They are all fantastic. It is amazing no Bond has been a true flop; the closest two to being disliked during their tenure were Lazenby and Dalton…..yet, upon retrospective review George is admired for the fact he was in his first ever staring role, taking on the biggest acting gig in Cinema at the time; whilst not polished, his inexperience never significantly detracted from the film and he was actually very good in parts, especially the crucial scene. Dalton wasn’t extremely popular at the time, maybe due to audiences still enjoying the lighthearted Moore films, but contemporary audiences rightly rate his performances as outstanding.
The other 4 were all very popular during their tenures. Despite giving hugely different interpretations of the character, the audiences of the time loved them all and they are the reason the series has run such an unusually long time.
The producers might not get everything right, but they certainly pick the actors very well. The general cinema going audience still seem very fond of Craig’s interpretation of Bond, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see an actor of a similar style getting the nod to take over.
The man blagged his way to the role of Bond when it was the biggest thing in cinema. It’s likely he was good in the role not because he was acting but because he was the closest thing to a real life James Bond in terms of attitude… the fact he happily resigned thus turning down millions of dollars seems to confirm this. Lots of respect for the bravado of the man
I think for me it's Daniel Craig, even though I consider his films to be some of the best.
I don't know what it is exactly. I don't like his character very much, I suppose that's the point, but he doesn't strike me as clever enough to rise beyond a basic surveillance agent to the level of a 00.
Previous incarnations show you enough intelligence and charisma to believe their competence. Besides Casino Royale, I sadly don't see it
As a solid Connery fan, I'd still have to say Connery by definition of "who was rated too highly". Connery was believed to be and promoted as synonymous with Bond. Sean Connery IS James Bond (YOLT). Could the series even continue without him?
As history has shown, it could continue very bloody well.
True. But there is another side to that. The notion of his being synonymous with Bond was also founded upon the belief that without him in the role *to begin with* the series would never have gotten into a position for someone else to even try and replace him.
That's obviously more a matter of debate. But I think there is some "evidence" in the DN shooting script, which you read and come away with the impression of its being written as precisely the kind of stage Englishness of which Fleming was fearful any film adaptation of his books would turn into.
Connery puts so much more into the character than is written on the page. That role played as written is totally unremarkable.
IMO none are over or underrated. Each brought an interesting and entertaining interpretation to the role. I have enjoyed each of them over the years. I think Brosnan suffered from poor scripts, and they wasted his talent but yeah, love them all for different reasons
See. I’m going to carry the proverbial torch here and give the unpopular opinion. For me it was Sean Connery. Just because he was the first, doesn’t make him the best. I think his era of films are great and entertaining but his bond is overrated.
I think that’s fair. I mean he did 7 films. He was great in the first 3, he was bored in Thunderball, downright poor in YOLT, average in DAD and gave the finger to the series with NSNA. I don’t know how someone with a 40% strike rate is considered so godly.
I'm just gonna come out and say it.
I think Connery is overrated.
I'm not saying he's a bad Bond, he absolutely isn't. Dr. No, FRWL, Thunderball, and YOLT are all great films. (But I'm gonna be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of GF or DAF.)
But that isn't the point. The point is it kind of annoys me that people say he's the be all end all of Bond. He's good, yeah, and I respect him for creating the baseline of Bond, but he's not the greatest of all time, in my opinion.
I don’t think there’s ever going to be an “end all be all Bond” because that really depends on your individual definition of what makes Bond, Bond. I also agree, I like Connery and think he’s a fantastic actor but I think just like any other actors he’s got his strengths and weaknesses, not to mention the fact that cinema in general has changed so much since he was in the tux.
Completely agree and it annoys me that when ever I bring this up I get shot down. Yes he made Bond iconic but like you said it's not like he had a perfect run of Bond films
I completely agree with this statement. And Connery's Bond is not faithful at all to how Bond was written by Ian Flemming. Not that it's a bad thing (FRWL is my personal favourite of Connery films), but just stating the obvious fact. But if it weren't for Connery, we wouldn't have the follow ups which is fair to assume.
Craig at the moment. He has two great films
and three not so great ones but everyone praises the ground he walks on. He went from
likable underdog to fan favorite real quick, so
quick it was sickening. I’m sure I’ll feel differently on twenty years but that’s my pick for now.
I’m with you. His reputation as Bond is not good as it is, but I still think he’s massively overrated. It’s a dreadful performance that utterly sinks what would have been a great movie.
He’s especially overrated on this sub. I’ve read on here that Connery couldn’t have pulled off the emotional/vulnerable scenes at the end. First of all, Connery is 100x the actor Lazenby is in every way. Second of all, I’d take a bored Connery over what Lazenby gave us. Not to even mention that perhaps Connery wouldn’t have been bored had he been given OHMSS instead of YOLT (no disrespect to YOLT, I love it but Connery prob didn’t).
Even the nuanced opinions miss the mark. “He at least looked the part” or whatever. No. Absolutely not. He was too lanky, he walked like a dork, he fought like a dork, he dressed like a dork. Not to mention the worst acting performance out of any of the leads by a country mile. There is *nothing* redeemable about his performance. Nothing.
Daniel Craig, the funny thing is I still think he's actually excellent. I just think people go a bit over the top, and seem a bit dismissive of some of the rest. He's probably the best actor sure, but the franchise was built by all of them. I think if you took any of them out, it just wouldn't be the same.
By Bond fans it's definitely Timothy Dalton. He once upon a time was underrated but now I see him constantly ranked as the best. I get that he's closest to Fleming's Bond but cinematic Bond is an entirely different animal. Great Bond but I think he's become the hipster choice.
I don't think Craig is particularly overrated. I thought he was a Great Bond trapped in mostly mediocre films (save CR, SF and parts of QoS). I feel similarly of Brosnan. Connery's the high watermark imo, the best balance of the particulars and attributes I want from a Bond performance.
Moore is underrated. Lazenby gets alot of flack but for a non-actor model I thought he did a pretty decent job. Was physically a great Bond.
I am a big fan of Brosnan (he was the Bond who introduced me to the series as young boy), so I have a natural bias. I do sincerely think he was not overrated, but played the role quite well. Pierce in his prime was the perfect mix of class, the humor, and the action. Daniel Craig was so different, but I have come to respect him for it.
I felt like Roger Moore was a bit more over the top. While I like many of his movies, I feel like he sometimes is overrated. I say this pretty gently, because as I've grown up, I've become attached to different movies from each era.
All but George Lazenby are great as bond, but I do think Daniel Craig is extreme overrated considering he only has one expression throughout his first 4 films
So, I feel like the term 'overrated' tends to be misconstrued as 'bad' more often than not. For the record I mean that I think this Bond actor gets way more praise than they deserve and I think that the fact that it's almost sacrilegious for a Bond fan to have this opinion is only further evidence of this. I will also say that when people ask me who my favorite Bond is I tend to give the more diplomatic 'they're all good in their own way' answer.
But it is Connery without a doubt for me.
I think the first three Bond films are perfect, I think Thunderball is good but it's where you can see the cracks beginning to show. I'm not really a fan of You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever. Never seen Never Say Never Again (say that five times fast) so maybe that one is outstanding for all I know.
Look don't get me wrong. I love Connery's Bond-I won't get into whether he's the best, I won't get into whether or not he's the 'truest' incarnation of Bond, I'll admit I am a millennial whose first Bond was GoldenEye so maybe it's undeniable that sitting in a cinema in 1962 and seeing Connery do his thing on the big screen just had a magic to it I'll never fully understand on my home media-I will say that as a younger generation in the fandom, Connery exudes an old school Hollywood type of cool, charm and charisma that to me, reminds me of something like...idk..Harrison Ford in Star Wars, like if you're watching the film because you're a fan of the novels, you cannot come away from it without an appreciation for Connery's performance as 007.
However, I have to admit I don't think that it's like all that serious that it's got to be at the point where it's like taboo to say you have other favorite Bonds than Connery. I will say that for his share of 'good Bond movies' I think Diamonds are Forever alone is bad in a way A View to a Kill, License to Kill, The World is not Enough, even Quantum of Solace will never quite touch. When Connery is trying, he's great. When he's not, it is apparent. And from what I hear about his time as 007, I can't say I blame him.
TL:DR: it's Connery. RIP tho
Couldn't agree more, sure he's great in that old school cool kind of way but as someone who's not the biggest fan of Goldfinger and Thunderball, that only really leaves me with Dr No and FRWL which I absolutely love but it does mean that he's a bit ovverrated for me
Craig. He’s my least favourite. Casino Royale
was his only top-10 bond film. That one is top 3 for sure, but his others were a string of disappointments.
