131 replies to this topic

[Double-Oh-Zero]

1. Sean Connery
2. Pierce Brosnan
3. The other fellas.

I feel that Connery and Brosnan are the best, cause they play the part straight, and have the best on-screen aura/presence/personality. The other three have their strengths and weaknesses, but Brosnan and Sir Sean's strengths outweigh their faults. 'Fr instance:

Moore: Sometimes didn't take the role seriously enough, but did the one-liners and charm really well.

Lazenby: Awesome in the fight scenes. Although he could have played the role better in some other areas.

Dalton: good stuff going in TLD, but played the role way too seriously in LTK. Almost no humour whatsoever. And the scenes with Kara , especially in the ferris wheel, were some of the best in the series.

[Carver]

Well, just look at my post on this thread, awful. Geez, I've grown up since then:
1.Pierce Brosnan (hey, after DAD, you can't say that he's not the best!)
2.Sean Connery (the original, and until I made up my mind, I thought he was the best. He probably still is the best, but I've grown up with Brosnan, and he's my fav for that reason)
3.Roger Moore (well, what I said first, I hate the way people dis him)
4.Timothy Dalton (Yeah, he was good after all. Could've done a few more films during the six year gap, that would have been amazing, but he's WAAAY better than Lazenby)
5.George Lazenby (poor old George, poor fella, just can't be called a good Bond. He did ok in OHMSS, and if he had been in DAF, I'm sure we would have looked at him in a different light).

[Station T]

With your kind indulgence, here is some rather windy philosophizing on this whole "Rank the Bonds" thing.

The problem with ranking the five Eon Bonds flatly is that the actors (with the obvious exception of Lazenby, since he only did one) are not necessarily at their best in each and every appearance in the role. I prefer to rank the performances on "curve" against each actor's own best work on the series before clumping the lot together. That makes for less of a direct apples-and-oranges comparison.

However, some Bondian traits are essential, whatever the actor's approach:
1. Be comfortable in the part (but don't sleepwalk)
2. Look damn good, or we won't buy all of those beddings you land.
3. Be witty, not buffoonish.
4. Kick a**. (Not just fisticuffs, mind you, or I will never hear the end of it from Moore haters.)

Establish how well the actor did these things in a given appearance and THEN you can compare. For example: Is Connery at his most lacklustre better than Moore at his best? My answer is no. I believe Lazenby is better than substandard Connery! That's why it's unfair to rank Connery "No. 1" and Lazenby "No. 5" in a knee-jerk way.

One reason Brosnan has turned out to be such a good choice for Bond is that all of his performances as Bond (if not necessarily his scripts) are up to a pretty high standard. He has been Bond for seven years now, and hasn't gone through any truly jarring physical changes, unlike those Moore or Connery did seven and nine years in. (Having watched Connery in 1968's SHALAKO for the first time last night, I don't think Sean would have looked too good in OHMSS had he done it, instead of the mediocre western.)

Physical fitness is part of the performance in this role. Bond really must be trim and vigorous; Lazenby and Dalton both benefit in comparison with their immediate predecessors because of that factor. Bond cannot be over the hill! Brosnan's assurance and fitness help to make him the most consistently good of the three longest-running Bonds. BUT . . . Brosnan is still not quite as good Connery or Moore at their best (in Goldfinger and The Spy Who Loved Me, respectively). I'm still waiting for a script that allows Brosnan to reach his full potential in the role, by placing him in a near-perfect Bond adventure, as Connery and Moore each enjoyed with their third appearances. As for Lazenby and Dalton, both had a lot of unrealized potential, since they didn't have enough to appearances to really hit their stride. But, if the public at large doesn't accept you as Bond, forget it.

Moore was quite fortunate to follow Connery when he did. Look at it this way: if Connery looked more like, say, his THUNDERBALL self in DAF, would Roger Moore still have been accepted as the new Bond? My feeling is that Connery wounded his own rep as the 'irreplaceable Bond' with DAF, and helped make the continuation of the series without him possible.

So with all of this in mind, here is my ranking of the Eon Bond performances (as opposed to the performers), with comments:

1. Connery in GOLDFINGER (Connery at his peak makes this the Bond performance to beat, even if he no longer sports his real hair!)

2. Moore in TSWLM (A VERY CLOSE second. This remarkably assured performance saved the franchise, plain and simple. Great moments with Anya--serious, comic, or romantic. Almost 50 and still looking good, though the fight with Sandor is unconvincing and keeps Moore's third outing from a tie for first place.)

