Daniel Craig Returning as James Bond in 4 More Films!

October 27, 2007
Source: Hollywood Reporter

Daniel Craig as James Bond

We already know Daniel Craig will be returning as James Bond in the 22nd film that's currently shooting and due out next November, but that's not his last one. MGM president Harry Sloan has confirmed that they're bringing back Daniel Craig for four more James Bond films, making him the star in at least five total. How does he shape up to the other Bond actors over the years?

So far I'm quite impressed with Craig as Bond, but he still doesn't beat Roger Moore or even Sean Connery. He has a very new and different style that's much more rugged and much more muscular. Here are all the other films each Bond actors has done.

Sean Connery - 6
Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever

George Lazenby - 1
On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Roger Moore - 7
Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill

Timothy Dalton - 2
The Living Daylights, Licence to Kill

Pierce Brosnan - 4
GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day

Daniel Craig - 5+
Casino Royale, Bond 22 - 25

This definitely looks positive and I'm glad to see the Bond franchise continue to grow with Craig in the lead. I know he'll bring us some great Bonds films, especially considering Casino Royale was one of the most successful Bond films ever. Craig is really building quite a career for himself starring in a number of other non-Bond movies as well, including the upcoming Golden Compass. This is quite impressive considering Roger Moore couldn't carry another major film role while he was doing his Bond's and never went on to anything else afterward. Craig also has likely starring roles in upcoming Fame, Death Wish and Thomas Crown Affair franchise films.

Who do you think is the greatest James Bond? Does Daniel Craig top the list?

Find more posts: Casting, Movie News



Roger Moore fucking sucks at Bond. You fail massively

Blazer on Oct 27, 2007


Uh, Roger Moore is the quintessential Bond - he's what made it into the image that it is today - suave and slick... He was in the most movies as well, how can you say that?

Alex Billington on Oct 27, 2007


Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan were the best and then Roger Moore...I won't watch Daniel Craig in any of the Bond films (including the first one he did)...He lacks the suaveness, believeability and balance Sean, Pierce and Roger were able to continue bringing to the role.

AAron on Oct 27, 2007


Sean Connery & Roger Moore still come to mind when i think of the best James Bond, however after a few more successful performance from Daniel Craig i think he might get to the top of list. on Oct 27, 2007


Sean C. is the best. I really enjoyed Brosnan as Bond, Craig is much more stylized but Royale was amazing. Who knew that Poker could be that interesting in a film?

Ryan on Oct 27, 2007


...even Sean Connery? Jeesh...let's face it...the others were great at playing James Bond.... but Connery IS James Bond.

Larry on Oct 27, 2007


I have to say, that when it comes to bond movies Connery brought the toughness and great one liners. Moore brought the suave. Brosnan brought both...I think when Brosnan first came out...He too had a luke warm reception, just like Craig is having. I'll give Craig another film to prove he can be bond.

Wood on Oct 27, 2007



Alistair on Oct 28, 2007


Connery will always the original, Brosnan was also excellent but Craig make them all look like wussies. Can't wait on the next Craig 007!!!

Kenneth on Oct 28, 2007


craig is the best bond ever. i've been a fan of craig for a long time and was tickled when they announced craiga as bond. i loved casino royale. far and above connery i am sorry to say. and i loved connery.

mr. friday on Oct 28, 2007


Connery & Brosnan were the best. Stylish, mature & smart. Daniel on the other hand is rough, macho & real. He lacks the style & Royale Casino lacked the gadgetry, but the movie was more real than any other Bond movie before. I believe Daniel is givin a new look to Bond. And since Bond is a long tradition, v need more time to c if this new image might fight Bond. I'm definitely hopin that it does.

Gdn | TD on Oct 28, 2007


Sean Connery - 7 Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Never Say Never Again You have forgotten Never say never again. I know its not official but...

Raul on Oct 28, 2007


Pierce brosnan was a great bond, so were connery and moore, Daniel Craig is an amazing bond as well. It annoys me how people think that hes crap without even watching Casion Royale!, what kind of bond fans are those?!

Paul on Oct 28, 2007


Timothy Dalton was my absolute favorite Bond, now it´s Craig. Read the books people; Pierce Brosnan would make a tasty breakfast for Craig. Maybe to much skin and bones though - not any real meat under that italian suite ...

M on Oct 28, 2007


sean was the real bond moore the amusing bond dalton the wannabe bond lasonby the wuss bond brosnan the modern bond craig the emo tough bond - seems like they all fit the time of production GoldFinger baby

terrence on Oct 28, 2007


remember that casino royale was supposed to be about bond at the BEGINNING of his career. he wasn't supposed to be perfectly suave and slick; he was still learning. craig did a perfect job with the character that he was supposed to portray. wait for the next movies to more accurately compare him to the others.

K on Oct 28, 2007


First, Connery is *the* bond - Moore was an acceptable substitute given that we had no other choice but to tolerate his presence. Second, people forget that James Bond was a novel and *then* a film - a series of novels, actually, that were quite good fiction. It is worth noting that Connery and Craig, and only Connery and Craig, gave Bond the sense of roughness that was *ACTUALLY* found in the Bond books. The books really did have a hard-bitten edge of realism in them, something vaguely related to that of hard-boiled detective novels, and Craig brings that to the fore - even if he does so with a bit more muscle than is strictly needed. As Craig's bond matures I expect him to become more like Connery's; a raised-by-the-docks roughneck under the veneer of culture and civilization. That alone is a more entertaining character than someone that keeps hor'derves on emotional parity with murder. The Bond acted out by people like Moore and Brosnan is a pathetic caricature of Bond-as-written, and in being so over-stylized and immune to the degradation of the work he undertakes he loses the feel of verisimilitude that is the hallmark of good fiction.

James Stein on Oct 28, 2007


No, Roger Moore ruined the Bond movies. He couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag. He couldn't fight. He turned Bond into a pansy. After he took over the only people who watched the movies were teenage boys hoping to see some boobs or ridiculous gadets. Craig turned him back into what he should have been all along.

txgeek on Oct 28, 2007


Roger Moore portrayed the Bond character as a comedy. I always hated that about him. Sean Connery is the definitive Bond. If Daniel Craig lives up to the standard he set in Casino Royale; he will become a serious challenge to Connery's #1 status.

mrogi on Oct 28, 2007


Urgh - he has to be the worst Bond of all time! I mean he got slapped in the balls in the first movie and needed a woman to sort him out every scrape. Also - he looks like such a has-been it's impossible to believe he's got the world under his control.

Small on Oct 28, 2007


You left out the original Casino Royale (1967) starring Peter Sellers as James Bond.

Michael Quinlan on Oct 28, 2007


I have to agree with James Stein, Connery and Craig played Bond as a dangerous killer who could mingle with the rich and powerful and appear to fit in. Connery was more convincing playing the suave, romantic lead than Craig, in my opinion. I wish we could have seen Clive Owen try it. Just the parody role he did in the otherwise abysmal Pink Panther remake is enough to see he could pull it off.

Arioch on Oct 28, 2007


Is this a rhetorical question? Obviously Sean Connery tops the list. But this article is retarded. "So far I'm quite impressed with Craig as Bond, but he still doesn't beat Roger Moore or even Sean Connery." As if implying that Moore is better than Connery. My order would be: Sean Connery Pierce Brosnan Roger Moore Daniel Craig (too early to tell so I put him in the middle because he is decent) George Lazenby Timothy Dalton

phinn on Oct 28, 2007


I agree with mrogi and James Stein - Connery and Craig best represent the grit of my idea of Bond. I also agree with K in that Craig's performance cannot yet be judged on par with others' performances in other Bond movies - that he will grow into a version of Bond similar to Connery's - more suave and polished but not to the Moore- or Brosnan-like extent. He will (hopefully) maintain a gritty undercurrent. I believe that Craig is already #2 but will ever challenge for #1 - that will always be Connery.

KB on Oct 28, 2007


The key to Craig's portrayal of Bond is in the final scene. After the loss of his first love he makes a transformation to "Bond...James Bond". In that scene he resembled Connery. The next movie should be interesting. We should get to see Craig play a more mature, suave and sophisticated Bond.

Bluyonder on Oct 28, 2007


Connery is da BOND!!!!

Sam Lewis on Oct 28, 2007


Sean Connery will always be THE Bond to compare all others against. With that said Craig is definately a close number 2. If the writing continues to be excellent (and doesn't fall back into technology trickery) than I think Craig will become the new standard bearer. On a side note, we need a Q. The only thing missing is Q. I miss the Connery/Desmond fueding, even if it was only for a few minutes. John Cleese could be good, just tone down the slapstick.

James Bond on Oct 28, 2007


Pierce Brosnan's handsome features made him a popular Bond. Unfortunately, Brosnan became so obsessed with projecting his suave debonair persona he made James Bond appear disturbingly metro sexual, effete and somewhat gay. A Bond with a pretty face may be delightful to women and limp-wristed men, but Ian Fleming envisioned an edgy hardboiled secret agent hero who would have killed guys like Brosnan and Moore between martinis.

mrogi on Oct 28, 2007


Craig blew me away as Bond.

Vespa on Oct 28, 2007


Actually Connery and Moore are tied at 7 each. Connery was also in Never Say Never Again. The original Casino Royale actually had several people playing Bond. So technically Sellers only played a percentage of the part in that movie. Don't get it? Drop acid and watch, maybe you'll understand. I like Moore as Bond but he did it with a bit of an inside joke. Connery did it with ego and charm. Brosnan did it the same way. Dalton seemed like a little boy in his dad's suit (BMW and gunholster). I agree that it may be a bit early to judge Craig although he doing a bang up job so far. Lazenby doesn't count, he let Mrs. Peel get killed. A real bond would have had his gun out as he heard the car accelerating from up the road! I'm curious if anyone else has read the books. They are awesome. I'd like more real danger and less gadgets please. Don't get me wrong, nothing beats a bullet-proof Aston Martin but submarine Lotus us lame.

Michael Durwin on Oct 28, 2007


Moore was terrible as Bond - the whole franchise needed a restart *because* of the image he made it into - I don't think the franchise ever recovered from him completely. There was something always creepy about the geriatric Moore chasing much younger women; it made Bond into a dirty old man. Craig so far seems terrific, although we have only one movie to base anything on (I sure hope the writing holds up). I don't fault his portrayal of Bond in Casino Royale because that was supposed to be the *start* of his career as "the" James Bond. So over the next few films we'll see him evolve into the Bond character we think we know. Connery was great, but I have to admit I'm probably biased because he was first. If there was no previous history and you had to choose Connery vs Craig, it'd be pretty tough to choose between the two.

bondfan on Oct 28, 2007


Craig is the closest to how Bond is in the books. Connery is second best. Roger Moore was terrible. Not as in bad acting, but come on. That scrawny wimp couldn't beat up a six year-old girl.

Davezilla on Oct 28, 2007


In Moore's defence, I don't think the other guys would be as good as The Saint either.

