Most underrated Bond actor

Jordan16

Who is the most overrated Bond actor?
In my opinion, it would be George Lazenby because even though he did only one film, I think that it was spectacular and he would be the best man for the job. Also, Roger Moore is amazing but is considered silly. Anyway, give me your opinions!;)

arthur pringle

Agree with Lazenby and Roger Moore deserves a lot more credit for helping Bond to survive the post-Connery era. The big one is Timothy Dalton though. I thought he was really interesting but he tends to divide Bond fans a lot. He's almost overtaken Lazenby as the 'forgotten' Bond.

Sweepy the Cat

SC was a good Bond in DN-TB which are considered to be the best but he lost interest and put on a lousy performance for YOLT. He was bribed back for DAF but wouldn'tstay longer than that. He should have quit while ahead and respect Bond aa little more. If it wasn't for Bond I bet he wouldn't have got as far as he has now.

GL was a great actor but not a very believable Bond. He had some ace fights but apparantly while filming he was a cockey b@stard and quit after just one film think a bunch of hippy films like 'Easy Rider' would dominate the seventies.

RM is a friendlier Bond but did have his moments. He sometimes wasn't convincing and in his latter films he began to show his age, he had a couple of bummers (MR/AVTAK) in his time but still did a good job playing Bond.

TD was a brilliant Bond in my opinion and I wish he'd had the chance to hang around for longer. He portrayed more of the 'real James Bond' unlike DC who was like him but didn't look like Bond.

PB is in my opinion a jolly good Bond, he was enthusiastic and a life-long Bond fan. He was contending the role since the 80's. He was even more related to Bond by bbeing Cassandra Haris's wife who played a key role in FYEO. He had just the right mix of dark, cold, ruthless Bond and a more light-hearted moore Bond.

DC acts like Bond, bu doesn't look like Bond.

RogueAgent

Without a doubt it's George Lazenby. As much as I love Sean, there is no way that this film would've had the same impact as it does; Hunt would've had to approach it quite differently - especially with that ending. I just feel that fans wouldn't have viewed Connery the same way as much. It's just not in his Bond's DNA to be seen so fragile. IDK, I just feel that way.
For a guy with little to no acting experience, I felt that Laze did a very good job in what is arguably the BEST BOND MOVIE to date.

Too bad that he listened to bad representation. He could've really made the role his own.

cbdouble07

Lazenby without a doubt. He only made one film, had no acting experience, hasn't done much of anything since that's been memorable, and replaced (and was replaced) by Connery. One of the saddest things I have seen is people dismissing OHMSS because it has Lazenby in it. Some folks won't even give it a shot and it's a travesty since it is one of the best in the series. It is quite aggravating when someone says "oh OHMSS. that's definitely the worst film. haven't even seen the whole thing. it has that australlian guy."

Jarvio

Roger Moore is the most underrated Bond actor. He is considered by many to be silly, camp whatever, but he did 7 films, which holds the record for most Bond films. His performance was brilliant in all 7 of those IMO. Yes, his age showed in AVTAK, but he still put on one hell of a performance IMO. He kept the franchise alive. He was very different to all the other Bonds as his style was more comedy-based, less dark - but I think he pulled this off very well. So I would say he was the most underrated.

Now Lazenby I don't think is underrated. He just wasn't convincing enough as Bond. A good actor I'm sure, but not a great Bond. OHMSS on the other hand was a great film. I guess it's difficult to rate Lazenby because he only did one film, so never really developed his persona as Bond. Difficult to tell.

Daniel Craig is also difficult to tell for similar reasons, with it being just one film. But unlike Lazenby, Craig for some reason just suits Bond more, and I was really, really impressed with his performance. He did a really great job in CR. However, as Sweepy said, he just doesn't look like Bond.

Sean Connery is amazing and gets the respect he deserves anyway, so no need to elaborate on him really.

