Skip to main content

The Best James Bond?

 



Well, this is sure to stir some controversy. Rank ordering my favorite actors who played James Bond. No mine fields to be had there.

People have very strong opinions about James Bond. Some don’t care for the character at all, but I suspect they won’t be reading this. Again, as I have said in other lists, this is my list. You don’t have to agree with it. And you probably won’t. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.  

I am first going to start by mentioning a few that don’t qualify for the list. Barry Nelson played the first Bond on screen: a television version of Casino Royale in 1954 on the Climax anthology series. I can’t say Barry Nelson would ever come to mind if I were casting James Bond. And this was before most people had ever heard of Bond. The second actor not on my list is David Niven who played Bond in . . . wait for it . . . Casino Royale. The 1967 movie with Peter Sellers. But this was a spoof so it doesn’t really count.  Now the count begins in earnest.

 #6 George Lazenby -- Look, somebody has to be last. Lazenby had the misfortune (or choice) to only be in one film, and it was one where the script was a bit all over the place. Had he the chance to play Bond in other movies, he might have grown into the part and into my affection, but as we only have the one, I must judge him on that one, and I simply like the other actors better.

 #5 Roger Moore – Roger Moore was the first Bond I ever saw at a movie theater. It was Live and Let Die, his first outing. I was a young teen and I thought it was great! The film alas, hasn’t aged well. And as Roger and I got older, I grew tired of his antics. The Moore films were played too much for laughs. For me, at times they were just silly. There are people who Love Moore, love his humor. To me, it just got old.

 #4 Sean Connery – This may shock some people that he is this low on my list. Many consider Connery to be the gold standard when it comes to Bond. And way back in the day, I really liked Connery. But Connery’s portrayal also has not aged well. Looking at the films with modern sensibilities, that Bond seems awfully kind of . . . rapey. Incidents that might have seemed funny in 1964 do not seem so funny today. That is not necessarily Connery’s fault. It may come down to the script and direction. Nonetheless, it does tarnish that portrayal. 

 #3 Pierce Brosnan -- Post Timothy Dalton, Brosnan finally got his chance to play Bond. He had been picked to play Bond after Roger Moore, but contractual obligations prevented that. Brosnan makes a perfectly serviceable Bond. More humor than Dalton, but not as silly as Moore.

 #2 Timothy Dalton – A lot of people did not like Dalton’s performance as Bond. I was not one of them. Anytime you change actors there will be some pushback. People used to one style of acting are put off by another. I really liked Dalton’s performances. I thought they made the most realistic Bond. Let’s face it, James Bond movies are not noted for their believability. But I felt Dalton was believable, and a breath of fresh air after Moore. Dalton was only in two Bond films. I would have liked to see him in more. In fact, he was my number one favorite Bond until . . .

 #1 Daniel Craig – I have to go with Craig for my number one. Even though he plays Bond as more of a loose cannon than most of the others. As I said with Connery, (and it is true for all of these actors) the things the characters were made to do were not necessarily the actors’ choices. Nonetheless, Craig pulled it off. There is a realism there and a grittiness to the character that pulled me in. I think the audience has more empathy with Craig than with the others. We always want James Bond to win, but with Daniel Craig it feels more personal.

Who knows what the future holds for the series, or if there even is a future. But I suspect Bond will return someday. Has the next actor even been born yet?

Star Liner

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Second Wind

  You have heard about athletes getting their second wind? It is not that they feel better, that they are warmed up and ready to run more easily. It is not psychological (at least, not all psychological). No. There is an actual physiological truth to a second wind. It all has to do with respiration. When I say respiration, I am not talking about breathing. Respiration is a biochemical process that happens at the cellular level. It is how the cell gets energy. There are lots of chemical processes that are constantly going on in each cell, and those processes require energy. Without a constant feed of energy, the cell will die. The more demands there are on a cell, the more energy it needs. For example, every one of your muscle cells need more energy when you are running.   In fact, you won’t be able to run if the cells don’t have sufficient energy for it. The energy currency of the cell is a molecule called ATP. You may have heard that sugar is how our bodies get energy, wh...
1 comment
Read more

Roy Batty Figures it out

  This is written with the assumption that the reader has seen the film Blade Runner . If you haven’t, you may not get much out of it. In one of the last scenes in Blade Runner , the killer android Roy Batty, who holds Deckard’s life in his hands, has a remarkable speech: “I've seen things... seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments... will be lost in time like tears in the rain. Time to die.” I am told that the speech that was written was not working very well, and Rutger Hauer was told to just improvise something. Wow. He nailed it. At this point in the film Roy Batty has been the villain throughout. We have been rooting for Deckard (Harrison Ford) to take him out, but it is not going well, and it seems like Batty is about to kill him. At the last second, Roy Batty pulls Deckard up, to keep him from falling to his death. Then he delivers this...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Outsider

  I am reading The Outsider by Stephen King. The first 150 pages or so I found disturbing. Not for the reason you might think. It is not scary, not creepy in a traditional horror way, but disturbing in a tragic way. The first hundred to 150 pages is tragedy on top of tragedy. The most disturbing thing to me (it is disturbing to me anytime I encounter it in any story) is a false accusation. A man is falsely accused and may well be convicted of a horrific crime. That kind of thing disturbs my soul. It makes the whole world seem wrong. I have always been disturbed by stories with that kind of thing. And why not? It happens in real life too. That makes it all the more horrific. In the Jim Crow South, all you had to do was make an accusation against a black man to set the lynch mob in action. No need to bother with a trial. But even if there was a trial, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, innocent or not. We see Vladimir Putin inventing charges against people and they get locked up...
1 comment
Read more