Tough choice as a couple of them are very fine actors indeed, But I'd go with T Dalton. who I think could of been great if he'd got a couple of better scripts and the all important third Movie.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,756Chief of Staff
I'd vote for Dalton too....
YNWA 97
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Probably Dalton...but I really like Craig's approach to his craft as well. Craig is probably the first actor with a chance to get an Oscar nod during his Bond tenure---though not with a Bond picture, natch, LOL )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I like Craig's physical portrayal of Bond but at times he looks too sulking, like a one dimensional menacing brood. As for favorite actor goes to Dalton. Shades of Connery and Lazenby. My only gripe he only made two films. Connery will forever be revered as the true Bond but yeah, Dalton is tops.
I feel that Timothy Dalton really did a great job at adjusting to play the role how Fleming intended. But overall, I'd say the best actor was Sean Connery. There wasn't one seen that he couldn't handle. If he wanted to get serious, he'd put on his "game face" (FRWL Train scene with Grant) and if he wanted to pull out the jokes... he could do that too (flirting with Pussy Galore in GF).
Tough call between Dalton & Craig. Also very difficult question, do we mean screen prescence, or breadth of roles etc. Dalton is too much in the classical hero mould (tall, dark, & handsome etc) to play a huge range, for example he would not make a convincing Postman or mechanic (no disrespect intended to either Postman or Mechanics) Both actors are comfortable either on stage or screen, but for breadth of roles I'd give it to Craig as he can (and has) played a number of radically different types.
Craig all round, Connery as Bond. I don't think we've seen the best of Craig yet. I remember first seeing him in an episode of Sharpe, about 1994. Fantastic.
I would say Sean Connery, but only one Bond has starred in drama, comedy, musical and action films and been nominated for 2 Golden Globes....Pierce Brosnan.
George Lazenby, why he doesn't have 4 oscars is beyond me ) ) ) ) Just kidding guys
I have to break it down to film actors and stage actors.
As a stage actor NOBODY could touch Daltons acting chops, but I never thought Dalton translated to the big screen in a movie star way. Dalton was a much better actor than Roger Moore, but, imho, Moore was a much bigger movie star. It is the same with Pierce.
I think in terms of film acting I rate Connery, then Craig. Craig is an extremely talented, versatile film actor. Connery was a film star who became a very talented actor. Craig is a very talented actor who is becoming a film star.
I am not sure if Pierce or Roger are very good actors, but they are indeed very good movie stars. My definition of a film star is someone who, when they are on the screen, their presence is the dominate person in the scene. Both those guys had that in spades. Craig and Connery are film stars who are also exceptional actors as well. I think Craig is the most versatile, character driven actor in the bunch. If I wanted to watch a stage performance it would be Dalton 6 days a week, twice on Sundays. And for poor George, the more I watch Majesty's the more I'm impressed by his performance with NO acting experience whatsoever.
George Lazenby, why he doesn't have 4 oscars is beyond me ) ) ) ) Just kidding guys
I have to break it down to film actors and stage actors.
As a stage actor NOBODY could touch Daltons acting chops, but I never thought Dalton translated to the big screen in a movie star way. Dalton was a much better actor than Roger Moore, but, imho, Moore was a much bigger movie star. It is the same with Pierce.
I think in terms of film acting I rate Connery, then Craig. Craig is an extremely talented, versatile film actor. Connery was a film star who became a very talented actor. Craig is a very talented actor who is becoming a film star.
I am not sure if Pierce or Roger are very good actors, but they are indeed very good movie stars. My definition of a film star is someone who, when they are on the screen, their presence is the dominate person in the scene. Both those guys had that in spades. Craig and Connery are film stars who are also exceptional actors as well. I think Craig is the most versatile, character driven actor in the bunch. If I wanted to watch a stage performance it would be Dalton 6 days a week, twice on Sundays. And for poor George, the more I watch Majesty's the more I'm impressed by his performance with NO acting experience whatsoever.
George Lazenby, why he doesn't have 4 oscars is beyond me ) ) ) ) Just kidding guys
I have to break it down to film actors and stage actors.
As a stage actor NOBODY could touch Daltons acting chops, but I never thought Dalton translated to the big screen in a movie star way. Dalton was a much better actor than Roger Moore, but, imho, Moore was a much bigger movie star. It is the same with Pierce.
I think in terms of film acting I rate Connery, then Craig. Craig is an extremely talented, versatile film actor. Connery was a film star who became a very talented actor. Craig is a very talented actor who is becoming a film star.
I am not sure if Pierce or Roger are very good actors, but they are indeed very good movie stars. My definition of a film star is someone who, when they are on the screen, their presence is the dominate person in the scene. Both those guys had that in spades. Craig and Connery are film stars who are also exceptional actors as well. I think Craig is the most versatile, character driven actor in the bunch. If I wanted to watch a stage performance it would be Dalton 6 days a week, twice on Sundays. And for poor George, the more I watch Majesty's the more I'm impressed by his performance with NO acting experience whatsoever.