Timothy Dalton is underrated IMO, but not as underrated as Moore. TD's two films were fantastic IMO, and his portrayal was much close to Fleming than any of the others. He did a great job in both of these movies. However, as he only did 2, it's difficult to tell how well he would have performed in other Bond movies if he was to do them. This is why he's less underrated than Moore... because Moore did 7, which is a hell of a lot of films.

Finally, Brosnan. Well, I consider Brosnan a standard Bond personally. Not bad, not great. Gets average respect. About right.

So yeah, Most underrated = Roger Moore, IMHO.

Georgiboy

I agree with Jarvio, Rog is definitely the most underrated. He had charm, style, elegance, and a brutal side to himself(kicking locque off the cliff). He was the perfect Bond IMO and should be given much more credit for his spectacular 7 film reign. -{

Lazenby on the other hand, he has enough credit IMO. Don't get me wrong, I love OHMSS, but I never liked Lazenby. He had no charm or style, and I thought he was quite boring. Maybe if he did more films I'd have a little more respect for the guy.

Lazenby880

I would concur with most of the other responses: George Lazenby is the most underrated Bond actor. Personally I think he acquitted himself very well indeed in the role, and Peter Hunt was quite correct in suggesting that Lazenby had a natural talent for the part. Lazenby was proficient in conveying the sense of physical danger, however there are also many nuances in the performance belying his reputation as a wooden actor. There is an element of self-doubt in his performance, and introspection (especially when at the side of the ice-rink). I have heard it said that this was mostly down to Hunt's direction, although I think that is far too unfair on Lazenby himself.

Another thoroughly underrated actor is Timothy Dalton. At least Dalton is generally considered a good actor, just not good at the role of Bond. And while I would concede that there is a Shakespearean quality to his Bond, I nevertheless think that Dalton was fantastic at the part. Dark, daring and dangerous; Dalton was not 'Fleming's Bond' in my view (far too much paranoia and neurosis for that) but he brought to the fore a fascinating, deadly serious and very watchable interpretation of the cinematic character.

Roger Moore is *also* quite underrated: the notion that he was just a bit of a clown as Bond is a misconception. In particular, the centrifuge scene in Moonraker reveals his serious side, as does the scene in Octopussy when trying to defuse the bomb (and, I suppose, the scene in which he kicks the car of the cliff in For Your Eyes Only). Even if one is not a fan of the rather more humourous take on the character, it would be churlish to deny that Moore was awfully good at this angle. The delivery of his lines in Moonraker, with related facial expressions, are spot on.

Mailfist

For me it has got to be TD. He was a breath of fresh air to the series after RM and it is a shame that apart from diehard Bond fans he never got the recognition he deserved for probably being the closest to Fleming's Bond. LTK was a worthy experiment that failed at the time. Had his second movie been different his tenour may have been better regarded.

Lazenby

George Lazenby by far. He's still more-or-less completely dismissed by all but a handful of observant Bond fans-- and the funny thing is that, when it comes down to it, he was far and away the most naturally qualified and convincing actor who has ever played the part. The man was a special forces fight instructor, a championship skiier and swimmer, adored by women etc. etc.-- he literally was Bond. While in most of the cases we had an actor trying to be an action hero, with Lazenby we had an action hero trying to be an actor and it's one of the great tragedies of action cinema that we never got to see him develop as Bond.

While we're on the topic I would say that Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan are the most overrated of the Bond actors. Sure they were charming and all that-- but neither one of them were remotely convincing as Bond.

donaldgrant

You're spot on about George Lazenby. He registers a similar panache to Connery and makes the role his own in no time. OHMSS is undoubtedly the most faithful representation of a Fleming novel ever, and its success is due in no small part Lazenby's vitality as 007. He's the "other feller", but he makes you forget the first one in no time when, especially, you see him in the action scenes. Was there any better Bond in that respect? I don't think so. Every time I view the film, I think of what might have been had Lazenby continued in the role. We probably would have been spared the bebacles of "Golden Gun" and "Moonraker", for certain.

Napoleon Plural

Well, on this thread Lazenby's the most OVERrated actor!

I don't hate him really, but he was picked for his action man credentials, and there aren't enough of them in the first half of the film. He is a very unappealing presence, then there's him having to pretend to be bore Sir Hilary (not you Hilly, the character... I think it works in the DVD age where you can make allowances watching it on your own, but play it in front of a crowd and it would be dismal.

I think Connery in DAF is underrated. He gives a livlier performance than any since GF and his comic timing is impeccable. He always looks happier when he's got a witty script to work with, rather like Brosnan in that respect (who correspondingly looked a bit wretched in most of his films).

Dan Same

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Well, on this thread Lazenby's the most OVERrated actor!

I don't hate him really, but he was picked for his action man credentials, and there aren't enough of them in the first half of the film. He is a very unappealing presence, then there's him having to pretend to be bore Sir Hilary (not you Hilly, the character... I think it works in the DVD age where you can make allowances watching it on your own, but play it in front of a crowd and it would be dismal.

I think Connery in DAF is underrated. He gives a livlier performance than any since GF and his comic timing is impeccable.

I completely agree with NP on this. I don't think that Lazenby is underrated as IMO he offered nothing acting wise apart from the final scene. He was great when it came to the action scenes, but in terms of acting, I think he was absolutely terrible, with the final scene being the only exception. Some people say that he should have been given time to develop; however IMO what he lackd was unlikely to have been improved with extra time. I think that he should have never been hired, granted he was great in the final scene and the action scenes. Interestingly enough I didn't mind him as Sir Hilary, but then again I've never seen OHMSS at the cinemas.

In terms of whom I consider to be underrated, I would single out Connery's performance in DAF, Moore and Brosnan. I consider Connery's performance in DAF to be a masterpiece; the sixth greatest Bond performance of all time an an example of acting at its best.

I think that Moore was a brilliant Bond but also an extremely underrated actor who was able to convincingly exude both the toughness and the suaveness required of Bond. I don't pretend that Moore was a Brando, but playing Bond well isn't particularly easy and IMO he did a superb job.

Finally, I think that Brosnan is enormously underrated especially when it comes to his expressing emotion. I don't know what it is, but he seems to have become a favourite punching bag of many people. Anyway, I think that Brosnan is a very good actor who never had any problems when it came to the emotional side of things. He was always IMO extremely convincing in almost everything that he did and I think that, based both on his work as Bond and his other films, he is an acting force to be reckoned with.

Napoleon Plural

My problem with Brosnan is that he never exceeds his material, which is a shame because the material he's given is pretty rubbish.

You can see how it depresses him. "You're mad..." he tells Elliot Carver, in the tone of voice he'd use to say "This script sucks..." A great actor would do something with it, a bit like Mel Gibson does as Riggs, pause... is he gonna say something sinister? Then, flippantly, nonchalently, "You're mad!" Like when Riggs is forced down by Joss Ackland in his house on stilts near the beginning of Lethal Weapon 2: "Gentlemen, take yourselves away!" Gibson: "Okay!"

In a way, Brozzer in TND is, for me, like Connery in NSNA, you can see them downhearted at what they have to work with.

A great moment by Connery in DAF, a tiny thing, is at the end of the pts, when the cat breaks in to disturb Bond's silence, you see Connery sort of look up... it's purrfect, but how could you direct it? "OK, Sean, a cat's gonna run in now... sort of look up like you're alarmed or bemused or something..." Don't know how, but it works great and seques into the song nicely. It's the sort of minor thing that just doesn't happen (for me) in CR.

