Grew up with Sean Connery as James Bond. Tolerated (some just barely) all the incarnations of the Bond persona after Connery hung up his Walther PPK.

Connery just had this raw animal power oozing out of him which told everyone he was going to be one tough SOB. And his aura of confidence was like a brick thrown thru a plate glass window.

But . . .

Daniel Craig is just flat dangerous. It seems he's impervious to pain and this James Bond LIKES to take the nasties to the bad guys! So my vote goes for Daniel Craig as the best James Bond.

Views: 59

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree that Daniel Craig is a more violent, nasty Bond, but as someone whose read all of Ian Fleming's James Bond books, I'm not quite sure that's what the author had in mind. To my way of thinking, Bond will forever be tall and dark-haired, and Sean Connery perfectly embodied that suave, debonair, alluringly sexy and yet very dangerous guy.

I agree with your statement that Daniel Craig is just flat dangerous and for me, that's the problem. He's dangerous, not sexy or alluring, and for a Bond to be off-putting to the women in the audience (and believe me, Craig's Bond is) is just all wrong.

Thaat's why I didn't bother to see any of Craig's bond films after I viewed the first one.
Daniel Craig is by far the Bond that best fits Fleming's novels. The sexy and alluring stuff is more in-line with movie Bond.
The second film featuring Craig as Bond wasn't his fault. That was a script problem. But the flaw I think that will appeal to women in Craig's version IS his hostility toward women--and that in the first movie, he fell totally in love with one who, in the end, died to save him.

If the writers have any sense of a story-line, they'll play this line out more and more. But I wouldn't hold my breath,
Gotta disagree here, B.R.--Connery had toughness, sophistication and humor. Roger Moore was all glib sophistication and no toughness. Craig can do the tough guy, but who cares what kind of martini he drinks? Worse, he can't deliver a walk-off one-liner for shit. A lot of the Connery vehicles were preposterous--all of them, really--but what stood out was Connery's presence. The guy could really act, too--he's great in "The Man Who Would Be King," if you've never seen it.
Love that Connery/Caine movie. Haven't seen it in ages. John Huston was one of the great screenwriters and directors.
Jon, Connery was superb in his time.
were he the same age now, to repeat the part--I wouldn't want him to do it.
the world has changed too much.
there is no longer a place for a tongue in cheek villian--nor for the Bond as portrayed in the 1960's, that was forty years ago.
He was a gorgeously sexy and charming Bond OF THE 1960'S.
Daniel Craig is, to me TODAY'S Bond.
As a woman I find him interesting and extremely sexy. Extremely.
I also find that I see a vulnerable side to the character now--saw it in both of his films, and you know what? I like it. it makes him more human and less aritifical.
Jon, I agree Sean is/was a superlative actor. And I agree he brought a high degree of sophistication and wit with him in his Bond character. But I suspect a lot of that was script--especially the humor. Craig's script didn't have much, if any, humor (and I'd like to say there seemed to be a tad more humor in the second
Bond movie; but still, hardly noticable).

Craig's Bond has room to grow. He has opportunity to, as M said in the first one, 'not be the thug' and grow into his sophistication. Craig's version we see a Work In Progress. I think that's what makes this version so exciting.
Pierce Brosnan's definitely my favorite, and I've been around long enough to have lived through them all. I dig that suave, debonair quality. I dislike Craig as Bond, though I've liked him in other roles. And Sean Connery was just too hairy, though I like Craig Ferguson's impersonations of him.

At least my taste is consistent - back in the day, I preferred Paul McCartney to John Lennon (on most days, anyway.) Paul hasn't aged as well as Mick and Keith, though, but at least they're alive.

Julie Lomoe's Musings Mysterioso
Just heard on the radio, today is Mick's birthday. He's 66.
Wow, he's doing great! He moved beautifully when I heard the Stones a couple of years ago - and Keith could still get down on his knees and up again while playing. Michael Jackson should have been so lucky, or sensible.
Julie, I really do believe Brosnan got a bummer for a deal with his Bond continuation. There's no reason in the world they could not have begun making 'grittier and meaner' Bond movies, and taken out all the glitzs and gadgets--using Brosnan instead of Craig.

I agree with you in the idea that Pierce Brosnan is an underrated actor. You can be mean and gritty--and still be suave and sophisticated at the same time. Brosnan can deliver that on ever take.
I agree. I think it was a matter of ageism. Brosnan was really good in a film where he played a wasted, over-the-hill criminal a couple of years ago, but I can't remember the name of it.


CrimeSpace Google Search

© 2024   Created by Daniel Hatadi.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service