnin wrote:Craig's pretty darn good in everything; Layer Cake was indeed cool.

I agree that Quantum was pretty big disappointment after CR; that being said, it was still at or above par for quality with most of the Bond films there have ever been. I have high hopes for future installments.

I watched Quantum a second time recently and found it to be good. First time I thought it was above average, second time it makes sense and you can see Craigs quality in it. As Mannahnin said, it's not the best, but it's better than most.

Avatar 720 wrote:Hmmm, it seems like i'm part of a minority that didn't like either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace...

I found them dull also.

I think my biggest problem with accepting Pierce Brosnan as Bond is that,for my generation at least,he was Remington Steele...so when I see Brosnan playing Bond all I see is Remington Steele on bigger assignments...
...I realize that's not an entirely fair way to judge an actors ability to portray a character...but unfortunately it happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Hmmm, it seems like i'm part of a minority that didn't like either Casino Royale or Quantum of Solace...

I found them dull also.

Ditto...I didn't care for either of them.

I love Daniel Craig's Bond because he makes the character more believable. In reality, to lead the kind of life Bond does, you do have to be a bit of a psychopath, and Craig does a fantastic job of portraying the less appealing aspects of the character, namely the fact that he is inwardly a cold and bitter person, in contrast to the charismatic facade he puts up.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Craig's pretty darn good in everything; Layer Cake was indeed cool.

I agree that Quantum was pretty big disappointment after CR; that being said, it was still at or above par for quality with most of the Bond films there have ever been. I have high hopes for future installments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

boogeyman wrote:Well I grew up watching Moore, but also respected Connery, as my Dad was a strong influence in supporting him as the best Bond.

Likewise. When I was a teenager I usually categorized them as "the sex Bond" and "the violence Bond" respectively.

I think the difficulty is that the Bourne films (and CR) upped the ante. Until CR I hadn't seen a Bond film in decades. They were utterly uninteresting to me. QS has returned me to that state.

I would agree that the Bourne movies and CR upped the ante for me also.

Frazzled wrote:I think the difficulty is that the Bourne films (and CR) upped the ante. Until CR I hadn't seen a Bond film in decades. They were utterly uninteresting to me. QS has returned me to that state.

Fair point. The first Bourne film is (IMO) also the strongest (doesn't hurt that it's also got Franke Potente, either!). Yeah, standards for a spy movie are definitely higher nowadays. Hey, didja ever see Spy Game, with Redford and Pitt? It's really, really good.

I don't want gritty realism in my film about a spy who spends his time firing rockets out of submarine sports cars, seducing millions of hot chicks, killing cyborg henchmen with laser fountain pens and winning megabucks from crooked casinos.

rubiksnoob wrote:I love Daniel Craig's Bond because he makes the character more believable. In reality, to lead the kind of life Bond does, you do have to be a bit of a psychopath, and Craig does a fantastic job of portraying the less appealing aspects of the character, namely the fact that he is inwardly a cold and bitter person, in contrast to the charismatic facade he puts up.

I would also agree with this. I think it also helps with the plausibility when you take out some of the more spectacular stunts and goofy gadgets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I don't want gritty realism in my film about a spy who spends his time firing rockets out of submarine sports cars, seducing millions of hot chicks, killing cyborg henchmen with laser fountain pens and winning megabucks from crooked casinos.

There is that and I still enjoy it. I can get my gritty realism from other spy movies.

Not to derail the thread, but on the topic of spy movies:

I recently rented Salt with Angelina Jolie, and it was possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was ridiculous, stupid, self-contradictory, and just terrible. The acting was terrible, the plot was terrible. It was trying so hard to be serious, and it failed even harder.

On the other hand, Knight and Day was a fantastic, if somewhat goofy, spy movie that I thoroughly enjoyed. Fantastically entertaining.

rubiksnoob wrote:Not to derail the thread, but on the topic of spy movies:

I recently rented Salt with Angelina Jolie, and it was possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was ridiculous, stupid, self-contradictory, and just terrible. The acting was terrible, the plot was terrible. It was trying so hard to be serious, and it failed even harder.

On the other hand, Knight and Day was a fantastic, if somewhat goofy, spy movie that I thoroughly enjoyed. Fantastically entertaining.