Lazenby

Napoleon Plural wrote:

He is a very unappealing presence

That's the difference for me-- I found him to have a very engaging screen presence. Perhaps not at the level of a Connery, but certainly legions more than Moore, Brosnan or Dalton.

joballs45

Moore was the best bond it think then connery,bronson,lazenby,craig,dalton

corleone44

Interesting question, since all Bond actors are unique and have their good points. But in my opinion, two of the most overlooked are Lazenby (I'm an OHMSS fan) and Dalton. Reason being, they only made one or two 007 films, yet there are excellent in my opinion and deserve more praise than they get.

forgottenbond

I completely and utterly agree with you infact my postname is based on that fact it's the one thing about bond that has always baffled me why he was treated so badly in the press and at times it has to be said MGM itself, you never saw any real public producer muscle defending dalton after the rumors began to spread that he was going to be replaced by Brosnan and others and this happened on a few occasions.Thus he is truely the forgotten bond

chrisno1

I think there is a lot of support out there for Lazenby. He does a solid job and conveys the emotional aspects of Bond much better than you would expect, especially given his lack of experience at the time. The scene where he proposes is a case in point. When Lazenby says "I love you", it sounds very natural, not forced, almost whimsical. This exactly how it should be said and gives Bond much more depth.
However, I dont think his overall contribution to OHMSS is underrated.

I actually think Dalton is underrated much more. He is a classically trained actor, with a good range. Physically he was right for the part and he has a great ability to act with his facial expressions (eg, the movement of his eyes, the creasing of a smile, a sly gaze across a room). Dalton's real problem wasnt his ability to act it was the terrible product he was working with. TLD and LTK are both sub standard Bond. Sure, they have good aspects, but Maibaum, Wilson, Glen, Barry, Mills etc were all treading water with these films and never created a "new-Bond." This is a benefit that Lazenby, Moore, Brosnan and Craig have all had. Sadly Dalton was lost in a Roger Moore timewarp. He'd have faired much better with something akin to Craig's CR.

Higgins

I personally don't agree with the praise of Dalton's acting skills.

I simply don't buy it when he is angry. To my taste, the worst moment is, when he destroys the baloon in TLD. As much as he tries, I don't see, that he's really ****ed (I know, that many people praise this particular scene).

But him acting to be angry is like Pierce Brosnan running imho.

down2000

If you look at what Lazenby did in OHMSS it's quite amazing. He had zero acting experience and had to follow in Connery's footsteps. He had a very solid performance in a fantastic movie! I always hear people bashing him saying if only Connery was in OHMSS. I say imagine if Lazenby didn't get bad advice and would have stuck with the role!

7289

I quite like Barry Nelson, and thought that given the circumstances in which he played Bond - in a "live" preformance was quite good.

For me the scripts have as much or more influence on the Bond charecter as the actor himself. Lawerence Olivier playing "Barney the Purple Dinosaur" or a "Teletubby" isn't likely to make much of an impression, despite his acting "chops".

Likewise Dalton in TLD, Moore in MR or "Big Tam" in YOLT do not represent the best cinematic portraits of James Bond. This is as much the fault of indifferent writing and direction than acting.

Lazenby prehaps garners far more praise than he deserves. He was totally unprepared for the role, and essentially was hired like as a tailors dummy and mashed into the part based on his good looks and a loose resemblence to "Big Tam". While the final result works today - in it's original context GL's oo7 was a failure. Only thirty years later can we watch the film and find him acceptable as oo7.

Had he remained as oo7 it's likely GL would have grown into the part and changed what Bond is today. Sadly though, that will alway be mere speculation.

It really is the script .....

zaphod

Lazenby & Dalton. Both of who have their fans, but to be discounted in general. Both provided truly stunning interpretations (particularly Dalton) & Lazenby was in one of the best films in the entire series. Coming after Sean's dissapointing, half hearted & overblown YOLT he seemed vital and in peak condition. In the final anaylis though I think it's Dalton who gets us closer to Flemings Bond. I like both Connerry & Laxenby's take (YOLT & DAF being exceptions) but both had too much bombast & swagger to really nail it but worked well as cinematic interpretations. Some people find Dalton too brroding & introspective, but for me that is clearly present in the books, so I guess it depends on how 'faithful' you want your Bond to be.

dougie007

As a Scot, you might expect me to be a fan of SC, but believe it or not, I think he is the overrated Bond! First three movies were great, Thunderball was ok but he went off the boil for YOLT and RM should have been in DAF. Is there anyone out there who shares my opinion???

I am a RM fan - I can't see past him, even though I love DC's interpretation of the role.

Underrated? - probably TD - he should have done at least another one to let us see what he could really do.

Higgins

dougie007 wrote:

....Thunderball was ok but he went off the boil for YOLT and RM should have been in DAF. Is there anyone out there who shares my opinion???

Infact, I am very happy, that RMs premiere has been in a quite good movie LALD.

If he would have started in such a strange and boring as DAF, it may have ruined it all for him.

Scribe74

Timothy Dalton is the most underrated actor to play Bond. Many fans say he was too dark and lacked humor, but he played 007 as portrayed in Fleming's original novels.

Dalton's Bond came across as a real killer who has seen more than his fair share of violence; a guy one step away from the psychiatrist's couch and a borderline burnout. I thought it was great.

sharpshooter

Scribe74 wrote:

Timothy Dalton is the most underrated actor to play Bond. Many fans say he was too dark and lacked humor, but he played 007 as portrayed in Fleming's original novels.

Dalton's Bond came across as a real killer who has seen more than his fair share of violence; a guy one step away from the psychiatrist's couch and a borderline burnout. I thought it was great.

I agree. Dalton is criminally under-rated.

DrMaybe

I think Moore was the most under-rated by far. He was an original consideration for the part, so somebody else must have thought he had potential, too. He also managed to be in some of the most popular of the series, and the biggest money earners. And spanned 3 different styles of Bond films, too. The more-exploitative style Bonds(LALD, MWTGG), the Star Wars influenced ones(SWLM,MR) and the modern FX/stunts type Bonds(AVTAK,OPY) without losing any impact. As far as the double-entendre laden dialogues, I feel Connery's Bonds had a fairly healthy dose of them, too.

I can't consider Lazenby under-rated, because he didn't have a large enough body of work to compare him to. In any films.

7289

RM states in one of the commentaries to the Bond films (TMWTGG, I think) that he was NEVER under consideration by EON, Fleming or anyone else when oo7 was initially cast prior to the filming of DN.

He attributes this legend to EON in an effort to boost the excitment over his being hired as Bond.

DrMaybe

It's probably impossible to know the full story, at this point, with so many of the original people departed. I had even heard Cary Grant as a possibility. I guess it would make a nice speculation, tho, if Moore had gotten the part first...as just who would have succeeded him?

Loeffelholz

DrMaybe wrote:

I guess it would make a nice speculation, tho, if Moore had gotten the part first...as just who would have succeeded him?

Even more tantalizing to wonder whether or not the character would have caught on in the same way, if Moore had been Bond in DN---whether or not we'd be celebrating an upcoming 22nd Bond feature in 2008

Maybe so; who can say? Personally, I tend to think that the very unlikely and esoteric cocktail of Sean Connery (a blue-collar Scotsman), Terence Young (an erudite white-collar filmmaker/image crafter), innovative production designer Ken Adam, world-class composer John Barry, etc., working from the literary source material of Ian Fleming, created a unique moment in history not completely unlike that of The Beatles---a wild confluence of the right thing at the right time, with a heavy dose of talent injected into the brew---which probably wouldn't happen quite the same way if just one element of the difficult-to-quantify formula had been different.

It's very difficult to say whether Roger Moore could have carried the Sixties in the same way he carried the Seventies/early Eighties. He certainly owned his particular era; that much is undeniable.

The Theory of Bond Relativity^TM allows every fan to see his own personal favourite Bond actor as 'the man.' The Bondian Chaos Theory^TM allows for the possibility that each fan's most earnest wish is irrelevant :v

Perhaps The Beatles' success would have been virtually the same (or better) if Pete Best had remained behind the kit; I'm not sure they'd be willing to wind back time to find out.