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

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bureaucrats

  I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law.   If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...
Post a Comment
Read more