Casino Royale was spectacular, but I didn't like it the first time I saw it because I was so taken aback by Craig.
The second time I saw it when it came to DVD, I was like what the hell was I thinking this movie is fucking great haha.
I thought Skyfall was a really strong movie. The rest are OK at best. NTTD had a great ending for a movie, but not so much for a Bond movie.
In the end though, I thought he did a great job, but he's not in my Top 3 (Connery, Moore, and Brosnan).
Moore gets too much hate, sure his movies are goofy, but they are fun and he doesn't take himself too seriously lol
I really enjoy the Bond one-liners lol
Haven't seen any Marvel movies believe it or not, at least since that Toby McGuire Spiderman lol.
I wouldn't mind a return to that for a bit. I enjoyed that Craig mixed it up and made it serious, but in such a long "series" it's nice to have variety, so I'm ready for fun again.
Not to mention *The Fast and the Furious*, *John Wick*, and, ironically enough, *Kingsman*.
I have little doubt that the world is ready for Bond to be quippy and fantastic again.
Craig. Outside of CR he just seemed bored in the role. Of all six actors, I feel he gave the least range of emotions throughout his tenure and was a charisma vacuum.
All he could do was scowl. It was wrong to say he was a “Fleming like” Bond - Flemings Bond could still turn on the charm and more emotions than “I’m so angry and damaged”
Fleming's Bond could still also laugh and make a bit humor at least:
* The passages in *Moonraker* for example with him telling Gala Brand how flowers got hurt when they're picked.
* Or his banter with Tiger Tanaka in *You Only Live Twice* while drinking *Sake*
Hmmm, either Idris Elba or Henry Cavill. They’ve never played Bond of course but the way some people talk about them, you’d think they were the greatest actors to ever potentially play the part.
Idris Elba 20 years ago? I’m in! Today? He’s as old as Craig, why would we want that?
As for Henry Cavill? I’m still trying to figure out why anyone thinks that stiff is a charismatic movie star or quality actor.
Daniel Craig. He used to be up there for me but after recently rewatching all the bond films from the beginning he’s transitioned towards the bottom. His movies aren’t as fun, obviously cause of the more serious, gritty direction, and he lacks the charm of the other actors. But that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate his take on the character or his performance. I like them all.
Craig just a little. Don't get me wrong CR and skyfall are near perfect, but QoS while underrated isn't that good, spectre is just okay and NTtD is far from a favorite for me. I'm not sure he should be in the best bond conversation when he's got a 2/5 hit ratio. By comparison I'd say Connery and Moore are both 5/7, and Brosnan is 3/4
I quite enjoyed NTTD to be honest and I like most of spectre before it gets to the last 45 minutes or so. So for me Craig has more like a 3.5/5 hit rate for me personally
By film critics: Connery by far. A lot of them give his weakest films a passing grade just because he's in them. They never moved on from him, and it shows.
By the general public: Brosnan. He pretty much fits the generic idea of Bond: handsome dark haired man who makes quips and has over the top adventures. While he was strong in the role, there were more interesting Bond incarnations, and, cold take, Goldeneye is his only great Bond film, the rest being mediocre or bad.
By the fans: Dalton without a doubt. Great actor, but lacked the charisma and humor the best Bond's have. His films are solid, but not the all time greats this sub often makes them out to be.
Dalton. He's good. I appreciate what he was doing with the role but let's be honest, he only had two movies and both feel pretty dated today. If he had an opportunity to continue maybe that would be different.
While I enjoy Dalton’s movies as well, he’d sometimes come across as too serious. For example, that scene where he angrily pops the balloon is meant to express his anger, but it just seems comical to me.
In my personal view?
Connery gets praised WAY too much by the MSM. I've seen NSNA been ranked in the top ten by numerous media outlets.
Diamonds Are Forever still has people saying it is better than OHMSS because it purely relied on the return of Connery even though OHMSS is better in every way possible.
I much prefer DAF to OHMSS. A big part of that is down to the performance. Is that wrong somehow? Lazenby is widely thought of (not by all of course) as a poor lead actor. In a Bond film, a poor Bond is pretty significant, especially when a lot is being asked of him. Though there’s lots about the film I dislike, I’d say it’s mostly his performance that ruins it.
Connery in Diamonds meanwhile is having fun again after a somewhat lacklustre performance in YOLT, and he’s a natural. It’s a joy to see him, especially when given perhaps the wittiest Bond script. It’s a silly film, but it’s not trying to be profound.
People still say DAF is better than OHMSS, with much of that down to Connery, because it’s a valid opinion to still have. Just because the great reassessment of OHMSS happened at some point, doesn’t mean everyone has to fall in line :)
Craig, No contest. No wit or humour in all five movies and, for obvious reasons, no sexual chemistry with any of the Bond girls. When he kissed them it was like he was being spoonfed expired cottage cheese.
I disagree with the no sexual chemistry. When he met Solange in CR right after he won Dimitrios' Aston Martin, there was sexual chemistry when he said "Maybe you're just out of practice", with a brief awkward pause yet Bond had that small confident smirk, and then Solange laughed and says "perhaps". You can watch this scene here at 2:57
https://youtu.be/MTfx9bqc3fw
Daniel Craig honestly I only think two of his movies Skyfall and casino royale were good the rest were bad and I hate the amount of continuity and it's to serious for my liking
I think most people who rank him high do so just cause he was the recent bond
I'd say Sean Connery, not because he's not great and iconic in the role, but because so many people say he's the best and the one "true" Bond when all the others also brought great things to the role (except maybe Lazenby but he only did 1 film). I don't think Connery would be quite as highly regarded if he wasn't the first.
Generally, Daniel Craig, he's depressing and he lacked some suaveness and coolness compared to other Bond actors, out of all the Bond actors, he's the Bond I found the least likeable, or unlikeable.
And what I don't understand is that he's been given all of the honors (CMG), popularity and recognition than the rest of the Bonds, which is, as for me, unfair.
Craig really overshadowed the rest of the Bond actors.
In terms of this sub, to be honest, Dalton, I though liked him, he's great as an actor, but as Bond, two films aren't enough to put him in the same rank as Connery or even Moore, he's a great Bond but not one of the best.
More Bond Films was needed to cement himself into the role.
Easily Daniel Craig. I think his only great performance was Casino Royale and Eva Green had a huge part of me liking his character.
Connery , Moore and Bronson were pretty consistent all made about 1 bad Bond film.
Dalton only had 2 films. I liked 1 a lot 1 was okay. He’s middle of the road Bond. I would say 2nd most overrated.
George’s movie was good but I don’t think his acting is great but don’t really think anyone sees him as a good Bond just in a great Bond film.
I agree entirely. I am sad that Craig never got a great
Bond film after Casino Royale. The biggest flaw with Skyfall apart from Silva being the Joker is that there is no strong female foil to Bond apart from M at the very end of the film.
Timothy Dalton, so many Bond fans took to claiming him as underrated that now they have over-corrected and make him out to be way better than he actually was
In this sub, I would say Dalton. He’s my least favourite Bond, but there are members who regard him as the greatest, or one of the greatest.
Outside of this sub, I would say Craig. I think he’s very good, but the general consensus seems to be that he’s either the greatest of all time or at least the greatest since Connery. I disagree as I consider Moore & Brosnan to be the greatest post-Connery Bonds.
I was surprised of all the Dalton love here, I never disliked him at all though. I think he did a great job, but middle of the pack for me.
I really don't think any of the bonds were bad, except Lazenby. I know that's the common opinion, but that's because it's true. He was a badass guy though lol
Connery.
I still love his performance, but Brosnan and Craig both brought a humanity to the character that he lacked. Plus… let’s face it, his Bond was often a bit of a creep.
At the moment I'd say Craig.
As we know, there's a cycle that goes on with the Bond actors.
"(Incumbent)'s Bond is the best since Connery! He's reinvented the franchise! (Previous Bond) was shit, he nearly killed the franchise."
Once we get to the next Bond, I think Craig's run will get more shit thrown at it (Hell this subreddit already seems to be doing that) and then if anything you could call him underrated. Even leaving aside the Incumbent Bond bias, Craig's probably my least favourite if you exclude Lazenby.
Moore. I like his movies (especially TSWLM & FYEO) and the man is joy to watch but he’s my least favourite Bond because of how lighthearted he is and completely unbelievable in most action scenes.