Larry on Oct 28, 2007


Dood I can't believe the Brosnan supporters... have you actually watched any of his crap?!! He was the softest Bond ever! And it didn't help that they gave him such incredibly stupid plots to work with (the last one was phenomenally bad).

brosnansucks on Oct 28, 2007


Everyone needs to realize that people in general are sick and tired of these franchises sticking with the same old prescription to the movies. People want a different version and they want a new story, not the same freaking story everyone has heard 20 times before. Batman Begins was so successful because they redefined the franchise and Bale redefined Batman. Sorry to everyone that wants to be bored with the same thing all day every day but the James Bond franchise has been redefined and Craig has redefined Bond himself. That is why he's probably going to be the best Bond, he's not afraid to be his own character. He's the Bond of today and he did it beautifully. And, yes, how can you say that Craig is "never Bond and never will be Bond" if you haven't even seen him play the role.

a1970gto on Oct 28, 2007


First of all, he signed for three movies (including the first). I didn't read about this new number anywhere else. But I'm going to verify. Second, one can't ever please everybody. But the majority disagree with you and says Casino Royale was the best Bond movie ever (tons of sites had polls about it with the same result). Yeah, yeah, some people will say "blasphemy! what about the old movies with Sean Connery?!". Well, let's just say I'm part of the majority here and can't watch again these freaking 836647365 infantile gadgets. They worked decades ago, but don't work anymore, let's face it. People just say that because they feel they're supposed to. Go watch the old ones again then. Without bathroom or food breaks. *laughs* Sadly I'm sure I couldn't even watch again the Pierce Brosnan ones and I like him. They are freaking terrible, a big joke. Too bad it seems the new director will bring them back. *sighs* I bet people will start to bitch about Daniel saying he isn't a good Bond then.

Lucy on Oct 29, 2007


I'd have to say to Craig is doing great as the new Bond. It's a bit back to the original Bond films with Connery; more acting, action, and storylines, less reliance on gadgets and special effects. I never felt that Moore made a great Bond, as people have state before, it was embarrassing and downright unbelievable to see an old man doing those stunts and ending up in bed with young girls. I hope they'll continue in the style of Casino Royale.

Jason on Oct 29, 2007


Roger Moore? Can u say Moonraker?!?!?! The Flying Gondola?!?!?! Roger Moore is inexcusable!!!!! He Fails MASSIVELY compared to both Craig, Brosnan, and Connery.

Bond Fan on Oct 29, 2007


You forgot one of Connery's movies: Never Say Never Again... so he's up to 7

Fred on Oct 29, 2007


He is great, I think. A very sexy 007!!BTW, someone saw his profile with hot & sexy photos on, a dating site for celebrities and millionaires. It seems the profile looks sincere and attractive. Maybe even clebs feel lonely and lost sometimes. They also need love and fun. hehe..

mmlobe on Oct 29, 2007


I am soooo tired of people plugging some and putting other Bonds down. THEY WERE ALLLLL GOOD: Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig. IF ANYONE SUCKED it was because THE WRITING SUCKED. Uhhh...Octopussy and Man With the Golden Gun, Golden Eye, Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Die Another Day... if not silly then far fetched or ridulous or low brow gag jokes. The actor's can only do so much. The writing has to be strong to begin with. I lament for Moore and Dalton. The topper was Die Another Day...INVISIBLE CAR? DO MOVIE PATRONS HAVE "IDIOT" WRITTEN ON THEIR FOREHEADS? Bond is about class, sophistication, aplomb and sexy banter, sexy style, sexy sleuthy and sexy smart solutions. Hey! Adding my two cents worth was too Fun! Lastly, I recommend everyone give George Lazenby (On Her Majesty's Secret Service) some accolade. Thanks! Girl Fan of Many Years

Girl Fan of Many Years on Oct 29, 2007


i just dont really like him (Daniel) as a bond.. he aint the quality for bonds........what are the MP thinking..... god.. i aint watching him in big screen again...

Wing on Oct 29, 2007


Roger Moore was terrible as Bond, he came off as a rich playboy. Just because he was in the most Bond films doesn't necessarily mean that he was the best, either. Moonraker is god awful. I actually liked Lazenby quite a bit and feel like if he had a second chance he probably would have been even better.

Rockstrongo on Oct 29, 2007


Connery had Never Say Never too you ingrates... Brosnan fit the part but Die another Day and Tomorrow where rubbish, Surfing a door gimme a break. Roger Moore is still the best imo

Stuntbum on Oct 30, 2007


What are you talking about guys?! TIMOTHY DALTON is the best Bond past, now and future! He looks like James Bond and if you would read the bond novels you would know that he is the same kind of bond than Ian Fleming's bond was. Dalton had five, six chances to act Bond but in 1969 he thought he was too young and in 1991 Bond-producers made a lot of mistakes so "The Property Of A Lady" never saw daylight. Timothy Dalton was also considered to act in Original Goldeneye (1993). He really can act and he looks great! He is not some kind of womanizer or alcoholic, he is James Bond! My order is: 1. Timothy Dalton (perfect actor!)

LonelyRider (from Finland) on Oct 30, 2007


*My order is: 1. Timothy Dalton (perfect actor!)

LonelyRider (from Finland) page 2 on Oct 30, 2007


I think all the actors that have and are playing Bond are great. They all have their pluses and minuses. The thing that makes a great Bond movie is the writing. Moonraker and A View to a Kill are just horribly written and boring to the max, while Die Another Day just has a bunch of bull crap inventions and CGI scenes. Keeping gadgets to minimum(Casino Royale, Dr. No) and a well written story(License to Kill, Goldfinger) make a great Bond film in my book. P.S. To all you people who keep mentioning Never Say Never Again as a forgotten Bond film on the list, it is not an official Bond film, and it's basically a remake of Thunderball.

Adam on Oct 30, 2007


Dalton is the best, Craig second, Brosnan third, then Moore, Lazenby and Connery is the last one (arrogant and selfish like Lazenby). But Dalton is also well-behave actor, he don't hit and kick paparazzies(?*) like Brosnan did yesterday. Craig also damned one paparazzo few months ago...

LonelyRider (from Finland) on Oct 31, 2007


Going back to the beginning of the article, I must protest Roger Moore's ranking over Sean Connery. Clearly Moore was good, if fact he was great. But the title of "Quintesental Bond" must go to the original, Connery was the perfect blend of humor, subtle masuculinity, and outright ass-kicking. While I can't remember who said it (It might have been no one of consequence) but it isn't so much that Connery was a great Bond and others have been emulating his role, rather that Connery was and, in some sense, still is Bond and all others are following in his footsteps.

TaylorW on Oct 31, 2007


You forgot Sean Connery's "Never say Never Again" - the rogue Bond film made during a big fight over the rights. That brings the total to 7 for Sean Connery - tie-ing it up with Moore.

Ubermonkey on Oct 31, 2007


I was getting ready to add that you had forgotten one (Sean Connery) Bond movie but I see übermonkey beat me to it. You could also add David Niven who played Sir James Bond, retired, in the original spoof 'Casino Royale'. Regarding the best Bond, has to be Connery. However if they had let Brosnan play the part to his full ability (think 'Thomas Crown Affair' he wold have been the best. Funny that they had to use a Scott and an Irish to do Bond...

Nick Kearns on Oct 31, 2007


Connery : 1st (Should be above ranking. He 'is' Bond) Brosnan :2nd (Has that gritty edge that Bond needs to be believable) Craig : 3rd (But has serious potential to take 2nd with experience. Casino Royale was wicked cool and Daniel Craig did a great job for his first 007 adventure. I look forward to seeing him in more Bond movies! Moore : 4th Dalton :5th (Always looks on the verge of tears. (can someone recommend a good eye doctor for him?)) Lazenby: Uh, no, not 6th. He does not belong in this list. Perfectly pitiful as Bond. What were they thinking?

Troy on Oct 31, 2007


Daniel Craig brings an air of authority and realism to Bond, you have to consider he is not meant to be the suave unruffled hero of previous films this is about the rookie agent winning his spurs, his 00. I look forward to seeing him develop into the tough, cynical and ruthless bastard that Bond has tried to be portrayed as before, with limited success. Forget the gadgets we want a fallible hero who can cut it with the toughest. Craig is the man. BJ

Barry Jordan on Nov 1, 2007


James Bond is my favourite I would say that Daniel Craig is the best and he played the best James bond

License To Kill on Nov 2, 2007


OK, here's how I would rate what made the Bond movies popular, and while the actors are key, each era had their other tie in that drove Bond as a franchise. Sean Connery vs The destinations. The 60s was the era where most people hadn't experienced much more than the country they live in. The english knew Europe, but most had not been to America or the far east. It seems that Bond was about escapism at this point. And of course, cold war espionage. It was gritty work, and gadgets simply weren't "fancified" as of yet. Roger Moore vs The Gadgets. Q was almost the star of the Roger Moore Bond years. Who didn't wait impatiently for the debriefing on the new gadgets with Q? I sure did. The gadgets, Loti, planes, boats, etc, were Roger's great equalizer. Sure he was old and loved a one liner after a nasty baddy death, but if it weren't for the gadgets (INClUDING JAWS), Roger Moore years would have sucked. As it were, they were a good sophomoric years. Timothy Dalton vs Lame plots. Sorry, I never liked the Dalton movies, especially Licensed to Kill, which felt like it was made by the guys who produced The A Team. This film was miserable because all the actors were American. The US wants escapism, not the same old characters we see all the time! He was pretty much a dead fish as far as actors went, but he needed not to be so smug as Moore, who pretty much made Bond into a cartoon. Pierce Brosnan vs Technology. Let's face it. There were no scary World Crises going on about the time of the Brosnan Bonds. That and all the original novels were during the cold war, which was now history. Brosnan then ends up battling impossibly ridiculous businessmen who want to take over the world or are mad and want to plunge the world into chaos. The world had basically developed REAL gadgets that did the stuff or were close enough to the previous Bond Gadgets, that, they just didn't matter anymore. And the BMW sellout will forever suck. I know product placement is everything, but come on. It was pretty lame if you ask me. Daniel Craig vs The Old Guard. This guy had to erase all the preconcieved notions of Bond. He did it with that Martini recipe in the Casino. Probably the best "bow" to the old Bonds, and yet, creating a totally new twist on the Martini, pun intended. Awesome. His sensitivity and realness really show. This Bond sweats. He bleeds. He kills. He loves. He even dies. Bond is not protected by a bubble, he's touchable, but in the end, he's unstoppable. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Craig is an awesome Bond. I was so pumped when I saw the movie I was rewinding parts in my head for days. The Range Rover parking job, the Martini scene, the torture scene, even him getting cleaned up after the fight with the terrorists. Holy Kick Ass. I would say, the only lame part was probably the final fight in the Venitian Villa. That was a little too corny and didn't really flow with the rest of the movie. So I guess my list would be: 1. Craig (if he continues in this way) 2. Connery 3. Moore (even though he was corny, the movies were more enjoyable than....) 4. Brosnan (His NBC clause killed him as a quintessential Bond, too little, too late) 5. Dullton (no need to comment) 6. Lazenby (not even worth mentioning, it's so long ago) Craig brought me back into the Bond world. I was bored with Pierce after 2 movies, and didn't see the last two until they were shown on TV, didn't even watch them on DVD first. I will definitely see ANY Craig Bond movies in the theaters. He was awesome in Layer Cake, and he'll be awesome as Bond.

SprinterMatt on Nov 4, 2007


I think it has to be said that Sean Connery was by far THE best Bond, Roger Moore was sooooo damn wooden. Daniel Craig is bringing something new and reshaping Bond as we used to know him, taking it back to the begining was great idea, I think the Brosnan movies were so overdone all the damn focus wsa on gadgets and special effects, for me Craigs' Casino Royale was by far the best Bond movie there has been - and actually the first Bond movie I actually wanted to have in my DVD collection. Bring it on, can't wait for more more Daniel Craig as Bond. Superb.

Ian on Nov 7, 2007


Pierce Brosnan is the best James Bond on the other hand Daniel Craig is ok as james bond ,So he will be a so- so bond !!! But He is no Pierce Brosnan .!!!! To me Pierce Brosnan will always be James Bond .I own ever James Bond movie thaT Pierce Brosnan HAS DONE .

