Reggie, I agree with a lot of your comments on the Bond films/actors. The first Bond I ever saw was Connery. I also read most of the original novels, and felt that Connery best personified the character. Connery even resembled the character’s physical description, with “ruthless eyes”, “cruel mouth”, “comma of hair over eyebrow”, etc. Bond was also at least half Scottish. In one novel, someone tells Bond that she thinks he looks a bit like Hoagy Carmichael. If one sets aside Hoagy’s sort of drawling delivery, he actually has a good look for the part:Reggie W said:
I think when it comes to deciding who makes a good Bond, Fleming’s original creation must be considered (I know some disagree with that).
However, I do not quite with your description of Connery’s Bond as a “total bastard”. Certainly Bond is ruthless, but he is supposed to have suavity and urbanity and a quick wit. The early Bond trailers described Bond as the “gentleman secret agent”. Director Terence Young has described how he instilled in the young Connery the suavity the character needed. We know Bond was based to an extent on Fleming himself. Bond’s love of martinis, cigarettes, baccarat, etc were shared by Fleming. If you’ve seen pictures or films of Fleming, he comes off more like Noel Coward than a total bastard. IMO, a good screen Bond should be a convincing mixture of ruthlessness, coldness, charm and style.
This is why I think Connery gave us the best Bond on film. He brought a manly, dangerous presence to the character, and yet was able to stay cool and suave at the same time. Roger Moore, IMO played the character more as if he were Bond’s resourceful valet. I don’t think he ever projected the manliness and love of danger that Connery did. I can totally see Connery falling in love with Tracy because he had depth in his portrayal.
I liked OHMSS, and I think Lazenby had the makings of a good Bond. I do think he was a little amateurish at times, but considering that he took over the lead role in a huge franchise and was essentially trained on the job, he acquitted himself rather well. The film is so well put together that I think it survives Lazenby’s occasional lapses.
I liked The Living Daylights because Timothy Dalton was a breath of fresh air after the Moore years. He was not ideal for Bond, but is a consummate actor, and did a good job of playing Bond even though the role did not fit him like a glove. I liked how intense he was, and how the things in the film appeared to affect him emotionally, driving him onward. This was a great change IMO after the uninvolved acting of Moore. I thought License to Kill should have been good, but wasn’t.
I liked Brosnan in Goldeneye. Had Brosnan played Bond back in his Remington Steele days, I think he would have been a lightweight. I had no problem with his portrayal when he finally started, but the films by that time are all just remakes of You Only Live Twice and Thunderball.
I also disagree with Craig being the best since Connery. I do like how the films have taken on a more serious tone. But with Craig, I think we are back to when Connery was cast, and Terence Young taught him how to behave and dress like a gentleman. Craig, IMO, was allowed to burst forth as a brutal Bond without the charm and style of the character and with no Terence Young to school him in those things. Craig does not quite work for me, but I do like the emphasis on character and action with less gadgetry and comedy. Just my 2 cents.