3. Connery in FRWL and DR. NO (Tie; a young and slim Connery is tough to beat for being good-looking and a**-kicking. Mold-setting; even Sean himself couldn't live up to it forever.)

4. Brosnan in DAD and TWINE/Connery in THUNDERBALL (Tie; Pierce is growing into the part very well and is better than his movies as a whole; Sean swims with sharks for real; a certain scene with shoes is a priceless moment in the Bond canon. If only OHMSS had been made next!)

6. Moore in FYEO/Dalton in TLD/Brosnan in GOLDENEYE (tie; Rog proves that when prodded, he can do a Flemingesque Bond whilst maintaining his charm; Tim is a breath of fresh air, with a realistic style that paves the way for Brosnan's approach later; Pierce is a marvelous amalgam of Connery, Moore, and Dalton right out of the gate.)

7. Moore in Octopussy & TMWTGG/Brosnan in TND (tie; If the Rog of 1974 had starred in Octopussy, it would be right up there with his best; Brosnan does well with what he's given, but he just can't make me believe Teri Hatcher was another Diana Rigg in Bond's romantic history.)

8. Moore in LALD/Lazenby in OHMSS (Moore does pretty well his first time out, especially with Solitare, and certainly looks better than Connery in DAF, but his insecurity about taking is the role over is sometimes apparent--he hasn't taken ownership yet. Substite "Tracy" for Solitare, "YOLT" for DAF, and ditto Lazenby. Poor boy never had a chance to take ownership, though!)

9. Dalton in LTK. (Apocalyptic U.S. box office deserved a banner Variety headline: ROGER MOORE

[White Tuxedo]

Damn! I feel too ashamed to post now.

I agree with you on that, though. There are things I like about all of them.

I will say this though. It's a real shame Timothy Dalton did LTK the way he did. One of my favorite movies is The Rocketeer (1991). In it Dalton plays Neville Sinclair, the villain. But he is actually very Bondish, and GREAT at it. Every time I watch that movie I think, "Why in God's name didn't he act like this when he could?" He was frickin' great!

[Jamie007]

Brosnan/Connery
Dalton/Moore
Lazenby

I think I like Brosnan the best, although its a very close call with Connery.
Connery had the charisma and the ruthlessness, but not the stunts, Moore had the comedy and the over the top stunts, but not the cold bloodedness, Dalton had the seriousness and darkness, but not the charisma, but Brosnan has a perfect blend of all of those attributes.
Jim

[freemo]

Nice post Station T, I particularly argee with the first 3 ranked performance reviews. But I've always found critizicm of Connerys performance in YOLT unfair. He's accused of being "bored" or on "autopilot", but really, he's not that bad, and in any case the film doesn't allow for him to be anything else. There's no card games or anything like that for Bond to be all suave and whatnot. He's just a button pusher and no-one can be an extraordinary button pusher. I read an interview conducted around Thunderball time when Connery says that he hopes the following film (thought at the time to be OHMSS) would be a more character driven.

[JackChase007]

I'm goin' with:

Brosnan/Dalton
(very small space)
Connery/Lazenby
(significantly sized space, although still not that big)
Moore

[MovieManOO7]

1. Sean Connery
2. Roger Moore
3. Pierce Brosnan/Timothy Dalton
4. George Lazenby

[Glen Barrington]

Originally posted by 5 BONDS
Its gotta go like this

1.Sean Connery
2.Timothy Dalton
3.Pierce Brosnan
4.George Lazenby
5.Roger Moore

Bingo!

And there you have it!

[White Persian]

Originally posted by 5 BONDS
Its gotta go like this

1.Sean Connery
2.Timothy Dalton
3.Pierce Brosnan
4.George Lazenby
5.Roger Moore

Indeed it does!

Now for the reasons...
Ian (Station T) made a very valid point regarding several of the long running Bonds giving very variable performances. I've used pretty much the same criteria as he has, but I'll grade each of the actors on what I feel is their best performance (pretty easy choice in George's case).

1. Sean Connery (FRWL). When he was at the top of his game no one could match him for physical presence, charisma, wit and performance (he plays the dramatic scenes seriously and well).

2. Timothy Dalton (TLD). For his fidelity to Fleming's Bond. Sure he's a tad humourless, but then so was Fleming's Bond. He looks exactly right. Plays both the dangerousness and the romantic side of Bond well (his relationship with Kara is very believable). There's a nice unpredictable quality to his performance.