I'm not a fan of Jolie, like, at all

Mannahnin wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think the difficulty is that the Bourne films (and CR) upped the ante. Until CR I hadn't seen a Bond film in decades. They were utterly uninteresting to me. QS has returned me to that state.

Fair point. The first Bourne film is (IMO) also the strongest (doesn't hurt that it's also got Franke Potente, either!). Yeah, standards for a spy movie are definitely higher nowadays. Hey, didja ever see Spy Game, with Redford and Pitt? It's really, really good.

No but I did see Spy Kids I, II, III (ok and by that means I drove 1-10 children and slept through them but the popcorn was good)

Black Sunday was good though and I'd put that in the spy genre.

Roger Moore was the Bond I grew up with (he was my Dad's favourite) so he was my first, ergo, he IS Bond to me (The Spy Who Loved Me is the greatest Bond film)

After that it's
Connery
Brosnan (Real close between these guys)
Timothy Dalton
Daniel Craig

Never seen OHMSS, so don't feel I can rank Lazenby, but he has to be better than Daniel Craig.

oooh Tough question.

I'm a 90s kid so grew up with Pierce. (Goldeneye was the 1st one I saw) Thought he was a good bond.

Both Connery and Moore were great I felt. I personnally couldn't put one above the other tbh.

Craig shook up the franchise. He may not look a bond but can act one.

I think I'm gonna vote for Bronson.

Either way bond movies are good uns

boogeyman wrote:Well I grew up watching Moore, but also respected Connery, as my Dad was a strong influence in supporting him as the best Bond. However, I seem to have drifted away from the movies after Moore until Craig. He renewed my interest and I thoroughly enjoyed the new movies and looking forward to the next one, so I voted for Craig.

I agree with your thoughts on this however I voted for Moore.

This is heresy for a Scotsman but I found Connery a long time after Moore.

Craig has shown some promise and I like his portrayal of Bond. Another few movies for him and I may just change from Roger.

Connery: "I am good because everyone knows me as bond"

Moore: "My movies were more fun for my coked out disco era audience though"

Dalton: "um... I kill people and am kind of unlikable"

Brosnan: "I'm pretty handsome and charming, and my special effects budget was much bigger, oh yeah.. and M is a woman? Do I get some wimpy points for pulling that off?"

Craig: "I kill people and am kind of unlikable too though!"

Dalton: "Yeah what about that speedo shot? puuuhhh - leeeeeze..."

Craig: "you win"

VikingScott wrote: (Goldeneye was the 1st one I saw)

Tough choice of the topic aside, comments like this sure do make a man feel old eh ?

I always thought Liam Neeson would have made a great Bond - in his younger days, of course. He has gravitas.


I like gravitas.

Guitardian wrote:Brosnan: "I'm pretty handsome and charming, and my special effects budget was much bigger, oh yeah.. and M is a woman? Do I get some wimpy points for pulling that off?"

I guess you didnt see the surfing scene from die another day.... the scene is so bad that the movie is much better without it, that scene just screamed cheap CGI

Albatross wrote:I always thought Liam Neeson would have made a great Bond - in his younger days, of course. He has gravitas.

But what I do have are a very particular set of skills...

In regards to Roger Moore: he was Ian Flemming's first choice for James Bond, until he saw Sean Connery gracefully get out of his car, "like a prowling panther" he said.

Okay 2 things I just occered to me of Roger Moore: Grace Jones and Chris Walken as supporting cast. That earns him kind of a half a badass point or something. I'm not sure what having Grace Jones as a bond-girl romantic interest is worth, or having Chris Walken wanting you dead... but it's got to be up there in awesome with riding through St. Petersburg for a 20 minute chase scene in a getaway tank.

Sadly, Walken is wasted in Moore's worst Bond by far. It does have a kick ass theme song though

Destrado wrote:People may call me a heretic, but I'm torn between Craig, Brosnan and Connery.

I much prefer the movies Craig was on... and his grittier Bond. Brosnan had style, and I thought he was a good continuation of the Bond persona. Connery is just classic, and his image has been associated with Bond long before all the others.

I'm going with Craig, though. I don't know how much it derives from the books, but I found his movies more entertaining than any other James Bond.

You basically described my thought process exactly.