Sam Deverell on Nov 22, 2007


I gained respect for Lazenby when he called Brosnan a pussy.

KB on Nov 22, 2007


Dalton was the best actor to play Bond- he played the role perfectly, as a somewhat cynical, vulnerable spy who did his job out of sense of duty, and killed because he had to, not because he wanted to. Moore was a total buffoon; it was Dalton's great misfortune that he followed him, the contrast was too great for a lot of viewers who grew up with Moore's cartoonish antics (I'm one of them, but I always appreciated Dalton.) Connery was excellent and of course the original will always be the most appreciated. Lazenby was ok but his one film was a bit too maudlin and dull. Brosnan did ok for exactly one film, then he looked bored and afraid to muss his hair for the last four. "Tomorrow Never Dies" might have been as bad as "Moonraker," and that's saying a LOT. "The Property of a Lady" (1991) and "Goldeneye" (1993) would have been wonderful with Dalton. What a shame that legal problems derailed his Bond career. Our loss.

John on Dec 1, 2007


Considering that "Live and Let Die" (1973) and "The Man with the Golden Gun" (1974) did poor box office, it's a real shame that Broccoli, etc. didn't dump Moore and start the long-considered "reboot" with Dalton in the late-70s. A 30-year old Dalton would have been amazing in a series of more serious, down-to-earth spy adventures, a hint of which we got in 1981's "For Your Eyes Only" (would have been a more than decent film if only an already-too-old Moore wasn't mucking it up) and most obviously in "The Living Daylights" (1987), my favorite Bond film of all. Dalton should have taken the gig in 1969, at 25 he could act circles around George Lazenby, and it might have opened a whole new era for Bond. Instead we got Moore and a decade-plus of slapstick garbage.

John on Dec 1, 2007


This isn't even a contest. Sean Connery IS James Bond. Period. Anyone else in the role is simply doing a Connery impression. It's comparable to traveling at the speed of light. That is, impossible - or approachable, at best.

Ric on Dec 12, 2007


i like lazenby actualy as for people saying he was a wuss he kicked more ass and slapped more women than moore and dalton without a doubt. dalton suffered from the unfortunate budget cuts and bad writting of that eras bond films. to be honest i didnt like the craig movie. its not that i thought he was giving us a bad performance its just the movie seemed more like a bourne identity movie than a bond flick. i just didnt get it. forty five minutes watching a poker game being played out in a film. well meh its just me. as for the all time best bond it would sean connery. this being said he was also responsible for the worst bond acting perfomance in never say never again. i mean even roger moore did better than that good awful portrayal of bond. yeah so the directors had a role in it for sure but it was horrid. pierce well too skinny to wimpy and just too 90s.

bond on Dec 29, 2007


Bring me back, i want new chance!

Pierce on Dec 30, 2007



DEEP THROAT on Feb 2, 2008


Craig is a great James Bond, but hasn't yet compared to Sean Connery who is a incredible Bond! But if Craig keeps playing Bond the way he does I think that he will be the new James Bond!

Vesper on Mar 19, 2008


Some were lucky to receive an excellent script while others weren't. I LOVE THEM ALL, BECAUSE I LOVE THE IDEA OF BOND FIRST AND FOREMOST. Films with Connery set the standard. Lazenby: never gets enough credit. He played the script with wit and candour and sex appeal. Moore: He was nothing but Bond-slick and sharp before the writing got ridiculous. Timothy: they turned the Bond franchise into the A-Team. Dalton however did well. Producers downplayed Bond ego and sexual appetite in light of AIDS. Broznan: did an excellent job regardless of the fact that I can't stand him. Craig: the writing was superb. I waited for a decent bond film for the past eighteen years. Like i said it all boils down to writing...Invisible car? SPARE ME. A tank blowing holes through the Kremlin? AS IF. Cello sled? PLEASE. Felix Lighter and his wife (Terri from Three's Company) chewed on by a shark and alive to tell about it... UGH. Roger having to do anything stupid in Octpussy... I REST MY CASE.

Girl Fan of Many Years on Apr 1, 2008


Barry Nelson, an MGM contract player during the 1940s who later had a prolific theater career and was the first actor to play James Bond on screen, has died. He was 89.

wanlock on Apr 12, 2008


Bond can never be so real and interesting as how Craig portrayed the character, even in the absence of those inventions and too much effort of making scenes sexy. Craig is that actor who acts out his craft with seriousness that brings out a seriously captivating character out of Bond. I love Craig!!! Casino Royale was so cool... Glad there are more Bond-Craig to see:-)

cristy arriola martin on Apr 16, 2008


Brosnan sucked and was great at the same time, if that is at all possible. In my opinion he didn't do quite so bad as BOND, but yet was not up to par as others, such as Connery, Moore, and Craig. End of story, Brosnan played that sleeke and suave, and in my opinion it is the only thing he can play, it seems fitting to obvious the Bond Films, yet How many movies like Mrs. Doubtfire, where it carries over can he play?

helicoptrical on Apr 19, 2008


Daniel Craig is Bond's most real character ever. Why would be a secret agent like a businessman? He has to look as usual as he can, not to be conspicuous. Maybe that's why Casino Royale was the best James Bond film in my opinion. It has some weak points of course. But I think, Craig added some new traits to the character, he improved it to be more varied.

Armatus on May 9, 2008


Casino Royale was the best James Bond film? If you cut out all the parts where people are talking into or looking at cellphones, the film is roughly 45 minutes long. The product placement for cellphones was REALLY over the top. From the opening scene in Madagascar to the final scene with Mr. White, someone is yammering away at, looking at, or turning off a cellphone. Ridiculous. "Ellipses" "they are extracting LeChiffre...Mathis needs me" (two looking at cellphones moments, within seconds of eachother)

John on May 9, 2008


I realize I'm entering this discussion very late, but I have to say that the WHOLE REASON Craig came off like a simplistic, thuggish Bond is because the director was savvy enough to realize that this is the movie where Bond /becomes/ bond. James Bond wasn't born from the womb with savoir faire and killer instinct. In fact, we get to see 007's first Kill in the movie. Read that again: his first kill. Some of you are simply too young to remember anyone but Brosnan. I can accept that. I grew up with Roger Moore as Bond, and I thought at the time that he was THE Bond. However, after buying my ex-husband the Sean Connery 007 box set and watching the movies, I have to say that Connery beats the holy living crap out of Roger Moore--and remember, I was very firmly and adamantly in Moore's corner from childhood onwards. That is, until I had my eyes opened. Brosnan was a brilliant Bond selection because of reasons others mentioned, however... I believe that the savoir faire that people think this "thuggish" Bond is missing will be revealed in the next movies. Remember, Vesper was TEACHING Bond how to behave as an upper-class gentleman. It's noted specifically in the movie that he was not born to the upper class and therefore lacked proper "taste" in clothing and other matters. She also taught him that falling in love with the heroine is a bad idea. Thus we will see more casual liasons throughout Craig's tenure as Bond. Re-watch the movie and think about the beginnings of the underpinnings that are so familiar to us now after many Bond films. (For instance, the expected later appearance of the Q character for the gadgets that were largely missing in Casino Royale.) I have a feeling that this Bond will be teaching his handlers a thing or two...

ArmageddonKitten on May 15, 2008


To the person above me- I think you hit the nail on the head with that one.

Travis on May 16, 2008


Thank you, Travis. I think for me the part that brought that home was when Bond, frustrated at losing his money and out of control of the situation went to the bar to order his "Vesper" martini. The bartender asks him politely and smoothly (like any good functionary should), "Will that be shaken or stirred, sir?" And Bond replies with irritation, "Do I look like I give a damn?" Whoa, hold on here... "Shaken not stirred" is a quintissential Bond staple line that we have always heard. It's likely he didn't even know there was a difference or that no matter what happens, he should always appear as if he is not rattled. You know the old line: never let them see you sweat. Not only did the "Do I look like I give a damn" line have to be written into the script, but it had to be approved by the director and vetted by god-only-knows-who at the production level. You'd think someone would have gone, "Uhhhhh... Bond never says that..." But they didn't because this isn't a film about James Bond, this is a film about the MAKING of James Bond.

ArmageddonKitten on May 16, 2008


P.S. I really like comment 17. Kudos to you, James, for recognizing the underpinnings of what makes good fiction (and a good Bond)! Some people simply don't know what they're talking about. For me, Casino Royale 2.0 was mind-blowing and a true mental reboot. I couldn't stop watching Craig's face and posture. There was no doubt in my mind that he understood the actual character and so did the director. It was bloody brilliant. The last scene with Mr. White really sealed the transformative process and was entirely necessary--not as epilogue but as a capstone on what we have learned about 007's creation. At that moment, he is the sum total of what Vesper and M have taught him. Being a Double-0 isn't a game, it's a sacrifice. Brilliant.

ArmageddonKitten on May 16, 2008


Don't get me wrong, I really liked Casino Royale (stand alone) and I think Craig is a fantastic Bond - my only reservation about what they are doing with the films is that Casino Royale wasn't a prequel to Dr. No, it was a reboot and really is in a completely different universe than the 20 other Bond films. Maybe it's because I grew up on the bond films but I get a quasi empty feeling when I think about the all the other films being nullified by the new one's. Personally I feel much better about Bond not ageing throughout the years than I do with them completely restarting the story......though as far as restarting the story goes, they have been doing a considerably good job so far (but that's not the point 😉 ).

Travis on May 17, 2008


What, like I didn't grow up on Bond? ;D I can handle a reboot. The other films were what they were... These will be different. Doesn't hurt my brain or feelings any.

ArmageddonKitten on May 17, 2008


I know you did as well =) I think a prequel set in the 50's would have been just as well though.....but then again as I said, I really liked Casino Royale.

Travis on May 17, 2008


Sean, Daniel and Pierce are the best. just under them is Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton. i really try to like George Lazenby but i just don't. at all....George Lazenby sucks.

Luke on Jun 13, 2008


pierce is great!more power,

richard m.abanono on Jun 24, 2008


pierce is amazing james bond,and great actor.more power pieirce!

richard abanono on Jun 27, 2008


I love them all because I love James Bond films, end of story.

Alex Cardoso on Jul 5, 2008


the new trailer is up and The Quantum Of Solace looks like a proper Bond film. I like the trailer because it doesn't really give any of the plot away =)

Travis on Jul 5, 2008


Quantum Of Solace looks nothing like a Bond film. I am starting to think that people have forgotten what the essence of Bond was supposed to be. Instead we are faced with a new set of Bond films that seem to be a clone of the Bourne films. MI6 after Bond, CIA after Bourne; sounds like similar plots to me. Craig even looks more like Matt Damon then the other Bonds. Both Blond and about 5'10. Bond isn't a killing machine in the novels, he is an agent that kills when he has to, and he is charming, attractive and highly intelligent. Craig was none of those things in Casino Royale and he won't be them in QOS. So chalk it up to what it is a generic action movie, no Q no Money Penny, no charm.

Yeah on Jul 6, 2008


I wonder if anyone has a body count on some of the bond films... It would be interesting to go back and see just how many dead guys Bond left behind in the previous films. I bet Roger Moore has the most rack-up of anyone. Just a hunch, mind you.

ArmageddonKitten on Jul 6, 2008


Never mind bodycount; I hope the "looking or talking into cellphones" count is way down in this next film. I swear, half of "Casino Royale" consisted of people looking at cellphones, talking into cellphones, setting off bombs with cellphones- enough already. I'm not impressed by technology most ten-year olds have in their backpacks.