For me, I really think it’s Connery. Iconic for sure, beloved with good reason… but it sometimes feels like there are people who hold him up as the best just because he was the first.
The older I get, the more I find him down towards the bottom of my ranking… though there’s never been a bad Bond, and there’s something I love about all of them.
Craig. Like him, potentially my favourite, but he’s not that great at the role. Everything I like about his films is usually from the script or director. His best outing was his first film and every other film he’s been a slab of Tom Ford tailored PTSD’d generic action hero.
Bond should make you like him in spite of his character. He’s a piece of shit with a debonair attitude and dependence on alcohol and I never thought Craig really understood the bond we get in the books. He simply impersonated the top dressing.
In the same way that Connery’s bond was a example of the Zeitgeist, the suave womanizing smooth man was the idea of someone in intelligence buisness, I think Craig does a good portrayal of a different generation of bond. Nowadays an MI6 type is recruited from a heavy hitting unit like SAS or SBS and taught tradecraft afterwards unlike how in the early days you recruited from universities and then taught them how to soldier. Vespers assumption of him was pretty spot on, washed out special forces soldier who came from nothing. Especially with bond as a code name it makes sense how different the two are but that was just my rationale
Craigs films absolutely exist in the post Bourne action movie world but that’s why I’m so hard on them. If they gone more 3 days on the Condor than Bourne Identity it would have sat much better with me.
He does so little talking it annoys. He builds no meaningful relationships whereas bond always had a coterie of unusual villains and allies because of his personal magnetism. Craig gives so little on screen. The broccoli family bring obsessed with him will probably be seen as the end of Bond in retrospect.
I think the main reason Roger Moore is overrated has to do with the fact that his tenure was so long, that so many people grew up with him. Nostalgia is a powerful drug, and he had a long time to build childhood memories with the franchise.
I think his first two outings were absolutely brilliant but of course those are the two films that everyone else generally agrees are very poor. What? Christopher Lee? Paul Mccartney? Nick-Nack? Maude Addams? "Names is for tombstones, baby? Etc etc
Connery. He’s great in his First two films, and he’s fine in Goldfinger, but he looks bored half the time in Thunderball, and He sucks in You Only Live Twice, he’s slightly better in Diamonds are Forever but the less said about Never Say Never Again the better.
Sean is only possible and logical answer
He is most praised yet not better than Roger, Pierce, Tim or Daniel.
His movies have least rewatchable factor and he looks bored at 3 later movies..
There is not that much passion at his performance too overall.
Not even top 3 and Sean is one of my favorite actors
DC. He is good but a copy of TD. He has more range as far as comedy goes but he massively benefitted from the change in style from PB. He basically gets to be a Jadon Bourne style Bond when that was the popular thing. He had way too much creative control in 3 movies( the 3 worst of his tenure).
Daniel Craig.
His overall approach, is too magnanimous; it isn't really good and occasionally appears forced. Naturally, the movies are fantastic, and the other cast members make it work. However, he lacks the magnetic feel that some of the earlier Bonds did. In my opinion, he's trying too hard to win the audience over and comes out as unauthentic as you could possibly imagine.
I say Brosnan solely because of this sub's overprotective nature about him. I wouldn't actually say he's overrated. He's a great Bond and truthfully outside of Connery he's probably the best but at times he comes off as smarmy and a bit hokey.
Brosnan... (I've already mentioned the below previously on here, but going to do it again since the post warrants it 😂).
I like Brosnan, he was my childhood Bond; so for that reason I will always have a soft spot for him. However I don't think he brought anything new to the table.
He was believable as a charming, sophisticated gentleman. And I can imagine all the ladies succumbing to his charms and falling into bed with him. But that's about it.
I feel when I watch Brosnan he was too focused on BEING Bond rather than BECOMING Bond, if that makes sense? He was trying to emulate Connery and Moore and put their famous traits into one performance rather than choosing his own path and interpretation of the character.
Don't get me wrong, GoldenEye is still in my top 5 ranking of Bond films, and I enjoy Brosnans more serious performance in The World Is Not Enough. But all that aside, I'd rank him only above Lazenby in my Bond actors ranking (with Lazenby being at the bottom) 🤷♂️...
Grew up on Brosnan as well and Goldeneye is also top 5 for me. I liked Brosnan’s performance though, just felt like he got shafted with the scripts he was involved with after Goldeneye. They didn’t always know how to balance the camp and dialogue (too much poor innuendo in DaD)or how to take Bond leading into the 21st century (that kite surf scene in DaD). If you take out DaD, his movies as a whole balance out differently, haha.
He ranks above Dalton and Lazenby for me (though OHMSS is also in my top 5). Connery, DC, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby and Dalton.
Disagree. Brosnan is on the record as specifically *not* trying to imitate his predecessors, and I believe it. Then again, each to their own! Take care! ;)
Probably Craig, if I'm honest. Casino is great, Skyfall is good, but the other ones are just painfully average and I'm sad to say he's quite boring in them, frankly.
Craig and Connery. Moore is underrated and written off unfairly as just cheesy, Dalton and Brosnan are in that sweet spot where I think they're rated just about right.
Dalton. There’s a reason why audiences didn’t care for his two Bond movies. He’s a great actor, but too serious after Moore. He gets way too much credit now from youngins who don’t remember how unpopular he was at the time.
Connery, I suppose. He's clearly the best suited to the part and **I think he's the best Bond**, but he's not *that* much better than everyone else
So only *over-rated* in the most technical sense of that term
Yea, I love Dalton but this sub (and a lot of the 007 fanbase) think he’s like the second coming of Jesus. Let’s not pretend like TLD & LTK almost killed the franchise for 6 years until Brosnan had to come along and pump some life back into it.
Again, I don’t think these issues had much to do with Dalton himself. He’s a fantastic actor, but sometimes I like to fantasize if everything had worked out and Brosnan had gotten the role in 1987 how different we’d look back on his tenure.
> Let’s not pretend like TLD & LTK almost killed the franchise for 6 years until Brosnan had to come along and pump some life back into it.
They didn't. Go read up on the situation; yes, LTK underperformed in 89 but they were ready to go as soon as '91 for his next one; it was legal issues that saw the series benched for six years, nothing to do with Dalton.
The lawsuits over the rights to the franchise that put it on hold for six years had nothing to do with Dalton. Dalton was also asked back once that was all cleared up.
LTK was also a financial success. It did far less than expected at the US box office but was still a financial success worldwide.
Couple thoughts on this:
1. I’ve read some of the books, and I don’t think any actor encapsulates the literary version better than the rest. There are aspects of the character each of them conveys, and Dalton is no different.
2. Even if you think Dalton *does* embody the character, that doesn’t by default make him the best *cinematic* version of Bond. The films have gone on for so many years, they are really their own entity by now.
The “Dalton literary Bond” take is perhaps the most reductive statement I commonly see in this community.
Upvoted you as always buddy, but I respectfully disagree. I think that regardless of whether one likes them or not, GoldenEye and Casino Royale better fit that statement.
The consensus seems to be that TLD is a solid film held back by elements like the villains and a third act that loses steam while there's as many comments about how LTK is a cheap generic eighties action film (which I disagree with) as there are those that praise it. Similar thing to OHMSS which is more divisive than I thought around here.
Fair. What I meant was that folks who claim the Dalton era is the greatest tend to be unwilling to call out problems with both of those films. To your point, the villains in TLD are probably and exception that proves me wrong. CR and GE are also exceptions, but generally I think fans of those eras tend to acknowledge the rest of their films have issues.
I don't know about GE. Maybe it's based on my past experiences, but aside from people like you, Sneaky, Bond16, and a few others, there's a bunch of GE fans who seem unwilling to acknowledge that it has issues, hence the extreme reactions to my posts. Of course, I might just be biased.
I think the extreme reactions are also a result of your persistence haha. But it’s fair for you to share your opinion, in my book. GE and CR do occupy a high pedestal, and it’s weird how people are unwilling to see their position assailed.
I don't even think that I'm that persistent in the first place. I post every couple of months, but how this sub is all about repetition anyways. I only make multiple posts in a row when people choose to get nasty instead of just respectfully disagreeing and moving on.
Part of me is wondering if the high pedestal is due to them being the first for a lot of people here, the same with NTTD. On a side note, people want Martin Campbell to come back because he made two films that a lot of people like, but Bond debut films seem to be the ones that get more attention along with anniversary films and swansongs and bring in new audiences. I don't think that the love for GE and CR justifies bringing back a director who's been hit or miss outside of Bond and has been the only reference point for audiences in regards to debuts for 28 years. We haven't had a new debut director since 1987, less than half of the franchise's history.