3. Pierce Brosnan ( Hard to choose which film represents him best- he's great in the first half of DAD, but seems faintly embarassed by the silliness that follows. Overall TWINE is his best performance) He comes damn close to Dalton, using the same criteria. He has the advantage of sharper scripts , but doesn't quite fit Fleming's description as closely.
Handles the humour well (when it's well written).

4. George Lazenby. His physical prowess more than makes up for his slight awkwardness in some scenes. He moves with a nice confident assurance, and he's terrific in the action scenes. He's actually quite affecting in the romantic scenes, and I feel he plays Bond's grief well.

5. Roger Moore. (TSWLM) He's comfortable as the international playboy, and has undeniable charm (albeit a bit on the smarmy side). He plays the humour deftly, but can't balance it with the darker sides to Bond's personality. I never find him convincingly dangerous or ruthless though, which is pretty essential for 007. He never looks terribly comfortable in action scenes.
Oddly, he played these characteristics better in non-Bond films such as The Wild Geese, Gold or The Sea Wolves, which seem to suggest he had potential to be a much more formidable Bond than he allowed himself to be.

[Glen Barrington]

White Persian, that was pure dynamite.

Very, VERY well put. Excellent rationale for each actor.

As for Roger Moore, I noticed the same things in other films where he clearly demonstrated he HAD the necessary mix of chops to have done Bond in a more believable fashion.

We'll never really know why (whether Cubby wanted the role played differently at that point in time, or Roger just chose to remake Bond in his own unique style). But I have no doubt that Moore COULD have created a different and more deeper portrayal than he did. I liked his work overall, just that the films got so dang silly in the '70s.

[White Persian]

Originally posted by Adam


If anyone has Roger Moore 4 or 5, you can't like Bond movies that much, b/c he's done 35% of them. (Connery 30%, Brosnan 20%, Lazenby 5%, Dalton 10%)

What a silly thing to say. By this logic, the only order of preference of any true fan would be the relative frequency with which each actor has played Bond.

It's perfectly possible to like and enjoy a Bond film starring one's least favourite actor, or to dislike a film featuring one's favourite Bond.

[White Persian]

Originally posted by Glen Barrington

We'll never really know why (whether Cubby wanted the role played differently at that point in time, or Roger just chose to remake Bond in his own unique style). But I have no doubt that Moore COULD have created a different and more deeper portrayal than he did. I liked his work overall, just that the films got so dang silly in the '70s.

Roger Moore's James Bond Diary, his account of filming LALD, is quite revealing. His constant self deprecating humour, and references to the character as "Jimmy" Bond left me with the impression that he was kind of daunted by the challenge of filling Connery's shoes. Can't blame him for that, I guess, but he seemed to lack the confidence to go in boots and all, opting to send it all (and himself) up instead. Of course this tied in with the lighter approach that had been established in DAF, but I still think that Roger did himself a disservice. He's a better actor (or at least he CAN be) than he gives himself credit for.
A year or so ago I watched again some early B/W episodes of The Saint and was struck by how much better his performance was in these early episodes than in later ones when he kind of coasted on his (genuine) charm and likability.

And thanks for the kind remarks Glen.

[1q2w3e4r]

I totally agree with that analysis of Roger. People are to quick to point out Fleming thought he was suitable. But Fleming thought he was suitable after the first series of The Saint, which is much different than the later ones, and ironically more like Bond of Fleming's novel's than Roger's outings as OO7.

[Glen Barrington]

Originally posted by White Persian

Roger Moore's James Bond Diary, his account of filming LALD, is quite revealing. His constant self deprecating humour, and references to the character as "Jimmy" Bond left me with the impression that he was kind of daunted by the challenge of filling Connery's shoes. Can't blame him for that, I guess, but he seemed to lack the confidence to go in boots and all, opting to send it all (and himself) up instead. Of course this tied in with the lighter approach that had been established in DAF, but I still think that Roger did himself a disservice. He's a better actor (or at least he CAN be) than he gives himself credit for.
A year or so ago I watched again some early B/W episodes of The Saint and was struck by how much better his performance was in these early episodes than in later ones when he kind of coasted on his (genuine) charm and likability.

And thanks for the kind remarks Glen.

You are welcome! I just tell it like it TIS!

I agree withthe fact that Moore was SO MUCH BETTER in those ealy "Saint" episodes. Serious as a heart attack. More Bondish tha even he realized!