John on Jul 6, 2008


Of course you're not impressed... That's because cellphones are entirely ubiquitous. That's the point. Everyone has a cellphone attached at the hand--absolutely everyone. My doctor carries his cellphone and his PDA around, everyone I know has a cell that they whip out just to check the time (nobody wears watches, why bother?). At the place I hang out, it's like round-robin cell phone tag. One person drops out of the conversation to answer their cell just as another finishes a conversation, etc. Nobody bats an eyelash unless a juicy conversation is going on. I get calls from my husband while I'm in line in the grocery store, and we trade text messages while he's at work. I mean... it's just a fact of life now. It was used as a plot device, but it was hardly out of place. He hasn't gotten to all his gadgets yet. He'll get there.

ArmageddonKitten on Jul 6, 2008


Um, are you serious? People go to the bathroom and shop for food too- I dont want to see that in a Bond movie. If you want to spend ten bucks watching Bond and every other character on the screen looking at or talking into their cellphone every few seconds (seriously, watch the film again and try to keep count of how many times cellphones are used) that's your choice. Please don't try to tell me that because cellphones are used all the time in real life, it's ok for them to crowd out the action in Bond films. BTW, you get calls from your husband while on the line for groceries and you text eachother while at work? That's really fascinating, it really is. I would'nt pay five cents to see you do that on a big screen though.

John on Jul 6, 2008


Maybe half of Quantum of Solace involves the use of Global Positioning Systems, or maybe Bond's new car has (gasp) A DVD PLAYER!! ZOWIE! I swear, I half expected that jackass in goofy glasses and overalls from the ATT commercials to show up in Casino Royale to let Bond know that his signal was still clear.

John on Jul 6, 2008


It´s all what you compare against - before - the technology in the Bond movies represented the future and the state of the art, today it´s just product placements. I think the last Bond-film was the most of a "real movie" a Bond film has ever been (only Timothy Daltons movies managed this really well), and I don´t even count the Brosnan adventures as real Bond movies. I´m still in awe of how good the movie was, and I´m sure the second one is gonna be better. Can´t wait really!

Niclas on Jul 6, 2008


Don't get me wrong; I liked Casino Royale. I thought the use of cellphones was badly overdone, that's all- in fact, I thought they repeatedly interrupted the flow and acted as clutter. Strange in a movie refreshing for it's lack of stupid gadgets. And I totally agree with the Dalton comment; if you read above, you'll see I was a big fan of Dalton's portrayal of Bond and the down-to-earth, script-centered films he was in.

John on Jul 6, 2008


Sean Connery set the standard in the first three Bond movies that nobody has ever matched. I think Judi Dench is sexy. Should I seek therapy?

mrogi on Jul 6, 2008


Dame Judi is hawt. I don't care what anybody says.

ArmageddonKitten on Jul 6, 2008


I think Desmond Llewelyn is HOT! You guys are crazy, she´s not hot.

Niclas on Jul 6, 2008


I cant wait for the new James bond movie to come out. First the last guy was right Roger moore wasnt very good at James bond. My order is Sean, Daniel, Roger, Pierce, Dalton, Lasonby. I have a good feeling that Craig will pass Sean if he keeps up what he is doing Casino Royal was one of the best bond movies ever i hope he does as much as Roger moore if not more.

Jake on Jul 17, 2008


Bluyonder on Oct 28, 2007 wrote: "The key to Craig's portrayal of Bond is in the final scene. After the loss of his first love he makes a transformation to "Bond…James Bond". In that scene he resembled Connery. The next movie should be interesting. We should get to see Craig play a more mature, suave and sophisticated Bond." Daniel Craig is the best Bond of the franchise, however, I don't think he will transform in to a Connery type of Bond in the new movie. I predict Bond will be belligerent, looking for payback and creating quite a bit of mayhem to exercise some demons before turning into the more suave and sophisticated Bond for the remainder of the movies.

madbax68 on Jul 31, 2008


Ian Fleming must haved turned in his grave knowing about the choice of Daniel Craig as James Bond, and the poor performance he does in Casino Royale 2006. Almost only one expression on his face, and what a terrible face!!!! Can you imagine that the Broccoli/Wilson Bond team has not been able to find a great and hansome actor among the billion of people living on our planet!!! Craig can't even wear a smoking jacket!! He looks like a delayed student in it!!! No class at all. Well, one thing... everybody agrees that he would have been perfect as a bad guy. Yes, we simply expect him to die after each of his actions in the movie. I hope to see again at the end of the next Eon production "James Bond will be back"!!! Daniel Craig is no James Bond.

Sylvain on Aug 1, 2008


Sylvain on Aug 1, 2008 Almost only one expression on his face, and what a terrible face!!!! Typical liberal cynicism, obsessed over imperfections instead of appreciating the important qualities like acting criminal to outsmart the criminals, pushing the limits of the rules of being good to triumph over evil and owning up to responsibilities. Yes Bond is reckless and irresponsible at times but that is what makes his stories interesting to puny, little critics like us. What a sad, little, ball of hate you are. PS: Daniel Craig may not be the best actor to portray Bond but Casino Royale was (IMO) the best Bond movie so far but, like yours, is just an opinion, .

madbax68 on Aug 2, 2008


Dear readers, Never forget that Sean Connery was the original, the first actor chosen by the original Bond producers (C. Broccoli + H. Saltzman), and that THE AUTHOR, Mr. Ian Fleming shared their enthusiasm. Obviously with Mrs. Barbara Broccoli, we have a proof that talent and taste are not hereditary!!! Only the sense of making money!! Not mentionning the overbid of violence, a competition between movie makers for decades!!! K on Oct 28, 2007 : "remember that casino royale was supposed to be about bond at the BEGINNING of his career. he wasn't supposed to be perfectly suave and slick; he was still learning. craig did a perfect job with the character that he was supposed to portray." Well doctor, it's really sad if at more than forty years old James Bond is not educated yet!!! lol I think that we see a lot of Daniel Craig in that character. He is not acting, he is just himself! lol An elephant entering a porcelaine store!! And it's all about this movie. KB on Oct 28, 2007 : "Craig's performance cannot yet be judged on par with others' performances in other Bond movies - that he will grow into a version of Bond similar to Connery's - more suave and polished but not to the Moore- or Brosnan-like extent. He will (hopefully) maintain a gritty undercurrent." Come on!!! Craig has done this movie and must be critized (positively or negatively) for his performance. Did critics had to wait 2 or more Bond film to appreciate Connery's performances!! Girl Fan of Many Years on Oct 29, 2007 : "IF ANYONE SUCKED it was because THE WRITING SUCKED. Uhhh…Octopussy and Man With the Golden Gun, Golden Eye, Living Daylights, Licence to Kill, Die Another Day… if not silly then far fetched or ridulous or low brow gag jokes. The actor's can only do so much. The writing has to be strong to begin with." Absolutely true. Some of the plots were waisted by consternant gadjets specially in the Moore area (that gondola!!!). But I don't think the writing is particularly original for Casino Royale 2006. The story is mostly boring or too violent. I had refused to see the movie on a theater and waited to buy the DVD for cheap (I bought a Zone 1 and second hand!! lol). I was so bored that twice I had to give up watching the movie. Only a third time I finally made it, and felt so disappointed. Yes, boring the scenes in the casino, and all that talking with the cell phones. Every body is boring to watch in that movie, from Craig's limitated expressions on his face, to Mads Mikkelsen, and Eva Green, the saddest Bond girl ever. She wasn't paid enough for that role, maybe? lol. And that yamakasi opening sequence!!! dejà vu, from a french movie (Yamakasi) released in 2001!!!! and we can see that the writers tried hard to have Bond following the jumper, and they made him avoid the most difficult scenes by tricks. The jumper could have shot Bond so many times in that sequence!! In that sequence Craig very often runs as an imitation of Pierce Brosnan's robotic move. I almost forgot!!!!! THAT music by David Arnod (a cheap John Barry plagiarist when at his best): it's heard too much and too loud, not very inventive. Well to conclude, nothing breathe in that movie. ArmageddonKitten on May 16, 2008 : "this isn't a film about James Bond, this is a film about the MAKING of James Bond." Did we need to see how James Bond was made? Is that movie a James Bond recepe?? lol If so, Eon productions should have made a version with a young actor, as it was done with the series "Smallville" for Superman. I am not just kidding!! Because Daniel Craig looks really retired in playing that role.!! John on Jul 6, 2008 : "I swear, half of "Casino Royale" consisted of people looking at cellphones, talking into cellphones, setting off bombs with cellphones- enough already. I'm not impressed by technology most ten-year olds have in their backpacks." I totally agree. A lake of imagination, simply. But enough to impress billion of small minds in this earth!! helàs!! Boring, boring (did I say it before?).... I think that the actual Bond team Barbara Broccoli/Michael Wilson forgot what was the original motivation when the series started, approved by Ian Fleming until he died a few months before the release of "Godfinger," and that was perpetued (with more or less success) for decades until this "n'importe quoi" Casino Royale 2006: Entertainment. PS: pardon my English!!

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008


I missed "Godfinger"... You superficial Frenchie. I'm 100. Yay me!

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008


Hey Sylvain. This has no relevance but when I read your posts I hear the voice of Sacha Baron Cohen in the character of Jean Gerrard from Talladega Nights. Mmmmwa! I taste of America.

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008


madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008 just said: "… You superficial Frenchie." Mea culpa, I wrote Godfinger instead of Goldfinger!!! But I also wrote "pardon my English". Didn't you see that Mr.madbax68? You can qualifie me of superficial if you want, and if you think that what I said is superficial (but did you really understand my writing? can you read??), whatever you think on the sujject is fine, but this word of your, "FRENCHIE", has a racist conotation. It smells bad. You smell bad Max. So please, watch your language for future comments on writers on the web. By the way, your nickname madbax68 shows a brain with a fantastic capacity in humor and originality, you should join the Eon production team, they need spirit like you to do as bad....Max!! lol lol Born in 1968, woaaaaaaa.... how imaginative and subtle too!!! lol

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008


madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008 said minutes ago: "Hey Sylvain. This has no relevance but when I read your posts I hear the voice of Sacha Baron Cohen in the character of Jean Gerrard from Talladega Nights. Mmmmwa! I taste of America." Sorry but I have better things to do than watch american series. And actually I don't think this one exists in France. I even don't watch the French series, even worst than the Americans. So I don't know what you're talking about; but my little finger tells me that it must not be that nice!! looooool

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008


I agree with Sylvain, the "Frenchie" comment was uncalled for. When you find yourself typing "this has no relevance," that's your brain urging you to backspace and erase. Too bad you didn't listen.

John on Aug 3, 2008


OMFG! LOL! I did not realize that French was a race... I guess I should feel insulted when I see the word "Yankee" and don't get me started on how the French smell... This is the best thread ever!

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008


Its not French, but Frenchie that you employed. Because Mr. madbax68 your brain seems to be really as narrow as James Bond personified by Daniel Craig, I have to show you how nice your Frenchie word was employed. You wrote "You superficial Frenchie" (on Aug 3, 2008). Just imagine if someone was writing "You superficial Yankee" as you were mentioning the name. Does that sound like a critic on cinema??? And about that "smell" comment!!! how original and "relevant" (to use your word) too!!! LOL Well, what can I say to conclude, that it shows the little word where you come from and around which you survive. So readers here should apprehend your posts now with that in mind. Now please everybody, back to the subject: James Bond 007.