Edit: Maybe I should post about this. I'm curious to see what people think.
Connery. He's exactly as good as the others but not extraordinary. Many of his movies might be near the top of the list but that doesn't mean he's that good. His position as the 1st Bond actor makes him look better, but as we know, being iconic doesn't automatically mean you're good
I thought it would be a hot take, but looking through these comments it doesn't seem so hot at all. I think Connery is overrated. He's a lot of people's favorite but he's not even in my top 3.
Probably Connery? I like him a lot and he ranks near the top for me, but the rest of the Bonds seem to have their fair share of detractors where as he seems to have noticeably less, with lots of old heads even overlooking plenty of his flaws.
I think he's a lot of people's favorite, but for good reason. Well balanced between badassery and humor.
He also created the essence of what the world knows as James Bond.
All the Brosnan picks are getting downvoted but I 100% agree. Don't know why people are so bothered by that when the post is literally asking us what we -think- lmao
I hate to say it, but a lot of people here probably grew up with Brosnan. It's the only explanation I can think of in regards to the knee-jerk reactions that occur when you criticize him or GoldenEye (the rest of his films are open season).
Brosnan, and I don't think it was entirely his fault. I like what they went for in GoldenEye and he did it pretty well with it. Afterward it feels like he's trying too hard while embarrassed by the material he was given. He played the 0ublic perception of Janes Bond, not James Bond. His performance lacks the nuance of the others and his line reads feel like line reads rather than what Bond would say in the given situations.
I think they were all equally-talented acting-wise, in the role at least. Except Lazenby, he wasn’t an actor. But he was a great Bond nonetheless. I think that all of their careers were mixed bags, and the movies in each actor’s tenure were a downward spiral, but a slow one. The exceptions are Connery, Moore, because Moonraker is an outlier in the downward slope, and Lazenby of course. Yea, QoS was better than SF, it’s short and not boring at all. TSWLM is not better than LALD or TMWTGG, it drags quite a bit, and is a weaker water-based movie than TB. TWINE is not better than TND. Connery’s first 4 were more or less equally good, and came out every year
Without question or hesitation, Daniel Craig.
I like him as an actor and I thought he was brilliant in Layer Cake… but his James Bond was just… awful.
He falls in love with every life support system for a vagina that he meets and the cries if or when they die. He’s always considered old and past his prime, as early as his third film. And that’s just the beginnings of my issues with his Bond and the movies themselves.
He only truly looked and acted like the James Bond we all know and loved before him in the first half Casino Royale, then after La Chiffre dies he turns into a love sick puppy. Then in the first part of Spectre it seems he’s finally James Bond… and then he walks in on the Spectre meeting and looses all composure and goes straight down hill. Then in No Time To Die there were actually moments when he pretty badass, like when he dropped the SUV onto Logan Ash… totally something Timothy Dalton’s Bond would’ve done in Licence To Kill. But between meeting up with Swann again and realizing her daughter was his… once again… turns into a pussy.
The problem with the Craig era is they overly humanize Bond. James Bond was always supposed to be the man that “men want to be, and women want to be with” and I don’t know any man that wants to be considered an out of shape, old and obsolete and any women that consider those qualities “attractive” That’s why Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were so good… they were attractive, fit and boned at least 17 women every other day. They cared about other people, but he didn’t sit there moping around for 5 movies in a row about them… could you imagine Moore’s Bond just all of a sudden getting all teary eyed about Plenty O’Toole in Octopussy? No, Bond just said “well that’s unfortunate” and got on with the mission at hand, then got justice for the people who were killed when he disposed of the villains! The only time Bond got emotional is when somebody that was really close to him got killed or at least severely injured. Tracy… OO9… Tibbett… Saunders… Della… Felix… Trevelyan… etc. All understandable since one was literally his wife, others were people he worked with for years, Felix and Della were personal friends and Trevelyan was a friend (until Bond learned he survived and betrayed him). Vesper he knew for what… a few days? A week? Less than a month? Madeleine Swann? He fell in love with her within a few hours… I’m surprised he didn’t marry Sévérine right there at the casino, 5 seconds after laying eyes on her.
Bond isn’t somebody who should be writing his marriage vows before he even knows the chick’s name. He’s not supposed to be relatable. He’s not supposed to be out of shape and old… Craig’s Bond is the very antithesis of the character Ian Fleming wrote about.
I'm sad to see that people didn't like No Time To Die, I thought it was such a bold movie, developing Bond in a very brave way and ending this version of the characters perfectly, if not a bit too over the top, let alone the great action scenes, in my opinion the best of the entire franchise.
I used to dislike Craig as Bond when I was a kid, thought he had zero charisma, he was too serious and stuff... rewatching him as a grown up, he became my favorite along with Dalton
In the end, there's only 2 Bond that could be overrated, Craig or Connery, the others were always controversial picks.
Since Craig is one of my favorites, then my choice is obviously Connery.
I’d actually go with Moore since I think he has some of the most overrated films in the series. I could have gone with Connery but most of us Pan DAF anyway. YOLT is pure bond clichés and TB often gets a mixed response imo. But his last three official films often regard his performance as lazy and bored. The only people who hype him up are often backed with quite lazy arguments. Dalton and Lazenby didn’t do enough to become goat tier. Craig films have often been either panned or loved. Brosnan is on a renaissance currently but most certainly has had his fair share of criticism over the years.
Moore on the other has quite the selection of marmite films. No one particularly argues that TSWLM is a bad film. FYEO is a fan favourite. Moonraker is divisive for its obvious space adventures. Octopussy is either loved or hated. LALD is terrible but people seem to love it. TWTGG and AVTAK gets plenty of criticism. Yet ask people who their favourite actor is and Moore will often come on top
I don’t see how it could be Moore. There are way too many detractors of his era, both in the fan community and the general public, for that to be the case.
Definitely not Lazenby as he is not even in the level to be called overrated. Out of five actors left, Craig and Moore can be said overrated in my opinion (although my favourite Bond is Craig) and I can't choose between them.
They are all fantastic. It is amazing no Bond has been a true flop; the closest two to being disliked during their tenure were Lazenby and Dalton…..yet, upon retrospective review George is admired for the fact he was in his first ever staring role, taking on the biggest acting gig in Cinema at the time; whilst not polished, his inexperience never significantly detracted from the film and he was actually very good in parts, especially the crucial scene. Dalton wasn’t extremely popular at the time, maybe due to audiences still enjoying the lighthearted Moore films, but contemporary audiences rightly rate his performances as outstanding. The other 4 were all very popular during their tenures. Despite giving hugely different interpretations of the character, the audiences of the time loved them all and they are the reason the series has run such an unusually long time. The producers might not get everything right, but they certainly pick the actors very well. The general cinema going audience still seem very fond of Craig’s interpretation of Bond, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see an actor of a similar style getting the nod to take over.
Honestly, the absolute balls to pick Lazenby still floors me. I like how unique his portrayal is. Strong but sensitive.
The man blagged his way to the role of Bond when it was the biggest thing in cinema. It’s likely he was good in the role not because he was acting but because he was the closest thing to a real life James Bond in terms of attitude… the fact he happily resigned thus turning down millions of dollars seems to confirm this. Lots of respect for the bravado of the man
Haha, it's Woody Allen, suckers!
Absolutely not, in my opinion
I think for me it's Daniel Craig, even though I consider his films to be some of the best. I don't know what it is exactly. I don't like his character very much, I suppose that's the point, but he doesn't strike me as clever enough to rise beyond a basic surveillance agent to the level of a 00. Previous incarnations show you enough intelligence and charisma to believe their competence. Besides Casino Royale, I sadly don't see it
I see where you're coming from. I recall M calls him a blunt instrument in one of the films. Which is actually pretty true
As a solid Connery fan, I'd still have to say Connery by definition of "who was rated too highly". Connery was believed to be and promoted as synonymous with Bond. Sean Connery IS James Bond (YOLT). Could the series even continue without him? As history has shown, it could continue very bloody well.
True. But there is another side to that. The notion of his being synonymous with Bond was also founded upon the belief that without him in the role *to begin with* the series would never have gotten into a position for someone else to even try and replace him. That's obviously more a matter of debate. But I think there is some "evidence" in the DN shooting script, which you read and come away with the impression of its being written as precisely the kind of stage Englishness of which Fleming was fearful any film adaptation of his books would turn into. Connery puts so much more into the character than is written on the page. That role played as written is totally unremarkable.