As I read through John Glen's "For My Eyes Only" bio, it is quite revealing how often Roger had to be "reassured" that he could portray the character of Bond with any real credibility.

You have another good point that he may have been a bit "intimidated" by fulfilling some large shoes. I would say though, by the time he did TSWLM and even moreso , FYEO, he had HIS version down pat and folks had accepted him as Bond. He sould have quit then and not done the last two films. Glen says Moore was also demanding some huge salary by the time of FYEO. I guess when you're used to living large, it's hard to say no to that payday.

If you haven't read Glen's book, it's quite insightful and details many of the stunts. Another interesting tidbit was Julian Glover's letter to Cubby Broccoli asking that HE play Bond! Wilson & Broccoli had to let him down easy. Charles Dance was also briefly considered, but he made some nasty remarks on TV about Glen and Cubby for deleting a line of dialogue of his in FYEO. That did it for him.

Dance sure plays menacing parts well.

[11 11]

I find this thread utterly amusing. This is proof that Bond fans do not really give a damn about the fact that the Bond is just a character.

Anyway, I will post my rankings of the Bond actors, but instead of why, or instead of using this gap or chasm, which is quite frankly downright rude, I will simply list the appropriate description of each Bond.

This will explain just precisely why i see it as i do, it will also explain why each person in the above post posted as they did.


1. Lazenby (his bond, plain and simple, whatever it was, it was. If the scene said look scared, he looked scared. Most confuse this as "boring." No, just smart acting. This of course leads to the "wooden" comments. I guess Gregory Peck, Charlton Heston and Clint Eastwood were all "terrible actors" as well. I am an actor and believe me this guy is the best Bond at acting. Although yes as Moore/Brosnan fans would say this "boring" in other words Lazenby was not a punk. Also and again Brosnan/Moore fans this means you, truth is again and many Brosnan fans will argue this to no end, Lazenby easily twice the size of 3 other Bonds. I think Connery fans know which 3.)

2. Connery (his bond, well Sean was not annyoing, despite arguments over his voice, but he was what one could call a thuggish brute. whether or not he was the best bond is a serious debate amongst fans, but the real issue is the fact that whether you want to admit or not, Brosnan fans this means you, Connery was mean, and viciously strong. This is a good indication of Bond)

3. Roger Moore (his Bond, bottom line Roger Moore is a movie star, he is charismatic, he is charming, he is suave, he is incredibly entertaining. Connery fans do not like his "weakness" or his over humor. Well since Connery was also suave, elegant, entertaining, charismatic, etc. Connery fans are right, whether Moore fans like it or not. They were both all of that but Connery was also a physical adonis. Moore on the other hand...)

4. Timothy Dalton (his Bond, Brosnan fans love to rag on Dalton, and why not? Brosnan is better looking. Moore fans rag on him because Moore is funnier. Connery/Lazenby fans just know Lazenby/Connery were better because Brosnan and Moore well no to the above. Basically Dalton lacks every single quality that Moore/Connery/Lazenby have.)

5. Pierce Brosnan (why? simple in real life when you keep touching your hair it messes up. in real life when you keep glancing at yourself through a reflection you are not really 188 i.q. Bond. but of course Pierce is damn good looking. But then again in real life if you are THAT good looking you are not a Bond but an actor. Isn't that the whole point?)

In other words the least of the actors is Lazenby and then Connery etc.
Bond is not a pretty boy, with big hair, a comb in his pocket, and a mirror on his wrist band. Argue it all you want, but Brosnan has gotten a bit annoying.

Remington Steele is not Bond, The Saint is not Bond, Lord Brett Sinclair is not Bond. Sorry Brosnan/Moore fans, but no.

[Glen Barrington]

WTF was THAT above?

Must've been TOO DEEP for me! LOL!

So, um, er, you LIKE them all for different reasons??

Seriously, I understand the rationales, but do you put them in any PARTICULAR ORDER????

[SamuelKevlar]

Originally posted by 11 11
I am an actor and believe me this guy is the best Bond at acting.

I am also an actor, and personally I believe Lazenby is easily the WORST Bond ever. See below for my list.

1. Timothy Dalton. Now this is an actor.
2. Pierce Brosnan. A little more tongue-in-cheek.
3. Roger Moore. A LOT more tongue-in-cheek.
4. Sean Connery. Like him as an actor, just not as Bond.
5. George Lazenby. Can't act. Only scene he does well is the last one. Nick Nack would play him off the screen in terms of acting skill. Although not in terms of physical prowess...