Sylvain, from Paris on Aug 3, 2008


Oh snap! You sure pwned me there.

madbax68 on Aug 3, 2008


No surprise most think Connery was the best. I'm with the few who think that Craig's Bond will go down as being the best to date at the end of the next decade. My reasons: Unless I missed them, NO STUPID ONE LINERS, which, IMO, are a plaque on the series. Turning good espionage thrillers into comic book idiocy. Another great quality about Craig's Bond is the strength of the Bond character is as it has never been before. Very commanding. This is a Bond that demands attention. I have no dislike for any of the actors choosen to play Bond. They have all been great. I even thought George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton did a great job. To me the actor is only half the debate. The movie is the other half. The first half dozen or more movies in the series were made at a time when the art of movie making was still in it's infancy. Accepting horrible acting, lame fight sequences, God awful dubbing were the norm in action movies. The Bond movies of the last 15 years sparlkle like diamonds compared to the previous movies. Maybe it's the fact that I don't just like James Bond the character, but the entire adventure, which is why I choose Daniel Craig as being the best Bond to date. A far superior all around movie experience! With that being said, I also believe the series will only get better and better in time.

Pounding Metal on Aug 8, 2008


my favorites 1. roger moore( he had the best storylines)very good 2. pierce brosnan ( best attitude, should have come back for a fifth and final one)very good 3. sean connery ( classic bond, should have stopped after his fifth one)good 4. daniel craig ( an ok bond, not much personality)fair 5. timothy dalton ( an ok bond, like dc to dark)fair 6. george lazenby ( should never have been bond)poor

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008


I'll never get the Roger Moore fans. Moore played Bond like he was a cartoon character, and Moonraker and View to a Kill were virtually unwatchable. Dalton brought the character back to life, a down to earth Bond with believable plots (or do you prefer hearing the Beach Boys as Bond skis down a mountain on one ski, or seeing Jaws slowly run into the arms of a woman and becoming a "good guy?") Dalton saved the franchise, which is why Brosnan and now Craig play Bond MUCH closer to Dalton's interpretation than Moore's.

John on Aug 10, 2008


"The Bond movies of the last 15 years sparlkle like diamonds compared to the previous movies." Really- where to start in answering this ridiculous comment? "GoldenEye," "Tomorrow Never Dies" (which was just hideous, almost as bad as "Moonraker,") "Die another Day" sparkle like Diamonds compared to which films? Dr No? Goldfinger? Thunderball? "The first half dozen or more movies in the series were made at a time when the art of movie making was still in it's infancy." Infancy? How old do you think infants get to be? The first Bond film was made in 1962- that would be the SIXTH DECADE of full-length filmmaking. And again- are you really telling us that in your opinion, the Brosnan films and "Casino Royale" are vastly superior to the Connery films of those early, experimental days of filmmaking, the 1960s? :>). You can't be serious.

John on Aug 10, 2008


pierce brosnan saved thee franchise! it was going bankrupt in the early nineties because of timothy daltons awful lisence to kill.

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008


timothy dalton almost killed the franchise!

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008


how tall are the actors this is what ive heard write back if i am wrong sean connery- 6 "2" george lazenby - 6 "2" 1/2 roger moore- 6" 1" timothy dalton- 6"2" pierce brosnan- 6"1" daniel craig- 5" 10"

dirk struan on Aug 10, 2008


I think that might be a little unfair, Lisense To Kill wasn't Dalton's fault.

Travis on Aug 10, 2008


No. 112- totally untrue. All you have to do is look at the figures. "The Living Daylights" made more money than "Octopussy" and "A View to a Kill"- that film represented a COMEBACK for the franchise. Despite poor marketing and Brocolli's refusal to expand the budget, requiring a script rewrite to set the film in Mexico instead of China, "License to Kill" was a box-office success, bringing in more than four times it's production budget. Compare that to the Brosnan films, which were produced with much larger budgets. "GoldenEye," "Tomorrrow Never Dies," and "The World is Not Enough" barely cleared four times their production budgets, putting them each on par with "License to Kill." "Die Another Day" however was the first Bond film EVER not to make back at least four times it's production budget, pulling only $450 million on a budget of $150 million. "Casino Royale" did only slightly better. It's also worth nothing that Pierce Brosnan is the only actor in the history of the Bond films to be FIRED from his role as James Bond 007. Not exactly an endorsement of your theory that Brosnan "saved" the franchise. So please, do your homework before you post here. You have no idea what you are talking about.

John on Aug 11, 2008


as the bond budgets get bigger it gets harder to be as successful. when the bond budgets were 7,000,000 back in the early seventies it was easier to make back the money. the budget of the living daylights was 40,000,000 compared to dads 142,000,000 ( not 150,000,000) and YES pierce brosnan did save the franchise. the company was bankrupt and brosnan reinvented the character for modern times. Die another day also made so much more money than tim daltons ever would. something timothy dalton didn't do. it wasn't good for audiences at the end of the eighties because people actually wanted a light hearted bond with a the trouble going on in the world, with the berlin wall and the persian gulf war. but i do think tim would be a good bond if he were younger and doing it right now in are time.

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008


dont mess with me, im 6"4" i weigh 235 lbs and im an ex special forces operative.

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008


You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. 1. It wasn't "easier" for the earlier Bond movies to make far and beyond their budgets because money was worth more then; that's just totally illogical, almost juvenile, thinking. It's all relative. My father made $30,000 in 1972, I make $55,000 in 2008. Do I make more than my father? Hell no I don't. Would "License to Kill" have made a huge amount of money if the budget was far bigger (including a decent advertising budget, instead of virtually zilch like it had in reality?) Who knows? Relative to the amount the film cost, it was far more profitable than "Die Another Day." Anyone over the age of ten should be able to grasp this concept. Discuss this with an older friend who owns a calculator. You might as well argue that Brosnan's movies crushed the Connery movies because none of them made even close to what Brosnan's did. Totally irrelevant unless you compare the production budgets. 2. If the company was "bankrupt" (and it wasn't) it had so little to do with Timothy Dalton that Dalton was signed to do "Goldeneye" all the way up to the spring of 1994, when he backed out after yet another delay in the script rewrite. Doesn't sound like a studio disenchanted with Dalton. 3. "The Living Daylights" made more money than Moore's last two films. I posted this earlier, but you clearly chose to ignore it, because it clashes with your narrative. Again- you are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. 4. Brosnan "reinvented the character?" In what way? He was a hybrid of Moore and Dalton, closer to Dalton. There was nothing especially unique about the way Brosnan portrayed Bond. 5. And again- Brosnan was such a savior of the Bond franchise that he was unceremoniously dumped in favor of virtual unknown Daniel Craig. Brosnan has said in interviews that he was "shocked and saddened" by his dismissal. But the FACT is that Brosnan's films were very expensive rolls of the dice that were only modestly successful compared to the other Bond films. "Brosnan saved the franchise"-please, do your homework.

John on Aug 11, 2008


dont mess with me, im 6"4" i weigh 235 lbs and im an ex special forces operative. dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008 --who knows nothing about the Bond films.

John on Aug 11, 2008


as you say money isnt worth as much today, so it should be harder for the new bond films to make more money. but brosnans worst efforts still make as much as tims. by the way tim dalton was shaddened and shocked by his leaving bond. He didnt expect the company to almost go bankrupt(which it did) ( watch lisence to kill bonus features on the dvd) Brosnan made a true comeback. the series had faded and was being upstaged by movies like die hard and other new action movies. Brosnan brought bond back into the public. he hadnt been seen in six years. Sure tim dalton made his first bond movie good, the living daylights. Yea it was a little better than the previous roger moore adventure. but the way he wanted to make bond darker and darker just wasn't good for the franchise at that time.( remember what i wrote above) The living daylights only made a little more than octopussy. and that was because of inflassion. he still didnt outgross rogers MOONRAKER! which wouldnt be outgrossed until goldeneye. Pierce brosnan reinvented the character by bringing the charm and wit that tim dalton had nothing of. tim dalton was signed on to goldeneye to spring 94 thats correct but he backed out because he was fed up with the argueing and loss of money when the studio nearly went bankrupt! im signing off now. ive got better things to do than chat up a storm with you and waste my time. the names struan, dirk struan

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008


You simply don't know what you are talking about, and you are making it worse by making things up. I have the Licence to Kill Special Edition DVD, and there is no talk of the studio "going bankrupt." The film was badly advertised and did not do the box office it was expected to do, PERIOD. The delay in making Dalton's third film was caused by trademarking issues and a subsequent lawsuit- nothing to do with the studio lacking money, because it didn't. NOTHING. And then you change the subject- yes, BROSNAN made a great comeback after being basically out of the spotlight for almost a decade. BROSNAN made the comeback, NOT THE BOND SERIES. The rest of your post is just opinion- Brosnan brought charm that "Dalton didn't have," etc. Fine. You are entitled to like Brosnan and dismiss Dalton. No problem. But don't try to fortify your argument by making stuff up like "the studio was bankrupt and Brosnan swept in and saved it, yay!" Because it aint true.

John on Aug 11, 2008


Oh and BTW "The Living Daylights" made more money than "Octopussy" even when adjusted for inflation. I can tell by your diction and your failure to grasp an argument that you think getting an education is a waste of time. I hope you are heading out to buy your self a dictionary now. And a clue.

John on Aug 11, 2008


Uh oh, we have yet another "expert" in yet another forum. What a shock! Thanks "John" for setting us all straight. You go ahead and sit in sheer excitement watching Oddjob "pushing" Bond around the room givng him a good work over and I'll keep enjoy the stunt work and action sequences in the more recent years, like the arrogant idiot that I am. LOL

Pounding Metal on Aug 11, 2008


Deal. I'll take Oddjob "pushing" Connery around Fort Knox and you can have Pierce Brosnan digitally surfing on a wave caused by a collapsing glacier before he gets back to his invisible car ANY DAY.

John on Aug 11, 2008


By the way, if doing a few minutes worth of research makes me an "expert" in your eyes, I can understand why you appreciate the shiny cool gadgets and digital special effects of the later movies over realism. I didn't refer to myself as an "expert." You sound like someone who tries to end every argument you are losing with "Oh look at Mister Ed-U-Kation over here, thinks he's BETTER'N ME DOES HE?" And I appreciate the royal "we"- "look gang, someone's trying to use statistics to prove something! We've been invaded by a rocket scientist!" Crawl back into your hole, moron. I'm not going to apologize for being able to use my brain.

John on Aug 11, 2008


Crawling back in my hole. Thanks for the insults John.

Pounding Metal on Aug 11, 2008


dont worry pounding metal, i to think johns an idiot trying to sound smart and represent a awful bond

dirk struan on Aug 11, 2008


It's I "too," "john" is a proper name and should start with a capital letter, "I" shoujld be capitalized for the same reason, it's "too," not "to," "appear" rather than "sound" smart since one can't hear posts, "an" is to be used before a word beginning with a vowel, and "Bond" should be capitalized for the same reason as "John." Oh, and you should end your posts with a period. That's the way we know the rant is over. Now here's a quick quiz: Which of the following is more correct: A. "Don't worry Pounding Metal..." OR B. "dont worry pounding metal..." Have fun!

John on Aug 11, 2008


Dude why dont we get back to Bond. I do think Dirk Struan has a point though. You sound very cocky and not very smart. A smart person knows when they are smart and does not need to shout out that they are smart to everybody. People will figure that out when they get to know you.

lance on Aug 11, 2008


I think Lance is right. John, your mean and stupid.