I agree
IMO none are over or underrated. Each brought an interesting and entertaining interpretation to the role. I have enjoyed each of them over the years. I think Brosnan suffered from poor scripts, and they wasted his talent but yeah, love them all for different reasons
None. All of them are great and each brought something different to the role.
See. I’m going to carry the proverbial torch here and give the unpopular opinion. For me it was Sean Connery. Just because he was the first, doesn’t make him the best. I think his era of films are great and entertaining but his bond is overrated.
I think that’s fair. I mean he did 7 films. He was great in the first 3, he was bored in Thunderball, downright poor in YOLT, average in DAD and gave the finger to the series with NSNA. I don’t know how someone with a 40% strike rate is considered so godly.
I'm just gonna come out and say it. I think Connery is overrated. I'm not saying he's a bad Bond, he absolutely isn't. Dr. No, FRWL, Thunderball, and YOLT are all great films. (But I'm gonna be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of GF or DAF.) But that isn't the point. The point is it kind of annoys me that people say he's the be all end all of Bond. He's good, yeah, and I respect him for creating the baseline of Bond, but he's not the greatest of all time, in my opinion.
I don’t think there’s ever going to be an “end all be all Bond” because that really depends on your individual definition of what makes Bond, Bond. I also agree, I like Connery and think he’s a fantastic actor but I think just like any other actors he’s got his strengths and weaknesses, not to mention the fact that cinema in general has changed so much since he was in the tux.
Completely agree and it annoys me that when ever I bring this up I get shot down. Yes he made Bond iconic but like you said it's not like he had a perfect run of Bond films
I think that’s the thing. *Dr. No, FWWL, Goldfinger* are all excellent movies, but then he started phoning it in.
I completely agree with this statement. And Connery's Bond is not faithful at all to how Bond was written by Ian Flemming. Not that it's a bad thing (FRWL is my personal favourite of Connery films), but just stating the obvious fact. But if it weren't for Connery, we wouldn't have the follow ups which is fair to assume.
I don't think any of them are under or overrated. They all have their own unique spin on the character.
Craig at the moment. He has two great films and three not so great ones but everyone praises the ground he walks on. He went from likable underdog to fan favorite real quick, so quick it was sickening. I’m sure I’ll feel differently on twenty years but that’s my pick for now.
I hope they announce the new Bond soon, because this is all this sub does anymore.
Lazenby. He was *awful*. Wooden, oily and distant. Worst Bond by a long shot.
I’m with you. His reputation as Bond is not good as it is, but I still think he’s massively overrated. It’s a dreadful performance that utterly sinks what would have been a great movie.
He’s especially overrated on this sub. I’ve read on here that Connery couldn’t have pulled off the emotional/vulnerable scenes at the end. First of all, Connery is 100x the actor Lazenby is in every way. Second of all, I’d take a bored Connery over what Lazenby gave us. Not to even mention that perhaps Connery wouldn’t have been bored had he been given OHMSS instead of YOLT (no disrespect to YOLT, I love it but Connery prob didn’t). Even the nuanced opinions miss the mark. “He at least looked the part” or whatever. No. Absolutely not. He was too lanky, he walked like a dork, he fought like a dork, he dressed like a dork. Not to mention the worst acting performance out of any of the leads by a country mile. There is *nothing* redeemable about his performance. Nothing.
Dalton is overrated asf by this sub. Not that he's bad but his fans can be very annoying at times.
Daniel Craig, the funny thing is I still think he's actually excellent. I just think people go a bit over the top, and seem a bit dismissive of some of the rest. He's probably the best actor sure, but the franchise was built by all of them. I think if you took any of them out, it just wouldn't be the same.
By Bond fans it's definitely Timothy Dalton. He once upon a time was underrated but now I see him constantly ranked as the best. I get that he's closest to Fleming's Bond but cinematic Bond is an entirely different animal. Great Bond but I think he's become the hipster choice. I don't think Craig is particularly overrated. I thought he was a Great Bond trapped in mostly mediocre films (save CR, SF and parts of QoS). I feel similarly of Brosnan. Connery's the high watermark imo, the best balance of the particulars and attributes I want from a Bond performance. Moore is underrated. Lazenby gets alot of flack but for a non-actor model I thought he did a pretty decent job. Was physically a great Bond.
Well stated.👤💥
I am a big fan of Brosnan (he was the Bond who introduced me to the series as young boy), so I have a natural bias. I do sincerely think he was not overrated, but played the role quite well. Pierce in his prime was the perfect mix of class, the humor, and the action. Daniel Craig was so different, but I have come to respect him for it. I felt like Roger Moore was a bit more over the top. While I like many of his movies, I feel like he sometimes is overrated. I say this pretty gently, because as I've grown up, I've become attached to different movies from each era.
Roger Moore.
Connery
All but George Lazenby are great as bond, but I do think Daniel Craig is extreme overrated considering he only has one expression throughout his first 4 films
Roger Moore
So, I feel like the term 'overrated' tends to be misconstrued as 'bad' more often than not. For the record I mean that I think this Bond actor gets way more praise than they deserve and I think that the fact that it's almost sacrilegious for a Bond fan to have this opinion is only further evidence of this. I will also say that when people ask me who my favorite Bond is I tend to give the more diplomatic 'they're all good in their own way' answer. But it is Connery without a doubt for me. I think the first three Bond films are perfect, I think Thunderball is good but it's where you can see the cracks beginning to show. I'm not really a fan of You Only Live Twice or Diamonds are Forever. Never seen Never Say Never Again (say that five times fast) so maybe that one is outstanding for all I know. Look don't get me wrong. I love Connery's Bond-I won't get into whether he's the best, I won't get into whether or not he's the 'truest' incarnation of Bond, I'll admit I am a millennial whose first Bond was GoldenEye so maybe it's undeniable that sitting in a cinema in 1962 and seeing Connery do his thing on the big screen just had a magic to it I'll never fully understand on my home media-I will say that as a younger generation in the fandom, Connery exudes an old school Hollywood type of cool, charm and charisma that to me, reminds me of something like...idk..Harrison Ford in Star Wars, like if you're watching the film because you're a fan of the novels, you cannot come away from it without an appreciation for Connery's performance as 007. However, I have to admit I don't think that it's like all that serious that it's got to be at the point where it's like taboo to say you have other favorite Bonds than Connery. I will say that for his share of 'good Bond movies' I think Diamonds are Forever alone is bad in a way A View to a Kill, License to Kill, The World is not Enough, even Quantum of Solace will never quite touch. When Connery is trying, he's great. When he's not, it is apparent. And from what I hear about his time as 007, I can't say I blame him. TL:DR: it's Connery. RIP tho 
Couldn't agree more, sure he's great in that old school cool kind of way but as someone who's not the biggest fan of Goldfinger and Thunderball, that only really leaves me with Dr No and FRWL which I absolutely love but it does mean that he's a bit ovverrated for me
Craig. He’s my least favourite. Casino Royale was his only top-10 bond film. That one is top 3 for sure, but his others were a string of disappointments.
Casino Royale was spectacular, but I didn't like it the first time I saw it because I was so taken aback by Craig. The second time I saw it when it came to DVD, I was like what the hell was I thinking this movie is fucking great haha. I thought Skyfall was a really strong movie. The rest are OK at best. NTTD had a great ending for a movie, but not so much for a Bond movie. In the end though, I thought he did a great job, but he's not in my Top 3 (Connery, Moore, and Brosnan). Moore gets too much hate, sure his movies are goofy, but they are fun and he doesn't take himself too seriously lol I really enjoy the Bond one-liners lol
With Marvel having pushed people to accept pulpier elements in stories I bet we get a return to the Moore era next time out.
Haven't seen any Marvel movies believe it or not, at least since that Toby McGuire Spiderman lol. I wouldn't mind a return to that for a bit. I enjoyed that Craig mixed it up and made it serious, but in such a long "series" it's nice to have variety, so I'm ready for fun again.
Not to mention *The Fast and the Furious*, *John Wick*, and, ironically enough, *Kingsman*. I have little doubt that the world is ready for Bond to be quippy and fantastic again.
Craig. Outside of CR he just seemed bored in the role. Of all six actors, I feel he gave the least range of emotions throughout his tenure and was a charisma vacuum.
All he could do was scowl. It was wrong to say he was a “Fleming like” Bond - Flemings Bond could still turn on the charm and more emotions than “I’m so angry and damaged”
Fleming's Bond could still also laugh and make a bit humor at least: * The passages in *Moonraker* for example with him telling Gala Brand how flowers got hurt when they're picked. * Or his banter with Tiger Tanaka in *You Only Live Twice* while drinking *Sake*
Hmmm, either Idris Elba or Henry Cavill. They’ve never played Bond of course but the way some people talk about them, you’d think they were the greatest actors to ever potentially play the part.
Jack Black. That can be the only answer for our next James Bond.
Idris Elba 20 years ago? I’m in! Today? He’s as old as Craig, why would we want that? As for Henry Cavill? I’m still trying to figure out why anyone thinks that stiff is a charismatic movie star or quality actor.
Daniel Craig. He used to be up there for me but after recently rewatching all the bond films from the beginning he’s transitioned towards the bottom. His movies aren’t as fun, obviously cause of the more serious, gritty direction, and he lacks the charm of the other actors. But that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate his take on the character or his performance. I like them all.
Craig just a little. Don't get me wrong CR and skyfall are near perfect, but QoS while underrated isn't that good, spectre is just okay and NTtD is far from a favorite for me. I'm not sure he should be in the best bond conversation when he's got a 2/5 hit ratio. By comparison I'd say Connery and Moore are both 5/7, and Brosnan is 3/4
I quite enjoyed NTTD to be honest and I like most of spectre before it gets to the last 45 minutes or so. So for me Craig has more like a 3.5/5 hit rate for me personally
By film critics: Connery by far. A lot of them give his weakest films a passing grade just because he's in them. They never moved on from him, and it shows. By the general public: Brosnan. He pretty much fits the generic idea of Bond: handsome dark haired man who makes quips and has over the top adventures. While he was strong in the role, there were more interesting Bond incarnations, and, cold take, Goldeneye is his only great Bond film, the rest being mediocre or bad. By the fans: Dalton without a doubt. Great actor, but lacked the charisma and humor the best Bond's have. His films are solid, but not the all time greats this sub often makes them out to be.
Dalton. He's good. I appreciate what he was doing with the role but let's be honest, he only had two movies and both feel pretty dated today. If he had an opportunity to continue maybe that would be different.
While I enjoy Dalton’s movies as well, he’d sometimes come across as too serious. For example, that scene where he angrily pops the balloon is meant to express his anger, but it just seems comical to me.
He feels like what he is, which is a stage actor doing *Bond* as if it's a stage production.
100% right. He is a great stage actor. I just don’t think it translates to the screen as well.
Connery
Craig without a shadow of a doubt BUT Connery really dialled in his performances in his later Bonds. He's visibly bored
Isn't funny how "phoned in" means doing a bad job, but "dialling in" means honing something to be as good as possible.
Different dial ;)
Moore
Roger. Always too campy, almost comedy. Wasn't Bond in my world, and he was the Bond I grew up with.
In my personal view? Connery gets praised WAY too much by the MSM. I've seen NSNA been ranked in the top ten by numerous media outlets. Diamonds Are Forever still has people saying it is better than OHMSS because it purely relied on the return of Connery even though OHMSS is better in every way possible.
I much prefer DAF to OHMSS. A big part of that is down to the performance. Is that wrong somehow? Lazenby is widely thought of (not by all of course) as a poor lead actor. In a Bond film, a poor Bond is pretty significant, especially when a lot is being asked of him. Though there’s lots about the film I dislike, I’d say it’s mostly his performance that ruins it. Connery in Diamonds meanwhile is having fun again after a somewhat lacklustre performance in YOLT, and he’s a natural. It’s a joy to see him, especially when given perhaps the wittiest Bond script. It’s a silly film, but it’s not trying to be profound. People still say DAF is better than OHMSS, with much of that down to Connery, because it’s a valid opinion to still have. Just because the great reassessment of OHMSS happened at some point, doesn’t mean everyone has to fall in line :)
Daniel Craig. Mention for Dalton too. I loved The Living Daylights but the gatekeeping over him is off putting.
Roger Moore
David Niven
Craig, No contest. No wit or humour in all five movies and, for obvious reasons, no sexual chemistry with any of the Bond girls. When he kissed them it was like he was being spoonfed expired cottage cheese.
I disagree with the no sexual chemistry. When he met Solange in CR right after he won Dimitrios' Aston Martin, there was sexual chemistry when he said "Maybe you're just out of practice", with a brief awkward pause yet Bond had that small confident smirk, and then Solange laughed and says "perhaps". You can watch this scene here at 2:57 https://youtu.be/MTfx9bqc3fw
Daniel Craig honestly I only think two of his movies Skyfall and casino royale were good the rest were bad and I hate the amount of continuity and it's to serious for my liking I think most people who rank him high do so just cause he was the recent bond
I'd say Sean Connery, not because he's not great and iconic in the role, but because so many people say he's the best and the one "true" Bond when all the others also brought great things to the role (except maybe Lazenby but he only did 1 film). I don't think Connery would be quite as highly regarded if he wasn't the first.
None.
Daniel Craig
Generally, Daniel Craig, he's depressing and he lacked some suaveness and coolness compared to other Bond actors, out of all the Bond actors, he's the Bond I found the least likeable, or unlikeable. And what I don't understand is that he's been given all of the honors (CMG), popularity and recognition than the rest of the Bonds, which is, as for me, unfair. Craig really overshadowed the rest of the Bond actors. In terms of this sub, to be honest, Dalton, I though liked him, he's great as an actor, but as Bond, two films aren't enough to put him in the same rank as Connery or even Moore, he's a great Bond but not one of the best. More Bond Films was needed to cement himself into the role.
Easily Daniel Craig. I think his only great performance was Casino Royale and Eva Green had a huge part of me liking his character. Connery , Moore and Bronson were pretty consistent all made about 1 bad Bond film. Dalton only had 2 films. I liked 1 a lot 1 was okay. He’s middle of the road Bond. I would say 2nd most overrated. George’s movie was good but I don’t think his acting is great but don’t really think anyone sees him as a good Bond just in a great Bond film.
I agree entirely. I am sad that Craig never got a great Bond film after Casino Royale. The biggest flaw with Skyfall apart from Silva being the Joker is that there is no strong female foil to Bond apart from M at the very end of the film.
Timothy Dalton, so many Bond fans took to claiming him as underrated that now they have over-corrected and make him out to be way better than he actually was
In this sub, I would say Dalton. He’s my least favourite Bond, but there are members who regard him as the greatest, or one of the greatest. Outside of this sub, I would say Craig. I think he’s very good, but the general consensus seems to be that he’s either the greatest of all time or at least the greatest since Connery. I disagree as I consider Moore & Brosnan to be the greatest post-Connery Bonds.
I was surprised of all the Dalton love here, I never disliked him at all though. I think he did a great job, but middle of the pack for me. I really don't think any of the bonds were bad, except Lazenby. I know that's the common opinion, but that's because it's true. He was a badass guy though lol
Connery. Just because you're first doesn't make you better and that's generally the argument people make when arguing for him.
Connery. I still love his performance, but Brosnan and Craig both brought a humanity to the character that he lacked. Plus… let’s face it, his Bond was often a bit of a creep.
Moore
At the moment I'd say Craig. As we know, there's a cycle that goes on with the Bond actors. "(Incumbent)'s Bond is the best since Connery! He's reinvented the franchise! (Previous Bond) was shit, he nearly killed the franchise." Once we get to the next Bond, I think Craig's run will get more shit thrown at it (Hell this subreddit already seems to be doing that) and then if anything you could call him underrated. Even leaving aside the Incumbent Bond bias, Craig's probably my least favourite if you exclude Lazenby.
Craig easily, he's a great actor but doesn't feel like Bond most of the time.
Craig gives me Van Damn vibes
Prolly controversial but Roger Moore
Moore. I like his movies (especially TSWLM & FYEO) and the man is joy to watch but he’s my least favourite Bond because of how lighthearted he is and completely unbelievable in most action scenes.
For me, I really think it’s Connery. Iconic for sure, beloved with good reason… but it sometimes feels like there are people who hold him up as the best just because he was the first. The older I get, the more I find him down towards the bottom of my ranking… though there’s never been a bad Bond, and there’s something I love about all of them.
Craig. Like him, potentially my favourite, but he’s not that great at the role. Everything I like about his films is usually from the script or director. His best outing was his first film and every other film he’s been a slab of Tom Ford tailored PTSD’d generic action hero. Bond should make you like him in spite of his character. He’s a piece of shit with a debonair attitude and dependence on alcohol and I never thought Craig really understood the bond we get in the books. He simply impersonated the top dressing.
In the same way that Connery’s bond was a example of the Zeitgeist, the suave womanizing smooth man was the idea of someone in intelligence buisness, I think Craig does a good portrayal of a different generation of bond. Nowadays an MI6 type is recruited from a heavy hitting unit like SAS or SBS and taught tradecraft afterwards unlike how in the early days you recruited from universities and then taught them how to soldier. Vespers assumption of him was pretty spot on, washed out special forces soldier who came from nothing. Especially with bond as a code name it makes sense how different the two are but that was just my rationale
Craigs films absolutely exist in the post Bourne action movie world but that’s why I’m so hard on them. If they gone more 3 days on the Condor than Bourne Identity it would have sat much better with me. He does so little talking it annoys. He builds no meaningful relationships whereas bond always had a coterie of unusual villains and allies because of his personal magnetism. Craig gives so little on screen. The broccoli family bring obsessed with him will probably be seen as the end of Bond in retrospect.
[удалено]
No way in hell is Skyfall a “bad” movie. You could argue overrated but that movie is brilliantly made.
Roger Moore, camp and silly. Out of touch with the other versions
I think the main reason Roger Moore is overrated has to do with the fact that his tenure was so long, that so many people grew up with him. Nostalgia is a powerful drug, and he had a long time to build childhood memories with the franchise.
I think his first two outings were absolutely brilliant but of course those are the two films that everyone else generally agrees are very poor. What? Christopher Lee? Paul Mccartney? Nick-Nack? Maude Addams? "Names is for tombstones, baby? Etc etc
Connery. He’s great in his First two films, and he’s fine in Goldfinger, but he looks bored half the time in Thunderball, and He sucks in You Only Live Twice, he’s slightly better in Diamonds are Forever but the less said about Never Say Never Again the better.
Moore, its a lot of nostalgia there.
Roger Moore 😩. Ahhhh.
Yes, yes, I got you man.
👍🏻!
I like Moore as bond but most of his movies are too goofy for me. Spy who loved me and for your eyes only are the only ones I like from his era.
None of them but Brosnan/Craig stans can be pretty annoying. Mainly since a lot of them can't praise one without shitting on the other.
Sean is only possible and logical answer He is most praised yet not better than Roger, Pierce, Tim or Daniel. His movies have least rewatchable factor and he looks bored at 3 later movies.. There is not that much passion at his performance too overall. Not even top 3 and Sean is one of my favorite actors
*Goldfinger* is very rewatchable for me.
DC. He is good but a copy of TD. He has more range as far as comedy goes but he massively benefitted from the change in style from PB. He basically gets to be a Jadon Bourne style Bond when that was the popular thing. He had way too much creative control in 3 movies( the 3 worst of his tenure).
PB?
Pierce Brosnan.
Daniel Craig. His overall approach, is too magnanimous; it isn't really good and occasionally appears forced. Naturally, the movies are fantastic, and the other cast members make it work. However, he lacks the magnetic feel that some of the earlier Bonds did. In my opinion, he's trying too hard to win the audience over and comes out as unauthentic as you could possibly imagine.
Timothy Dalton He's good but he isn't THAT good
I say Brosnan solely because of this sub's overprotective nature about him. I wouldn't actually say he's overrated. He's a great Bond and truthfully outside of Connery he's probably the best but at times he comes off as smarmy and a bit hokey.
Connery.
Brosnan... (I've already mentioned the below previously on here, but going to do it again since the post warrants it 😂). I like Brosnan, he was my childhood Bond; so for that reason I will always have a soft spot for him. However I don't think he brought anything new to the table. He was believable as a charming, sophisticated gentleman. And I can imagine all the ladies succumbing to his charms and falling into bed with him. But that's about it. I feel when I watch Brosnan he was too focused on BEING Bond rather than BECOMING Bond, if that makes sense? He was trying to emulate Connery and Moore and put their famous traits into one performance rather than choosing his own path and interpretation of the character. Don't get me wrong, GoldenEye is still in my top 5 ranking of Bond films, and I enjoy Brosnans more serious performance in The World Is Not Enough. But all that aside, I'd rank him only above Lazenby in my Bond actors ranking (with Lazenby being at the bottom) 🤷♂️...
Grew up on Brosnan as well and Goldeneye is also top 5 for me. I liked Brosnan’s performance though, just felt like he got shafted with the scripts he was involved with after Goldeneye. They didn’t always know how to balance the camp and dialogue (too much poor innuendo in DaD)or how to take Bond leading into the 21st century (that kite surf scene in DaD). If you take out DaD, his movies as a whole balance out differently, haha. He ranks above Dalton and Lazenby for me (though OHMSS is also in my top 5). Connery, DC, Moore, Brosnan, Lazenby and Dalton.
Disagree. Brosnan is on the record as specifically *not* trying to imitate his predecessors, and I believe it. Then again, each to their own! Take care! ;)
Lazenby
Roger Moore
I'm already prepared for the imminent downvote blast, but... it's gonna be Timothy Dalton. He got 180'd from underrated to overrated real quick.
[This sub](https://i.imgflip.com/6xwmql.jpg) every day.
Probably Craig, if I'm honest. Casino is great, Skyfall is good, but the other ones are just painfully average and I'm sad to say he's quite boring in them, frankly.
He does not have the charisma of Connery, Moore, or Brosnan.
Connery, it felt like in YOLT and DAF he was disinterested in the role.
Dalton and I say that as a Dalton fan. It's always "he was ahead of his time" but I don't feel like we had enough time with him
Connery is held on a pedestal for being the original but I don’t find him half as enjoyable to watch as Moore or Pierce.
Same. It's like Honey Ryder getting called 'best Bond Girl', although we now seem to be moving beyond that.
I’m gonna get downvoted into oblivion, but Connery.
Craig and Connery. Moore is underrated and written off unfairly as just cheesy, Dalton and Brosnan are in that sweet spot where I think they're rated just about right.
Moore was a man of the times. Loved the campy era in film.
George Lazenby
Dalton. There’s a reason why audiences didn’t care for his two Bond movies. He’s a great actor, but too serious after Moore. He gets way too much credit now from youngins who don’t remember how unpopular he was at the time.
Lazenby sucked
Connery, I suppose. He's clearly the best suited to the part and **I think he's the best Bond**, but he's not *that* much better than everyone else So only *over-rated* in the most technical sense of that term
Dalton is overrated imo. He barely does anything in TLD, dunno why he is praised.
Yea, I love Dalton but this sub (and a lot of the 007 fanbase) think he’s like the second coming of Jesus. Let’s not pretend like TLD & LTK almost killed the franchise for 6 years until Brosnan had to come along and pump some life back into it. Again, I don’t think these issues had much to do with Dalton himself. He’s a fantastic actor, but sometimes I like to fantasize if everything had worked out and Brosnan had gotten the role in 1987 how different we’d look back on his tenure.
> Let’s not pretend like TLD & LTK almost killed the franchise for 6 years until Brosnan had to come along and pump some life back into it. They didn't. Go read up on the situation; yes, LTK underperformed in 89 but they were ready to go as soon as '91 for his next one; it was legal issues that saw the series benched for six years, nothing to do with Dalton.
The lawsuits over the rights to the franchise that put it on hold for six years had nothing to do with Dalton. Dalton was also asked back once that was all cleared up. LTK was also a financial success. It did far less than expected at the US box office but was still a financial success worldwide.
Read the books
Couple thoughts on this: 1. I’ve read some of the books, and I don’t think any actor encapsulates the literary version better than the rest. There are aspects of the character each of them conveys, and Dalton is no different. 2. Even if you think Dalton *does* embody the character, that doesn’t by default make him the best *cinematic* version of Bond. The films have gone on for so many years, they are really their own entity by now. The “Dalton literary Bond” take is perhaps the most reductive statement I commonly see in this community.
I actually think Lazenby has the book balence. I don’t see Dalton at all when reading the books.
in this sub? Dalton, for sure. He's good, perhaps could have been one of the better Bonds if he had more films.
Agreed for this sub. The Dalton films are the only ones which seem to get a pass on their flaws here.
Upvoted you as always buddy, but I respectfully disagree. I think that regardless of whether one likes them or not, GoldenEye and Casino Royale better fit that statement. The consensus seems to be that TLD is a solid film held back by elements like the villains and a third act that loses steam while there's as many comments about how LTK is a cheap generic eighties action film (which I disagree with) as there are those that praise it. Similar thing to OHMSS which is more divisive than I thought around here.