[11 11]

Glen, I am just trying to point out that

1. Bond is just a character
2. It is just an opinion and no answer on who is the best Bond is right
3. The fact that for some reason Connery/Brosnan fans feel a need to argue endlessly (as if it is a civic duty that Brosnan/Connery was the best Bond)

All in all in truthfulness, all you could really truly claim, and when I say truly I mean as in what is basically undeniable to anyone who watches these movies (this means Connery/Brosnan fans are excluded because they seem so obsessed to argue these points even without basis)

that

1. Connery was the first Bond/most masculine/hairiest/etc.
2. Lazenby was the best action Bond/biggest/strongest, etc.
3. Moore was the funniest Bond
4. Dalton was the darkest/most serious/most Fleming-like Bond
5. Brosnan has the most Ken-Doll appearance of the Bonds/most appealing to young girls?

Other than that all of the arguments such as:

Brosnan was bigger than Lazenby
Moore was more athletic than Dalton
Connery was funnier than Moore
Lazenby had better than hair than Connery etc....

Are all just bull being spouted by some mindless fan

All in all most everything everyone posted about why a said Bond was better was either an opinion such as Connery was best, or a mindless fan loving and worshiping such as Brosnan is tougher than Connery etc.

In other words like I said this thread is amusing.

[Glen Barrington]

"1. Connery was the first Bond/most masculine/hairiest/etc.
2. Lazenby was the best action Bond/biggest/strongest, etc.
3. Moore was the funniest Bond
4. Dalton was the darkest/most serious/most Fleming-like Bond
5. Brosnan has the most Ken-Doll appearance of the Bonds/most appealing to young girls?"


OK, now I gotcha. I'm fair minded, in those areas, I will probably agree.
And yes, it WOULD be hard to refute those observations of each actor.

But, regardess, everyone has an overall favorite. Which is yours?

[11 11]

Samuel in my acting mind I would approach the role of Bond like Lazenby did. That is from a technichal stand point. I would not dare approach it as Dalton did or Moore either. Somewhat like Connery, somewhat like Brosnan but mostly like Lazenby.

Because that is my acting style, I approach the role as the character would react to something, like Lazenby did.

Such as when you are being chased, look like you are being chased, or when you are captured look like you just got captured etc.

Samule most of the great actors use this method, Olivier, Heston, Peck, Pacino, Quinn, Duvall, O'Toole, but then again to each his own.

That just goes against my philosophy though to do it like Dalton, that is more of the Jack Nicholson or Marlon Brando approach.

But really the purely technical method is like Lazenby, and like I said that is not bad acting. Actually most of the movie critics i have heard say Lazenby was the best actor if you want to argue the issue, which I really do not.

[goldengun]

Interesting ranks - I never met a person who liked Timothy Dalton as much as some of you have.

My ranks (which never change):

1.) ROGER MOORE - Strongest of the 5 actors. Suave, dashing, debonair - and like my mom always said - Roger Moore walked like a man should (unlike Pierce who really looks funny in the long-view shots). RM displayed a range of emotions in the Bond films he played in. I always enjoy watching his films - and like screenwriter Tom M. said for the LALD DVD - Roger walked onto the screen and claimed the Bond character entirely his own. And I am thankful for that.

TSWLM, FYEO, OP are Bond gems. Be thankful to Roger - he took the Bond series out of the blockbuster 70's and went full steam ahead into the 80's - eventually handing off a healthy franchise to Timothy. Roger was bankable - and Cubby loved him. No Roger, no series after Sean.

TIE for 2.) Pierce Bronsan - GoldenEye was a great debut. He looks good in some scenes, but look at Pierce's face when he's running - he looks comical. Sean Bean played the villan so good - I actually wanted him to kill Pierce. After this debut, the films slid into mindless action (TND) and a movie I dont even want to watch (TWINE) - and never did. DAD is a good film, but this is clearly as over-the-top as Moonraker was - but MR was better. Pierce Brosnan looks good, but he should confess that he is not trying to use Sean as his role model for the Bond role - but instead is using Roger Moore. Still better Pierce than Timothy.

TIE for 2.) Sean Connery - a good spy, ruthless and cold. GF and YOLT are gems. But no smiles. No laughs. If he really took all of that so seriously - he would have died of stress by 35. But give him credit - no Sean - no series.

3.) Timothy Dalton - I never saw LTK. But then I read that it was a different sort of film as Bond loses some battles. So I bought the DVD - and I fell asleep mid-way. This was the most boring Bond film I had ever seen! Timothy Dalton does not stand out like Sean and Roger - he looks like someone's uncle instead. He almost tanked the series like George Clooney tanked Batman.

4.) George Lazenby - I am not sure what this guy was thinking. He distanced himself from all the characters he worked with (Lois, Bernard and Desmond). He came to the interviews with long hair. But I thank him for letting Roger take the role and better the series for ever.

Roger Moore is James Bond.

[Glen Barrington]

"Roger Moore is James Bond."

Uh, WAS.

Right now, and for the continued present, it's Pierce Brosnan, whether ya dig it or not.

[jwheels]

Timothy Dalton
Pierce Brosnan
Sean Connery
Roger Moore
George Lazenby

[Mr. Kidd]

1) Roger Moore(12 years, 7 fun films!)
2) Sean Connery(took Fleming's Bond & made it his own!)
3) Pierce Brosnan(IS Bond...4 solid fims and counting!)
4) Timothy Dalton(enjoyed his unique take on Bond, but
ultimately, his tenure was too short)
5)George Lazenby(George...We hardly knew ya'!)

[Von Hammerstein]

1.Sean Connery: You all know why.
2.Pierce Brosnan: He turned the franchise around after Dalton's lackluster outings. He also manages to combine Moore's sauvity and Connery's toughness.
3. Roger Moore: He did a great job in LALD and TSWLM, for the 70's and 80's he WAS James Bond just as Connery was in the sixties. Unfortunately his latter films from Moonraker on were too light, even FYEO seemed uneven. By AVTAK Rog had stayed too long and looked too old for the role. Hope Brosnan doens't hang on as long. Still Roger turned out some fine Bond flicks.
4. Tie between Dalton and Lazenby, I feel neither of them got to warm up to the role. Lazenby had a tough shot first out with OHMSS, certainly one of the most poignant personal 007 films and Dalton had TLD which had been written for Moore and tweaked for him and then had to take a total departure from the traditional Bond with LTK, It's a true shame that Lazenby didn't do DAF and LALD and Dalton didn't hang in there to make GoldenEye and TND, I think they'd have both made good Bonds.

And while we're on the subject perhaps EON should institute a maximum five film rule. They should also have (which probably do) someone in the wings for next 007.

[sainttemplar]

1. Dalton
2>Connery
3.Lazenby
4.Moore
5.David Niven
6.Bob Holness
7.Barry Nelson

HUGE gap
8.Pierce Brosnan

[philbowski]

1. PB
2. SC
3. RM
4. TD
5. GL

[Contessa]

I find it difficult to rank Connery, Dalton, or Brosnan, so I go by their relative strengths/weaknesses. In no particular order:

--Connery: great screen presence; conveys toughness, brashness, and virility. Unfortunately (or fortunately, to some) he doesn't convey a sense of vulnerability or human frailty. I see him as a hero, but not necessarily a human being. I can forgive NSNA for FRWL.

--Dalton: kudos to his straightforward, serious approach and his commitment to character. He is able to convey Bond's human side, though he often seems mired in the dark side. Unlike Connery, he doesn't convey sensuality or much of a sense of humor. I can forgive LTK for TLD.

--Brosnan: lacks Connery's strong presence, but does convey a sense of vulnerability and relatability. Has a commitment to character, but is often let down by scripts and direction. (Yes, he's good looking, BTW, but I have yet to see him gaze into a mirror or comb his hair in one of his Bonds). Has an appealingly understated sense of humor and sensuality. I can forgive TND for TWINE. (I still can't forgive the 2nd half of DAD for anything).


The others I rank:
4. Moore--solid suave, leading-man type, but doesn't convey any sense of danger or edge. Yes, he did a lot of Bonds, but I find many of them hard to re-watch straight through. Just too goofy. I do give him credit for his performances in FYEO and TSWLM, though.

5. Lazenby--I love OHMSS, but cringe at Lazenby's performance, except for the last few minutes. Sure, he was inexperienced. But those terrible line readings make him sound like a used-car dealer (his former occupation), not Bond. Lacks the presence of Connery, Dalton, and Moore. Lacks the acting ability of Brosnan, Connery, Dalton, and Moore. Discussions of Method aside, I don't consider it acting if you can pigeonhole the actor's "technique" (if you can call it that in George's case).

[OOSe7en]

Connery - the original
Dalton
Moore/Brosnan
Lazenby