Susan Q. on Aug 11, 2008


I saw when you were writing to Dirk Struan you said " Brosnan swept in and saved it, Yea!" " Because it AINT true. WHAT KIND OF GRAMMAR IS THAT! You can not give other people English lessons. You do not even know English yourself.

Susan Q. on Aug 12, 2008


I saw the preview for Quantum of Solace on a theater a week ago. Huge on the screen. What a consternant vision again, dark images, same loud sound when somebody uses his gun (in case you don't notice the action on the screen!! lol) and about that terrible trytobeanactorcraig: same pinched lips, same attitude whatever he does, a loser look. It seems he really enjoyed that chair the last time!!! And again a scene in a scaffold (they have imagination at EON!! LOL). They really shoud have bring back that chair for another exciting sequence, and by chance this 00000000Craig would give up the Bond movies. One can dream, helas..helas....

sylvain from Paris on Aug 31, 2008


Still looking for someone to be better than Connery....and they still have not found anyone. Connery had it all, suave, sophisticated, good looks and charm, wit, intellect, and atheltic ability...the man knew how to pose with a gun and make it look good...and the early Bond films had the best gadgetry and villans by far. The Bonds since had some of those qualities, but no one had all of them quite like Connery did. Here's my ratings: 1. Connery (for all the reasons stated above) The rest can be argued in any number of ways, since they all have some qualities, but lack in others: 2. Roger Moore (some films allowed him to approach Connery status...The Spy who Loved Me for example....but the writers started to turn the series into a joke with bad scripts, absurd plots and even more absurd characters.... not Roger's fault...but he was a victim of the times) Roger had the good looks, the suave, wit, and intellect...but he was no way near as atheltic as Connery and towards the end he was too old to play the part...making any love interest a joke. 3. Daniel Craig. Ok, only one film to go on...but it was a good film, well acted, and added a realistic approach to Bond as opposed to the immortal Bonds of the past. What Craig has is he even bests Connery; however, in making Bond a more "real" person...he lacks the good looks, and the super-intellect qualities of other Bonds. Once you make him real, then you can toss out all the other qualities that we loved about Bond because no "real" person can have it all. Still, his ruggedness couple with just enough wit and common sense intellect is enough to make him stand above the list below. If you are looking for charm...then drop his name to the bottom. 4. Pierce Bronson, Timothy Dalton --- Tie. Yes, Bronson made more movies...but only one of them, his first was of any quality...Dalton showed promise in his first attempt..but failed miserably in his second. Both had charm and good looks, above average intellect...but nowhere near a Connery or a Moore; athleticism was fair...but nowhere near Craig or Connery. These were the lost years when the Bond franchise was failing and the box office showed it....hence, an overhaul was needed...which brings us to the realist approach to Bond, Daniel Craig 5. Lansberry -- One film, Her Majesty Secret Service... The film itself had all the elements of classic early Bond (while it should because it was made during the Connery reign)...But Lansberry was out of his element as Bond...and replacing Connery at the hight of his popularity, Lansberry was doomed from the start from inevitable comparisons. If only Connery made this film, it may have ended up as being one of the great Bond films. This is a film ripe for a remake with some obvious plot changes to bring it up-to-date...and with a better Bond...maybe Craig????

James Bond on Oct 14, 2008


Daniel Craig is ruining the great series of bond. I have seen each movie about 100 times, know all the scripts by heart. James Bond got lost after goldeneye. It turned downhill before that actually with the death of broccoli. The worst bond until craig was without a doubt Lazenby. Craig took over that dubious honor. He isn't bond period. He doesnt have the style, the humor nor the finesse. Hell he doesn't even have the right haircolor. Also the style got lost. I wonder if the director even saw all the bond movies since the series just went haywire the last couple of years. James Bond had a great cast, it doesnt anymore. Soundtrack was way better when john barry and others composed. Do it right please or stop milking the bond brand. And i disagree with people that say Connery was best. I still feel Moore is the best one. Sean Connery was great as well but he is such a great actor he can play any role fabulously.

James Bond fan on Oct 14, 2008


Dude.....if you take a poll, most people will over-whelming say that Connery IS Bond. Roger Moore was too old when he took on the part, Craig is just a gruffty construction worker in a suit and tie, Bronson was a Bond want-a-be...a pretty face with no substance, Buckwheat and Homer Simpson were better actors than Timothy Dalton....and Lazenby was just an extra who was asked to fill in....Maxwell Smart would have done better.

Austin Powers on Oct 14, 2008



THE REAL DEAL on Oct 15, 2008


If we are going to have the first black president...then why not a black Bond. Go for it. Some good ones that would have made a good Bond: Will Smith, Puff Daddy

Shaft on Oct 15, 2008


Yes, we are more than ready for a black president. I'm voting for him, but as far as James Bond goes, it's not a race thing, it's a character thing. You can't have a black Bond, that would be like having a white Shaft. and as far as will smith (who I really like) and puff daddy (who doesn't act) go, they arn't from Europe and I don't think anyone think's an American (regardless of what color his skin is) should ever play Bond. Again though, Bond's character isn't an African American, he's a British man with a Scottish bloodline. It'd be like getting Tom Cruise to play Blade....just doesn't work. To number 135- "I wonder if the director even saw all the bond movies since the series just went haywire the last couple of years. " I think he might have seen them taking in to consideration he had also directed GoldenEye. Now you can dislike whatever actor you want for whatever reason you have and I can disagree and neither of us would be wrong but I like when you read the books you see that Craig, Dalton, and Connery reflect the character the best. esp Craig though i love the Connery films. Though we have only seen one Craig film so far which isn't a lot to go on. You do however see that when his kill's arn't clean (like the intro and the stair fight) it strongly effects him though he doesn't admit to anyone, esp the girl. He is also now a much more introspective character like in the books. feel free to disagree, this was all just IMO.....aside from the part about the director that's a fact, look it up on IMDB.

ZeroEnna on Oct 16, 2008


Hey.... I was born in Scottland and I am black, so by your definition (139) I should be qualified.... I think your comment was a bit racist! BTW..I love Connery as Bond...but, I see no reason why a black man could never play the part of Bond!



haha, actually yeah it kind of does. I clearly don't know anything about you but I'd vote for you to play him over Will Smith or Puff Daddy I don't see how it's racist to say that a character that was written to be white and british would feel more than a little bit off if P Diddy were playing him.

ZeroEnna on Oct 17, 2008


Daniel Craig is the BEST BOND. Coming from a 23yr old who came up with Pierce Brosnan. I thought the first 2 bonds with Pierce were great, but then became totally retarded. But when I saw Casino Royale I thought Daniel Craig was the S***! I never considered myself a Bond person, I always saw Bond as too old and w/ his nose to high in the air for me. But Daniel Craig makes me for the first time ever want to be James Bond. I will see Quantum Solace, I just hope they dont start putting laser beams on his car and turning it into Crank. I like it real, I like it raw, I like it Dark yet classy at the same time. Daniel Craig is THE BEST BOND.

Matt on Oct 19, 2008


GOLDEN OLDIES Sean Connery- Seen as he was the first bond it is normal for people to see his as the best bond because he was the first. Sean had the swagger and voice superb. Roger Moore- Roger moore carried on the sauve tradition and made some great films out of the two oldies i prefer roger moore as i thought he had the charm of sean and could act so brill MODERN BOND Pierce Brosman- For me he is top atm because he was so charasmatic and captured all our hearts as bond Daniel Craig- For starters i have to say the change of look for the new bond i doubted at the start and was slightly worried for the bond films but having seen both casino royale and the new film i have so much respect for him because he had many doubters but he has done a great job casino royale was one of the best movies i have ever seen. For me pierce is no1 buuuuut the next bond film starring craig should see him in a more usual bond fashion which means we can compare him to the others. so here is my order Pierce Brosman Daniel Craig Roger Moore Sean Connery and the other two nobody cares too much

cameron holmes on Nov 3, 2008


You know what they took out to make the Daniel Craig movies? You want to know what's missing and has everyone trying to compare Roger Moore, Sean Connery, Brosnan, and Craig and not being able to fully explain why people think Sean, Roger, and Brosnan trump Craig and Dalton? A simple 3 letter word. "Fun". I'm a huge James Bond fan. Regardless of the era or actor, I love them all, even the corny ones like Moonraker. Even the more serious/realistic ones like License to Kill. I own every novel, from Ian Fleming to John Gardner. And when Casino Royal came out, I did enjoy the movie, as I do anything "bond', but there was just something missing that I could not put my finger on until this very moment reading these comments, as to why I walked out of that theatre a little bit less enthusiastic about Casino Royale. as I did even George Lazenby's On Her Majesty's Secret Service. It was the "fun" factor. Bond was always to me not just a rugged, tough, suave, action hero/spy/womanizer.. he was the embodiment of simplistic boyhood fantasy adventure.. a man who placed God and Country as not only a priority but a duty, who indulged perhaps a bit too much in the finer things in life, but who also paid for that indulgence with a job that could psychologically crack a lesser man. While Casino Royale had some nice 'locations' in it, the movie never seemed to inspire that feeling of 'awe' as the other bond movies did wherein Bond went to fantastic places and faced fantastic foes. yes, people like Jaws and Oddjob were not as 'realistic' as say a Multi-media Ted Turner wanna be mogul or Korean despot or high stakes gambling terrorist, even at the height of the cold war, but they added a sense of.. mysticism and imagination. They were the ogres and trolls for our Cavalier knight of the realm to slay. I guess when it comes to movies, yes Realism is nice, but so is a bit of escapist fantasy. As someone else said, i'd much rather have Oddjob doing his mute "ah ah!" and pushing bond around in that amazing fight scene inside the fort knox vault while a bomb ticks away than bond introducing a guy wearing 'mecha' bionic arms to the concepts of Gravity any day, but i think there's a fine middle ground that can be found, and the new Bond movies simply miss the mark. To me, the best example would be in the final moments of The World Is Not Enough, in the final fight scene with Robbie C. in the submarine, both drenched in water and that pivotal moment when bond tells him "she's waiting for you" before ending his life. That moment literally gave me goosebumps.. it was bond doing what he must, and yet, for a moment, there was almost a breath of compassion in there. The look on Carlyle's face before he's hit by the control rod as an almost "thank you" really touched me and showed that Bond is a killer yes, but he's not a completely heartless one. I guess the daniel craig bond fits the modern era in which people prefer gritty, almost borderline 'angry' or dark characters. You hardly ever see a movie now where the action hero is 'fun' that doesnt come off as comical, and nearly none are vestiges of 'goodness'. Just like in the more common video games, people given a choice prefer to play 'bad guys doing somewhat good things' than good guys doing going good things for the sake of being good. The Roger moore movies might have been campy, but they werent rubbish and in ways were just escapist fun. They made you long to travel the world and see exotic locales, meet interestingly diverse and bizarre characters, and you always rooted for the good guy without a doubt that he would get the job done. They can keep the Sterile Daniel Craig 'super gritty real' bond. THose just arent any fun to me. Life is already gritty and real enough. Let us just have some mindless whimsical fun with a great character and a great story. Want an example? Just go watch the greatest bond movie ever made (in my humble opinion) You Only Live Twice

Kevin on Nov 5, 2008


What a birdl brain some people must have!!!! comment #145 from smart pseudo "ILoveDanielCraig!!!" says: "I'VE SEEN THE NEW BOND YESTERDAY, QUANTUM OF SOLACE, AND I LOVE IT!! I'M INTO HEAVEN, THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER!!!!" The greatest movie ever!!!! I'm scared dear Craig fan, please try not to be a member of the "Academy Awards" jury, of the "Mostra" jury, of the "Berlin International Film Festival" jury, or the "Cannes Film Festival" jury!!! LOL. A movie with big explosions and noise with a limited expressions actor would have all its chance to win!!! Please #145, try to see some of the real greatest movies ever made in history, and please reconsider your impressions about the last Bond movie. So far, for me, the best review published on this page is by Kevin (# 144). Even if I share only parcially his enthusiasm for "You Only Live Twice" that I like anyway. But there may not be a perfect Bond movie!!! It's obvious that in several years the EON productions will change direction. The Bond movies have often been followers of the cinematographique actuality. People nowdays like dark stories and dark heroes: c'est dans l'air du temps. At the time of "Star Wars" and "Close Encounter of the Third Kind" Eon productions were not scared to send Bond in space with "Moonraker." As a joke there's even an excerpt of the "Close Encounter..." music theme when Roger Moore rings at Drax's laboratory in Venice. The gunfight sequence was omitted in "Casino Royale". A remain is at the end of "Quantum of Solace." An official sign showing that in time those Craig movies will be apart from the rest of the Bond movies. To put together with "Never Say Never Again." Yes Kevin, we miss the FUN in that Daniel Craig area. I hope those dark hours won't last too long. Can't wait to see the new actor!!!

