"1.- Moore ( He's the most elegant, funny, not a butcher )
2.- Brosnan ( He did a great job, but there's something about him that doesn't give him the A+)
3.- Dalton ( He's VERY cold, he didn't had charisma)
4.- Connery ( Boring ... I can't watch his movies twice except Goldfinger)
5.- Lazemby ( We didn't have the chance to get to know him better)
6.- Craig ( I don't like the "new" Bond idea of him)"

Ahh sorry if i made a mistake in the grammar or spelling part ( English is not my foreing language, I speak spanish.

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

1. Connery
2. Brosnan
3. Moore
4. Dalton
5.Lazenby
6.Craig

1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

lazenby issuperb at action scenes and a believable ass kicker becausde in real life he's a pretty tough guy and ohmss is decent

1  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

"Roger Moore was the best James Bond, Sean comes in second. Roger was my favorite. "

Like your answer

0  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you find this valuable? Do you?    

craig is too blonde to be bond

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

Pierce Brosnan is in my mind the best actor to play James Bond and all my friends and family agree. Daniel Craig was really good in Casino Royale but he has only done one film so it is way to early saying hes the best ever yet.

1Pierce Brosnan
2 Sean Connery
3 Daniel Craig
4Roger Moore
5Timothy Dalton
6George Lazenby

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

Wrong on almost all points. Fleming called him a truck-driver ("lorry driver," actually), but once the money started rolling in, he was perfectly happy with Connery, and, in fact, then wrote in a Scottish background for 007.

Fleming choice was David Niven as Bond, along with James Mason or Stewart Granger (or "James Stewart" in the UK, which is why so many books say "Jimmy Stewart" --meaning the American star of "It's a Wonderful life" and "Vertigo"--when he would have been all wrong for the part.)

Broccoli preferred pal Cary Grant who was best man at his wedding to Dana.

I think they considered Roger Moore, but the stated reason that he had to bow out because he was working on "The Saint" is false because the dates are all wrong. "Maverick," maybe, but not "The Saint."

I agree that Brosnan is "Number 2," but not in the way you mean.

And to say that Lazenby was better than Dalton is just...unstudied.

As far as the scripts--Connery was better even with bad scripts like "You Only Live Twice," and "Thunderball" (not a favorite of mine--it's a bit sloppy). And as the same writers worked on "Diamonds Are Forever," "Live and Let Die," and "The Man with the Golden Gun," one still has to say that Connery wins out over Moore.

This, of course, doesn't say that Moore was bad. He wasn't and is vastly superior to Lazenby (everyone is!), even though he never really thought that Bond was the least bit realistic. Moore's problem is that he was trying to distance himself from Connery's portrayal--which he was really quite successful at doing--so he deserves a lot of credit for brio and ingenuity.

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

Nothing to be sorry about. Brosnan is a fine actor, and he was very popular, but looking at his legacy, I've got to say that as far as bringing anything fresh to the character, he fell back on the image of Bond from the Moore era (he says he was aiming for Connery, but in my opinion, he fell far short, except for the Connery of 'Diamonds Are Forever')--that is, everything looked REALLY easy and the stunts fell back on comedy--as opposed to having an undercurrent of desperation (Bond is a stubborn antagonist, a pit-bull who won't let go). At the same time, Brosnan's Bond could get hurt (TWINE--though it's only a factor in the mission once), and his relationship with women was more "caring," though they were still disposable. If I were to pigeon-hole Brosnan, I'd say he was the "neurotic" Bond. His actions and his thoughts didn't sync up. I think that was why, even though there was something in every Brosnan performance I admired, I didn't enjoy his films--and as Bond is the guy on-screen all the time, he's gotta be the key to that--and thought I might be getting to old to enjoy the series any more.

But no, all it takes is a different, more consistent interpretation of the character, and a more solid screenplay, and I'm back.

Oh, one other thing--I get the impression Brosnan thought Bond was "noble." Bond's not noble--he's a cad! A not very nice, rather brutal man who kills people, whose emotions can be touched by the right woman, but she's got to be VERY right to insert herself into his business-like focus on the mission of killing people. Every Bond actor--including the much-maligned Lazenby--played him like that, except for Brosnan--the "White Knight."

That's not the true James Bond. It's certainly not Ian Fleming's James Bond.

I guess I'm the one who has to give their condolences.

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