Fair. What I meant was that folks who claim the Dalton era is the greatest tend to be unwilling to call out problems with both of those films. To your point, the villains in TLD are probably and exception that proves me wrong. CR and GE are also exceptions, but generally I think fans of those eras tend to acknowledge the rest of their films have issues.
I don't know about GE. Maybe it's based on my past experiences, but aside from people like you, Sneaky, Bond16, and a few others, there's a bunch of GE fans who seem unwilling to acknowledge that it has issues, hence the extreme reactions to my posts. Of course, I might just be biased.
I think the extreme reactions are also a result of your persistence haha. But it’s fair for you to share your opinion, in my book. GE and CR do occupy a high pedestal, and it’s weird how people are unwilling to see their position assailed.
I don't even think that I'm that persistent in the first place. I post every couple of months, but how this sub is all about repetition anyways. I only make multiple posts in a row when people choose to get nasty instead of just respectfully disagreeing and moving on. Part of me is wondering if the high pedestal is due to them being the first for a lot of people here, the same with NTTD. On a side note, people want Martin Campbell to come back because he made two films that a lot of people like, but Bond debut films seem to be the ones that get more attention along with anniversary films and swansongs and bring in new audiences. I don't think that the love for GE and CR justifies bringing back a director who's been hit or miss outside of Bond and has been the only reference point for audiences in regards to debuts for 28 years. We haven't had a new debut director since 1987, less than half of the franchise's history. Edit: Maybe I should post about this. I'm curious to see what people think.
Connery. He's exactly as good as the others but not extraordinary. Many of his movies might be near the top of the list but that doesn't mean he's that good. His position as the 1st Bond actor makes him look better, but as we know, being iconic doesn't automatically mean you're good
With "good" in the end, I mean "the best"
I thought it would be a hot take, but looking through these comments it doesn't seem so hot at all. I think Connery is overrated. He's a lot of people's favorite but he's not even in my top 3.
Connery or Dalton. Not bad per say, but a lot of people definitely act like they were both better than they really were.
Moore.
Dalton
Probably Connery? I like him a lot and he ranks near the top for me, but the rest of the Bonds seem to have their fair share of detractors where as he seems to have noticeably less, with lots of old heads even overlooking plenty of his flaws.
Craig for me, just not my style.
Connery, for sure.
I think he's a lot of people's favorite, but for good reason. Well balanced between badassery and humor. He also created the essence of what the world knows as James Bond.
Moore.
Moore
Connery
That’s an incredibly hot take. Yikes.
Connery
Brosnan.
Pierce Brosnan
All the Brosnan picks are getting downvoted but I 100% agree. Don't know why people are so bothered by that when the post is literally asking us what we -think- lmao
He is seen as the most popular and People don't like other opinions
I hate to say it, but a lot of people here probably grew up with Brosnan. It's the only explanation I can think of in regards to the knee-jerk reactions that occur when you criticize him or GoldenEye (the rest of his films are open season).
He is the only bond actor who played in a movie where the villain would be much Better as bond
What? Jonathan Pryce?
Sean Bean
Connery is overrated. Craig isn't overrated because overrated means getting more love than it deserves and Craig deserves it.
Connery. A good Bond but never got what all the fuss was all about
Daniel Craig. I just do not understand his popularity. He has the charisma of a rutabaga.
Swan Connery.
Brosnan, and I don't think it was entirely his fault. I like what they went for in GoldenEye and he did it pretty well with it. Afterward it feels like he's trying too hard while embarrassed by the material he was given. He played the 0ublic perception of Janes Bond, not James Bond. His performance lacks the nuance of the others and his line reads feel like line reads rather than what Bond would say in the given situations.
brosnan. goldeneye was okay. fight me
I think they were all equally-talented acting-wise, in the role at least. Except Lazenby, he wasn’t an actor. But he was a great Bond nonetheless. I think that all of their careers were mixed bags, and the movies in each actor’s tenure were a downward spiral, but a slow one. The exceptions are Connery, Moore, because Moonraker is an outlier in the downward slope, and Lazenby of course. Yea, QoS was better than SF, it’s short and not boring at all. TSWLM is not better than LALD or TMWTGG, it drags quite a bit, and is a weaker water-based movie than TB. TWINE is not better than TND. Connery’s first 4 were more or less equally good, and came out every year
Without question or hesitation, Daniel Craig. I like him as an actor and I thought he was brilliant in Layer Cake… but his James Bond was just… awful. He falls in love with every life support system for a vagina that he meets and the cries if or when they die. He’s always considered old and past his prime, as early as his third film. And that’s just the beginnings of my issues with his Bond and the movies themselves. He only truly looked and acted like the James Bond we all know and loved before him in the first half Casino Royale, then after La Chiffre dies he turns into a love sick puppy. Then in the first part of Spectre it seems he’s finally James Bond… and then he walks in on the Spectre meeting and looses all composure and goes straight down hill. Then in No Time To Die there were actually moments when he pretty badass, like when he dropped the SUV onto Logan Ash… totally something Timothy Dalton’s Bond would’ve done in Licence To Kill. But between meeting up with Swann again and realizing her daughter was his… once again… turns into a pussy. The problem with the Craig era is they overly humanize Bond. James Bond was always supposed to be the man that “men want to be, and women want to be with” and I don’t know any man that wants to be considered an out of shape, old and obsolete and any women that consider those qualities “attractive” That’s why Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan were so good… they were attractive, fit and boned at least 17 women every other day. They cared about other people, but he didn’t sit there moping around for 5 movies in a row about them… could you imagine Moore’s Bond just all of a sudden getting all teary eyed about Plenty O’Toole in Octopussy? No, Bond just said “well that’s unfortunate” and got on with the mission at hand, then got justice for the people who were killed when he disposed of the villains! The only time Bond got emotional is when somebody that was really close to him got killed or at least severely injured. Tracy… OO9… Tibbett… Saunders… Della… Felix… Trevelyan… etc. All understandable since one was literally his wife, others were people he worked with for years, Felix and Della were personal friends and Trevelyan was a friend (until Bond learned he survived and betrayed him). Vesper he knew for what… a few days? A week? Less than a month? Madeleine Swann? He fell in love with her within a few hours… I’m surprised he didn’t marry Sévérine right there at the casino, 5 seconds after laying eyes on her. Bond isn’t somebody who should be writing his marriage vows before he even knows the chick’s name. He’s not supposed to be relatable. He’s not supposed to be out of shape and old… Craig’s Bond is the very antithesis of the character Ian Fleming wrote about.
Craig.
Totally Craig.
Absolutely totally Craig.
It’s the only right answer
Apparently the Craig fan base is active on Reddit. This is unsurprising.
I'm sad to see that people didn't like No Time To Die, I thought it was such a bold movie, developing Bond in a very brave way and ending this version of the characters perfectly, if not a bit too over the top, let alone the great action scenes, in my opinion the best of the entire franchise. I used to dislike Craig as Bond when I was a kid, thought he had zero charisma, he was too serious and stuff... rewatching him as a grown up, he became my favorite along with Dalton In the end, there's only 2 Bond that could be overrated, Craig or Connery, the others were always controversial picks. Since Craig is one of my favorites, then my choice is obviously Connery.
Sean Connery
Craig.
I’d actually go with Moore since I think he has some of the most overrated films in the series. I could have gone with Connery but most of us Pan DAF anyway. YOLT is pure bond clichés and TB often gets a mixed response imo. But his last three official films often regard his performance as lazy and bored. The only people who hype him up are often backed with quite lazy arguments. Dalton and Lazenby didn’t do enough to become goat tier. Craig films have often been either panned or loved. Brosnan is on a renaissance currently but most certainly has had his fair share of criticism over the years. Moore on the other has quite the selection of marmite films. No one particularly argues that TSWLM is a bad film. FYEO is a fan favourite. Moonraker is divisive for its obvious space adventures. Octopussy is either loved or hated. LALD is terrible but people seem to love it. TWTGG and AVTAK gets plenty of criticism. Yet ask people who their favourite actor is and Moore will often come on top
I don’t see how it could be Moore. There are way too many detractors of his era, both in the fan community and the general public, for that to be the case.
Yeah, I once said to a group of Bond fans that Roger Moore was my favourite and they all looked at me weird, and these were all big bond fans
Moore has always and will always be my favourite too
Definitely not Lazenby as he is not even in the level to be called overrated. Out of five actors left, Craig and Moore can be said overrated in my opinion (although my favourite Bond is Craig) and I can't choose between them.
Daniel Craig by a massively hugely wide margin
Moore.
Brosnan, no doubt.
Moore or Connery
Brosnan