Sylvain (from Paris) on Nov 8, 2008


"But there may not be a perfect Bond movie!!!" I disagree - Goldfinger is the perfect Bond movie.

KB on Nov 9, 2008


When I wrote the article which is now #145, it was then #146. I didn't know that what I wrote would cause pseudo "ILoveDanielCraig!!!" author to remove its article. Well, I must have been right I guess, or Mr. pseudo "ILoveDanielCraig!!!" doesn't have a sense of humor!!! read the beginning of my article and you'll know about it.

Sylvain (from Paris) on Nov 12, 2008


SPOILER ALERT..... Just saw sneek preview...WOW!!!....Some surprises...expect to see a major character die..... Bond gets disfigured in a really bad fight sequence.... a gay villan forces himself on Bond (yuck).... no gadgets or Q ......

008 on Nov 12, 2008


How disappointing for Bond. I refuse to support any further James Bond films until they get a decent actor. Daniel Craig is sloppy, unsuave and can not hold a candle to the previous Bonds...any of them. There aren't even any cool villians! We want more realistic? How boring! Have we lost imagination and having some fun with the characters? They have lost track of what made Bond famous, a classy killer with quick wit and cool gadgets in a tux. The new movie even took out the famous "The name is Bond, James Bond". They are plenty of shoot em up action, violent movies out there if that is what you have to have. If people want all action with no acting, go find another movie, but leave Bond alone. All you have done is make it a cookie cutter format that every other action movie is. How sad to follow change the format! I'll watch Sean, George, Pierce, Roger and Timothy anyday and never get bored. I saw Craig's first movie and that is certainly the last. Sorry Craig, you don't cut the mustard in my book as a Bond. You need special effects to make the movie sell! Shame on the writers!!!!!! People can disagree with me if they like, but you still can't deny that the new bond is not like the old. In this case, the change was not good!

SL Denver on Nov 16, 2008


Thank you SL Denver (#149), I totally share your disappointment. I think that on this post only Kevin on Nov 5, 2008 (#144) shares your thoughts, with me. Not so many people who show that they have a brain that works on this post.

Sylvain (from Paris) on Nov 18, 2008


After reading Sylvain's posts I'm forced to change my opinion of Daniel Craig, who I, for a very brief period of time, thought was the best Bond so far. But I now completely reverse my opinion on the matter..........because I sorely miss my brain. Thanks Syl!

Pounding Metal on Nov 19, 2008


hey im back, just got back from sailing around the tip of australia and backpacking through new zealand

dirk struan on Nov 27, 2008


Certainly Craig has the potential for being an incredible Bond, if only he is given a chance to rattle off a few cynical witticisms. When told by Felix he had only 30 seconds, Bond replied, "well that doesn't give us very much time." I was elated by what seemed to be one of the few smart-ass remarks I'd expect from a cool, calm, intelligent Bond who has a sense of humor. Yet, the rest of the movie was mostly about action, and brawn, which we already have Jason Bourne for. For now, Sean Connery seemed to have the best balance of ruggedness, wit and charm. Please let there be some wit and charm to Daniel Craig in upcoming movies.

Michael Lum on Dec 1, 2008


I agree with 153. the story in Quantum seemed to have been moved by action not so much character- that being said the action that happened was because of Craig's character. It's not so deep but if you watch Casino Royale it's easy to see where Bond is emotionally and why he would be angry enough to shoot first and ask questions later. For the series to continue I think this movie needed to happen. In Casino Royale you could see how killing people esp the ugly kills really took a toll on him- in this one he's so angry he doesn't care. Vesper's character was keeping his humanity intact and when she died so did a lage part of, "what he still had left". The gun barrel at the end (to me anyway) means that from the last scene to the next film's, he's the Bond we all know and love. I loved that line with Felix and him as well but I think personally that in this film if he was too charming and clever it would have taken away from his emotional situation. He wasn't usually calm and clever because the only person he loved was a doubble and also died. You can tell from the end of Casino Royale that he mean's business and it could be assumed that in Quantum he wouldn't just cool off after shooting Mr. White in the leg, not untill he found his, "measure of comfort". I didn't care for all the quick cuts in Quantum of Solace and yeah they were used more than enough in the Bourne film's but at the same time this movie was trying to be something completely different than Casino Royale and I can respect that. I'm sure the next one however will be more of what we used to =) and it's great because now that Quantum is over they can take the series where ever they want. I wasn't trying to insult your view on the film or anything, just giving my opinion.

ZeroEnna on Dec 1, 2008


the best bond movie in my opinion is for your eyes only any body agree

james on Dec 23, 2008


I wouldn't say it's my favorite Bond film but it is my favorite Bond book =)

ZeroEnna on Dec 23, 2008


Doesn't beat Roger Moore? What are you, retarded? How can you put Sean Connery behind Roger Moore? Craig destroys Roger Moore, the worst Bond ever...

Joe on Jan 1, 2009


Amazing how someone can represent the best for one person and the worst for another. For me Daniel Craig is among the worst actors living, and a terrible Bond. Would have been maybe an interesting villain character in ONLY one movie. The best James Bond for me is Sean Connery, the original actor approved by Ian Fleming. As for Roger Moore, approached for the role too while Fleming was alive, his personnality makes it close to the character created by the novelist. Craig is definitely not Ian Fleming's James Bond, but he is "double zero" for sure!!!

Sylvain (from Paris) on Jan 1, 2009


Far and away the best bond since Connery is Daniels, none other has brought the ruggedness to the character than these 2, for me Moore was the absolute worst the constant one-liners ruined the stories which ultimately killed the movies for me, Brosnan continued the drab one-liners which ruined his chances for me. A few witty remarks in a movie is ok, action and story (or story pushed by action) makes the movie for me, and in Daniels movies we get to understand what pushes Bond, honestly look at the 2 movies so far, as a new bond he is responsible for the deaths of at least 3 women and he's only been a 00 for what less than half a year? Daniels Bond is fleshing out a character that we never got to see with earlier bonds, this more rugged driven bond is a true breath of fresh air, I wish with all my heart I could forget Moores bond and his awful acting and whimsically dull one-liners that got to be too much. For me Connery and Daniels represent a more real character, I can imagine a secret service agent just like their character, on the edge of out of control, working his hardest to save the day, do his duty... Daniels represent a new more real Bond, someone much more believable than the Joke that was Moore, or the less than believable Brosnan, so I say more, more Craig Daniels Bond, more realism of character, more story pushed by action, AND more story, flesh that Character out let Craig do his thing and lets see the franchise grow with him.

p388l3s on Jan 15, 2009


How many James Bond movies has Daniel Craig made so far?

Stephen on Jan 23, 2009


Pierce Brosnan saved Bond franchise and after his great work. They replaced him because, they wanted someone younger. New Bond's are copies of the Jason Bourne character movies. My order would be: Sean Connery Pierce Brosnan Roger Moore Daniel Craig George Lazenby Timothy Dalton

Maximo on Feb 25, 2009


pleace i have cancer my last dream was to put pirerce brosnan in a james bond movie but in 2010 pleace ok i lied pleace help me but i have no cancer

lakhan on Mar 27, 2009


5 More..god no! Craig is easily the most repulsive actor to ever portray JB! Absolutely does not fit the bill in a Fleming way at all. He doesn't look one stitch the way the character is described by Fleming, nor does he behave largely like him. Craig is basically playing Red Grant - a thug, rather than the urbane yet lethal secret agent Bond, James Bond. Seems the film producers are intent in making JB a Jason Bourne (another JB??) clone. He didn't need to be reinvented just better stories(i.e. scripts) needed to be written. Or better yet, take James bond back to his proper era; fighting Cold-war era foes rather than trying to shoehorn him in our times. Connery is still the man! Clive Owen WOULD have been a much better choice.

David B on Apr 27, 2009


LOOK! This is very simple. As 007 fans, you really shouldn't change Bond's character...Roger Moore put chrisma, suave, and most of all humor that was actually funny into the character that Sean Connery started...But to be a rough neck like Craig?! Might as well call the movie something else...He is not what Bond is suppose to be!

Telvis on May 5, 2009


just benched 300 lbs

dirk struan on May 20, 2009


Tell John he can suck it!

dirk struan on Jul 14, 2009


I have to say that Lazenby was a complete failure as Bond.

Jake on Jul 24, 2009


I was a Moore guy when I was young and then grew into Conery, I also appricated Lazenby but then grew bored of bond. I figured I was getting to old for Bond and/or his time had passed - I stopped watching/caring... And then - Casino Royale. Wow - Craig is the man. Real and Gritty. They kinda screwed up with Solace but that wasn't Craig's fault. If they give him a good script, director and respect the legacy of the character (read the books) the best bond films could be yet to come. Kudos to Craig for bringing a legend back to life and doing it with flare. Gotta love the fact he's a fan as well - he's often been seen wearing a vintage "bond" rolex.

Bond... James, Bond on Aug 4, 2009


Son of a... Just read the comment that they sould take bond retro - Royale would have been PERFECT! Ah well...

Bond... James, Bond on Aug 4, 2009


Brosnan was suave alright. But a total sleeze who made Bond completely unlikeable as a protagonist. Connery will always be the number one, but Craig brings an intelligence to the dialogue he's given, which shines through the brute muscularity in his action scenes and makes a realistic balance for what I imagine Bond would be like in his early career. Connery is easily the best so far, but Craig is definitely second, and if he redeems himself from Quantum of Solace (which honestly wasn't even really his fault) with the next films, he'll keep that position.

Myrthmor on Sep 3, 2009


danial craig is a terrible bond

craig sucks on Nov 25, 2009


Connery, Moore, Brosnan, or Dalton. Craig sucks. After the first 10 minutes of his first outing i was already looking for anything to do but pay attention to the film. I can honestly say that I've never had that kind of reaction to any film before. sigh

anyone but craig on Nov 28, 2009


a.d.d. Maybe??