That's not entirely correct with respect to Connery. Before Connery became Bond, he did a lot of stage acting in and around London. He spent many years honing his craft both on stage and on the small screen before becoming an "overnight success". He was so good playing Bond that the public found it hard to separate him from the character. He made it look too easy and is always underated because of it. Dalton, perhaps, could play Shakespeare but he couldn't play Bond. Connery did both very convincingly. There in lies the difference.
By all accounts, Connery was superb as a stage actor although not RADA trained.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Yeah, look up Macbeth + Sean Connery on youtube and his line reading is very good indeed. That was pre-Bond. Better than the other two Macbeth's I've seen, that is Nicol Williamson and the guy in Polanski's version.
I do have a theory though that some actors 'dine out' on one star-making performance. Chief example is Bruce Willis and Die Hard. Now, he's very good in other stuff namely Pulp Fiction and The Sixth Sense. He doesn't stink up the screen by any means. But watching those, one is informed by Willis in Die Hard. Had he not been in that, one might think, hmmm, why is this actor getting so many roles?
You can't say that about stars like Bogart, Cary Grant, Gable. Though a bit one note ie playing the same guy, you could see Bogart in To Have and To Have Not and he's just as good as in Casablanca, he's not coasting.
Sean Connery, until his second wind, seemed to be the guy who has Bond as his star-making vehicle, and never quite as good in his other stuff. That might have changed had he accepted The Thomas Crown Affair and other similar stuff.
Sean Connery, until his second wind, seemed to be the guy who has Bond as his star-making vehicle, and never quite as good in his other stuff. That might have changed had he accepted The Thomas Crown Affair and other similar stuff.
You certainly have a point, however I think the problem with Connery in his initial non-Bond roles was not his acting, but the vehicles that he chose. You'll find that in most of his roles his acting is always thought to be excellent. However, some of the movies were just not box office. Part of it, I think, had to do with his wife Diane Cilento. She had been acting on screen and on the stage for a very long time with notable actors of the stage and screen. Then Connery becomes uber successful with Bond. Something she never was quite able to pull off. I think she poo pooed the role and made him seek out so called "worthy" work. Coincidently, Fleming suffered the same kind of contempt from his wife Ann and her literary friends. To them Bond was not true "literature", but rather school boy pulp fiction.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
What I find so interesting about Connery's second wind, so to speak, was it came after doing NSNA. Before he did NSNA he really was struggling career wise, Gawain & the Green Knight comes to mind ) .
But once he did his Bond swan song people seemed to make peace with him as Bond. It was like the universe opened up for him again after NSNA. Connery first did " Highlander", then came "The Untouchables" ( Oscar ) and what I think may have been his finest performance " The name of the Rose " ( British Oscar, I believe ) This let him become a true film legend in his own right -{
Yes, and that's an interesting post Donald Grant. Of course in those days it wasn't the thing for actors to alternate art house with blockbuster in the manner of Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt and so on. Even Harrison Ford struggled to do that, partly because - brace yourself - I put him in the same category as those stars who make it with just one movie that then carries over into their other films. The difference being, that he got several shots - Star Wars, Raiders, The Fugitive. I know I sound like I'm talking b0llocks here, but what I'm saying is, if you see him in any other vehicles he just doesn't seem an obvious star. I'm talking Hanover Street, that courtroom drama, Witness, Mosquito Coast and some of his recent stuff. He was kinda lucky.
As for Connery, yeah, it may have been a change of agent, or having him as a father figure rather than leading man, or that his age caught up with him (he looked prematurely old in the 70s, less so later) or that he embraced commercial ventures in a way he would never have done before (and some celluloid trash like The Presidio and Just Cause too). That reached its apogee with The Avengers and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. But at least he also did what he didn't previously - he assumed a consistent leading man persona that audiences could relate too. In the 70s, he would go from pillar to post and so be less bankable, you couldn't predict his output.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,756Chief of Staff
But once he did his Bond swan song people seemed to make peace with him as Bond. It was like the universe opened up for him again after NSNA. Connery first did " Highlander", then came "The Untouchables" ( Oscar ) and what I think may have been his finest performance " The name of the Rose " ( British Oscar, I believe ) This let him become a true film legend in his own right -{
Highlander - Spanish guy with a Scottish accent 8-) The Untouchables - Irish cop with a Scottish accent 8-) - and he got an Academy Award for that !!
Those films don't convince me that he is an actor...more a 'film star'...
However...he is good in The Name Of The Rose and The Man Who Would Be King and I did like him in The Russia House...
I find it interesting that Connery returned to Bond in Diamonds Are Forever for what many have characterized as his weakest turn as Bond (I disagree) in the same year that he starred in The Anderson Tapes, which I thought was one of his better non-Bond performances. I agree with those who believe that Connery was so effortlessly good as 007 that he was constantly underated as an actor.
Timothy Dalton has my vote in terms of general acting. Being a trained actor is better than being a model (moore) bit part actor (brosnan) and an advert actor (lazenby).
1 Tim Dalton
2 Sean Connery
=3 Brosnan
Old Roger
5 Daniel Craig
6 G. Lazenby
"You're in the wrong business... leave it to the professionals!"
James Bond- Licence To Kill
Daniel Craig is best and I can’t think another actor of future James Bond movies, Casino Royale (2006) and Quantum of Solace was best James Bond movies that I have seen.
Q and M
IrelandPosts: 171MI6 Agent
Comments
http://apbateman.com
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I like Craig's physical portrayal of Bond but at times he looks too sulking, like a one dimensional menacing brood. As for favorite actor goes to Dalton. Shades of Connery and Lazenby. My only gripe he only made two films. Connery will forever be revered as the true Bond but yeah, Dalton is tops.
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
Connery in Macbeth
Best line reading I've ever heard, including Nicol Williamson or the guy in Polanski's film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
2) Timothy Dalton
3) Sean Connery
= Roger Moore
5) Pierce Brosnan
6) George Lazenby
I have to break it down to film actors and stage actors.
As a stage actor NOBODY could touch Daltons acting chops, but I never thought Dalton translated to the big screen in a movie star way. Dalton was a much better actor than Roger Moore, but, imho, Moore was a much bigger movie star. It is the same with Pierce.
I think in terms of film acting I rate Connery, then Craig. Craig is an extremely talented, versatile film actor. Connery was a film star who became a very talented actor. Craig is a very talented actor who is becoming a film star.
I am not sure if Pierce or Roger are very good actors, but they are indeed very good movie stars. My definition of a film star is someone who, when they are on the screen, their presence is the dominate person in the scene. Both those guys had that in spades. Craig and Connery are film stars who are also exceptional actors as well. I think Craig is the most versatile, character driven actor in the bunch. If I wanted to watch a stage performance it would be Dalton 6 days a week, twice on Sundays. And for poor George, the more I watch Majesty's the more I'm impressed by his performance with NO acting experience whatsoever.
-{ -{ -{
That's not entirely correct with respect to Connery. Before Connery became Bond, he did a lot of stage acting in and around London. He spent many years honing his craft both on stage and on the small screen before becoming an "overnight success". He was so good playing Bond that the public found it hard to separate him from the character. He made it look too easy and is always underated because of it. Dalton, perhaps, could play Shakespeare but he couldn't play Bond. Connery did both very convincingly. There in lies the difference.
By all accounts, Connery was superb as a stage actor although not RADA trained.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I do have a theory though that some actors 'dine out' on one star-making performance. Chief example is Bruce Willis and Die Hard. Now, he's very good in other stuff namely Pulp Fiction and The Sixth Sense. He doesn't stink up the screen by any means. But watching those, one is informed by Willis in Die Hard. Had he not been in that, one might think, hmmm, why is this actor getting so many roles?
You can't say that about stars like Bogart, Cary Grant, Gable. Though a bit one note ie playing the same guy, you could see Bogart in To Have and To Have Not and he's just as good as in Casablanca, he's not coasting.
Sean Connery, until his second wind, seemed to be the guy who has Bond as his star-making vehicle, and never quite as good in his other stuff. That might have changed had he accepted The Thomas Crown Affair and other similar stuff.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You certainly have a point, however I think the problem with Connery in his initial non-Bond roles was not his acting, but the vehicles that he chose. You'll find that in most of his roles his acting is always thought to be excellent. However, some of the movies were just not box office. Part of it, I think, had to do with his wife Diane Cilento. She had been acting on screen and on the stage for a very long time with notable actors of the stage and screen. Then Connery becomes uber successful with Bond. Something she never was quite able to pull off. I think she poo pooed the role and made him seek out so called "worthy" work. Coincidently, Fleming suffered the same kind of contempt from his wife Ann and her literary friends. To them Bond was not true "literature", but rather school boy pulp fiction.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
But once he did his Bond swan song people seemed to make peace with him as Bond. It was like the universe opened up for him again after NSNA. Connery first did " Highlander", then came "The Untouchables" ( Oscar ) and what I think may have been his finest performance " The name of the Rose " ( British Oscar, I believe ) This let him become a true film legend in his own right -{
As for Connery, yeah, it may have been a change of agent, or having him as a father figure rather than leading man, or that his age caught up with him (he looked prematurely old in the 70s, less so later) or that he embraced commercial ventures in a way he would never have done before (and some celluloid trash like The Presidio and Just Cause too). That reached its apogee with The Avengers and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. But at least he also did what he didn't previously - he assumed a consistent leading man persona that audiences could relate too. In the 70s, he would go from pillar to post and so be less bankable, you couldn't predict his output.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Highlander - Spanish guy with a Scottish accent 8-)
The Untouchables - Irish cop with a Scottish accent 8-) - and he got an Academy Award for that !!
Those films don't convince me that he is an actor...more a 'film star'...
However...he is good in The Name Of The Rose and The Man Who Would Be King and I did like him in The Russia House...
1 Tim Dalton
2 Sean Connery
=3 Brosnan
Old Roger
5 Daniel Craig
6 G. Lazenby
James Bond- Licence To Kill