It surprises me that Sean Connery is not my favorite bond. He is one of my all-time favorite actors. I think his looks, charm and charisma ripened with age. Wonder how he would have played an older Bond? Think I would have fallen in love. I also think if he'd played the character at a later time and the "sexism" aspect was tuned more to "suavely complementary" rather than such overt, potentially demeaning displays... I would have been more responsive to the character. Being able to communicate those "steamy" intentions in a cool, clever, devilishly sly way - oooh - that about does me in.

Another surprise to me is that when I think about it, I really loved how Pierce Brosnan played the role. I'm not saying he got the best movies. I don't think I even saw the last one he made because of the reviews it got, and I didn't want to "spoil" the ideal for myself. But, the portrayal of the character he delivered played on the notes of my every "Bond" fantasy - Dry, saucy, savoir-faire, dripping with weak-in-the-knees charms, sharp intellect, supremely self-confident, suave, quick in wit and response time, clever... the total package.

So, my rating list would be...

1. Moore (He had the clever, debonaire, class-act thing in spades.)
2. Brosnan (He brought out the "class-act" bond, all the way. [see above])
3. Connery (He's just generally SPLENDID.)
4. Craig (I don't know the other two bonds, so Craig had no real competition for this spot. Casino Royal was a great film and I thought Craig did a great job with it. There's a lot of potential for this new brand of Bond, I think. Kind of hard to make the switch mentally, in some ways, to accept the change. But as another commenter wrote, each portrayal can be appreciated for the different qualities it brings out in a fantastic, truly iconic and enduring archetypal character.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply

Brosnan = style + substance

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

Show Last Reply