Brandtt76 on Apr 24, 2011


To 175: You're saying Casino Royale bored you more than any film you have ever seen?

zeroenna56 on Nov 29, 2009


I totally share #174 and #175's point of view. "Casino Royale" 2006, what a bore, one of the worst and boring film I have ever seen. I had to force myself 4 times to see it entirely on dvd, as I always lost interest during the viewing. It never happened to me before to feel as much anger for an actor, and as much bore and repulsion for a movie as this one and its sequel "Quantum of Solace." But regarding "Casino Royale" 1967, what a joy and fun to watch. To my point of view, "Casino Royale" 2006 is one of the worst and most usuless movie in the cinema history. And Craig has definitly no "panache" for that role.

Sylvain (from Paris) on Nov 30, 2009


Daniel Craig gets credit for making a whole lot of people stupid.

Pounding Metal on Nov 30, 2009


I very much like Daniel Craig as James Bond and liked Casino Royale (2006). Sean Connery is the ultimate Bond, but I would put Craig as second. The original Casino Royale was a disappointment, to a young Bond fanatic, but is interesting now, as an adult. The Bourne movies made me think that I had wished James Bond had been more like that. However, that wouldn't have worked through the 1980s & 90s, just because society wasn't tilted that way. You've got to realize that 00 status requires an empty soul, with no hope of redemption.

Bill on Dec 20, 2009


the problem is that in the novels, Bond isn't empty of soul. He has all of the emotions, anger, excitement, fear, and yes, even love... seldom given, and usually to his expense, but yes he does feel it. the problem is that Craig is the empty one. honestly, the producers could've save a lot of money and used a plank of wood with emoticons scribbled on it and got more depth of feeling out of Bond.

179 on Dec 20, 2009


"the producers could've save a lot of money and used a plank of wood with emoticons scribbled on it and got more depth of feeling out of Bond." I strongly disagree with that.

zeroenna56 on Dec 23, 2009


the best film for 007 with die another day but the new ones are ok hope the next one is blast!

jason on Jan 6, 2010


Roger Moore, was and shall always be... Bond, James Bond. "Sir Godfrey, on a mission, I am expected to sacrifice myself!?"

Jag on Feb 3, 2010


To 182 "Roger Moore, was and shall always be… Bond, James Bond." I'm assuming that was a joke.

Zeroenna56 on Feb 3, 2010


The Bond character evolves to reflect the social and political climate of the times. The more whimsical, hairy-chested Bond with short witicisms was more entertaining in the 60s and 70s. The Roger Moore movie humor verged on corniness at times, especially in Moonraker. I'd still like to see Craig with a bit more tongue-in-cheek, with less running around, and physical drama. After all, successful Bond characters should be charming. If I wanted to see muscle flexing, I'd watch old Sylvester Stallone movies. Let's bring out more of the smart, cool, suave and WITTY Bond who had a sense of humor.

Michael Lum on Feb 3, 2010


#185: "The Bond character evolves to reflect the social and political climate of the times." That's why they pick up Daniel Craig. Him and his Bond movies are like shit!! With today's technology, how can they produce insipide and boring movies like Craig ones, so badly edited !!!! Plus Craig can't act, has the same expression on his face. And he is too small, it shows on the screen. And its so funny to see his ridiculous muscles made for just one sequence. SO FAKE. Yes #184, Roger Moore was James Bond, and so was Sean Connery.

Sylvain (from Paris) on Feb 3, 2010


pirce brosnan was the best bond but cradie he was absoloutly crap and shitty

lakhan ajmeria on Feb 3, 2010


Frankly, the Rodger Moores had the worst fight scenes, planely blatent campiness which drove me from the bond movies in the first place. Typically many here have completely oversighted the original books written by the great Ian himself. I would say Connery, Brosnan, and Dan Craig are the closest. If you would remember, the gadgets really were imposed as an antecdote for the bad scripts and totally slashed and hacked-up acting. As far as Moore is concerned, he was suave, but also a bit of a pretty boy, who could never pass the test of believability as a real agent of MI6. Craig had my doubts in the beginning, but as a tough, confident, unrelenting Bond, he has my vote as the closest to Sean Connery. Obviously, many of the above commenters dont know what they are talking about, other than identifying tiny-minded, unsettling things with discriptive, exact, to-the-point words like "shit" and "boring" without realizing they are a product of the comics era, rather than the really great writers of the past, and the present.

Nike Mikey on Feb 3, 2010


Daniel should continue with bond character, Bcoz he is the bond 21 century with perfect macho/rugged look and acting, as a modern guy, I would love to see him subsequent bond films

Prasanta on Feb 8, 2010


craig is the absolute worst bond ever. I wont watch any films until he is done. i watch the first and i wanted to cut my wrist. he doesnt personify anything bond represents. Worst bond ever. Connery and then Brosnan

tony on Feb 13, 2010


Craig better than Connery or Brosnan. You guys are nuts and dont know anything about bond. He is good looking..Craig is not. Its not even believable that he could pull a model type woman...what a joke/ Connery great looking in his 60's Craig just doesnt have it. not to mention being suave. Bond is a brand. You dont just put anything into a Coke bottle and you dont just put anyone in that tux, and thats exactly what these idiots did. They have forever stained the greatest franchise ever. I will never forgive them. I would tell my mom i was gonna be a spy when i got if it was Craig, i would never have been a fan my enetire life. I will start watching again in 2018 when Craig is no longer Bond.

tony on Feb 13, 2010


Wah wah wah. U just dont appreciate a new and better Bond..wah wah wah

Brandtt76 on Apr 24, 2011


Roy Keane the former football player of man.utd will be the next Bond.

gijesh george on Feb 16, 2010


# 192 gijesh george said: "Roy Keane the former football player of man.utd will be the next Bond." A great face for Bond I think too, and if he can act that would be great. Well now, stop dreaming, we have that dwarf craig!! :– ( Yes, I now, he can't act, but he is there !!

Sylvain (from Paris) on Feb 17, 2010


ho, I think i am the only who think like this. very 🙂

gijesh george on Feb 17, 2010


The Best Bond Forever is Brosnan , he should back in Bond movie again. I really miss him as bond

Firoj Khan on Apr 15, 2010


Thought I'd drop by and offer my two cents on the Best of Bond: -- Sean Connery: The greatest. The perfect blend of suave sophistication and steely toughness. His first three performances were as close to perfection as any Bond actor has ever come. And his natural charisma remains unequalled in the history of the series. Unfortunately, he seemed to grow bored with the role in later years, and it showed in his last couple of performances. -- George Lazenby: The most underrated Bond. Better than he had any right to be, given his lack of acting experience. He remains the most naturally athletic James Bond, and he handled the romantic aspects of his unique Bond script quite well. On the other hand, he sometimes seemed to be trying too hard to match or outdo Connery, rather than finding his own approach to the role. -- Roger Moore: The man who guaranteed the survival of the Bond series in the wake of Connery's departure. The ultimate English gentleman, with a witticism for every occasion, he re-defined the James Bond character to a greater extent than is generally acknowledged. Every subsequent Bond has labored in the shadow of Rog. Unfortunately, he often took the humor too far, and he comes off as a bit of a wuss compared to Connery and some of the other guys. -- Timothy Dalton: The most faithful to Fleming. He tends to be very popular with hardcore Bond fans because his interpretation of the character remains the closest to Bond creator Ian Fleming's original vision of the character. Dalton perfectly captured the cynicism and world-weariness of the literary Bond, particularly in the later novels. On the other hand, Dalton has always been a character actor, not really movie star material, and thus has always been less popular with the public at large than with the fan base. -- Pierce Brosnan: The most overrated James Bond, but still pretty good. He brought unsurpassed style and elegance to the role. Also, he always strove to bring some depth and humanity to the series of weak scripts he was handed. Ultimately, Brosnan's Bond plays like a compromise between Roger Moore's lighthearted approach and Timothy Dalton's hard-boiled interpretation. On the other hand, Brosnan also runs neck-and-neck with Moore for the dubious title of Most Effeminate Bond. -- Daniel Craig: The best Bond since Connery. He's more of a bona-fide movie star than Lazenby or Dalton and more of a masculine tough guy than Moore or Brosnan. His approach to the role is faithful enough to Fleming to satisfy the fan base, and his Steve McQueen-esque charisma has made him a hit with the public at large. By the time he's done, he will clearly rank a close second among the James Bond actors.

00Ed on Apr 20, 2010


I truly think Daniel Craig has inserted himself in a new era of cinema. Not simply relying on his success as the character bond but expanding his horizons, like in layer cake, which was also a great film. I'm stoked to see him as bond for maybe more than four films, i know i get attached to certain bond actors, but for real Mr. Craig has all the ability and shown us twice now, that he really knows how to play a great James Bond!

James Rosales on Jun 24, 2010


July 13,2010. M G M in financial trouble, and no more Bond films. Where do the lies come from? Ian Flemming wrote Bond as a self centered pleasure seeker who carried out the dirty work of his job with great. Bond had hatred in his heart due to torture by the Russians. Bond was NOT a clown, Not one step away from Steve Martin playing a cop That was Roger Moore. Connery was close, the censorship Bond kept his sadism in check. Daniel Craig(after Connery,} Daniel craig is a fucking wild wrecking machine who seems to not mind dyin. If anyone has time to watch each Bond film one hundred times, should take the time to read a Bond book or two.

jimmy mcgee on Jul 13, 2010


1. Connery 2. Brosnan 3. Dalton 4. Early Moore Was open to Craig as Bond when he was cast, but don't want him anymore. For the 1st time in 25 years I didn't go to the theater for a Bond flick (QoS). I'm not watching him any time soon. And I'm most certainly not trusting the critics anymore.

JazzK on Jul 30, 2010


How anyone could think that Roger Moore is the "quintessential Bond" is a joke to me. I mean each to their own but Moore was a bit of a pansy. He never looked natural holding a gun or throwing a punch. He only looks natural with a cup of tea by a fire to me. Anyone who is a fan of the books knows that Moore is no quintessential Bond. Sean Connery is the actor who created the cinematic Bond so he is the quintessential Bond. Everyone Bond after him has imitated in one way or another what he brought to the role. Lazenby pretty much was trying to duplicate it, and Moore focused on the wit and humor for his portrayal. Moore's Bonds at times felt more like parodies or spoofs of the films that Connery made. He was also too old for the part through most of the films. he practically needed a walker by A View To A Kill. Make no mistake, with out Connery Bond would not have found such a large audience, the right cinematic formula, or endured for as long as it has. It's good to hear that Craig will be keeping the legend alive for a while to come.

filmguy on Sep 22, 2010


Well,this site is old cause it doesn't seem to mention the second movie that's been made and been out on dvd for a while.I dig Craig,my favorite by far.When I was a kid I liked Moore and all the gadgets the movies had.But most of that stuff has become a reality so fancy things don't seem to make it in these new films.Good by me,I hope Craig makes a few more.I love em.

Terrytresner on Mar 20, 2011


Sean connery was always my favorite James Bond,that is until I watched Daniel Craig as Bond in his 2 Bond films so far.this is the Bond I think the writer of the books and the readers always envisioned.but still I dont want to take anything away from Connery.he was the best but sorry to say theres a new Bond.

Tbrand54 on Apr 24, 2011


Daniel Craig would kick Brosnan's ass!

Johnmsullivan31 on May 29, 2011


I have to question some of the choices made since Connery.  Moore was charming but he and Dalton were both regrettable as Bond.  Brosnan was effective but handicapped by politics and ridiculous storylines.  Fans were hoping to see Pierce in the more realistic Royale, which meant Craig and his legacy as Bond started in a hole. The recent material has been much better.  No death rays from space, no face transplants.  Casino Royale was a big hit but it's hard to compare Craig to the rest.  Any Bond would look good in these last coupla movies.

Brotha J on Jun 19, 2011

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram