I've ranked both the Bond films and gunbarrels (and soon I'll rank the title songs), and I've discussed the James Bond actors several times now. It should only be natural that I have to "rank them". They're all good, and I like them all in their own way - each of them bringing a different style of Bond that was either enjoyable for me or the public at the time. This isn't a ranking of who is my favorite Bond, but who I consider the best Bond, in order.

Note: I am not including any non-canon entries, so performances both the unofficial Casino Royale's and Never Say Never Again will not be counted. And so, actors like Barry Nelson and David Niven will not be considered. Also please note that this is my opinion, and just my opinion.

And so here I rank the Bonds, in order from worst to best (though just keep in mind that I still do like them all, and that I do consider them all good).

6. George Lazenby

While I am Australian, and Lazenby happens to be the only Australian who played Bond, I really can't give him points for this. Lazenby's single outing as Bond in On Her Majesty's Secret Service happens to be one of the best, but it's mostly because of other elements in the film, such as plot or characterization and performance of characters like Blofeld and Tracy, rather than Lazenby's own performance as Bond. Which is sad to say, really, because he was a good Bond - he brought a more vulnerable side to Bond, a more human element which made him a more realistic character than Connery's. But ultimately, Bond is a fictional character - he doesn't need realism to be a good fictional character.

Apart from the more realistic approach to Bond, Lazenby didn't bring much else. The action scenes were good, owing to Lazenby's good physical fitness and martial ability, but he was a fashion model, not an actor, and he had never acted before. This wasn't just his first Bond film - it was his first film ever. He had only done commercials up to this - it's evident that you'd have to expect the others (who are mostly classically experienced actors) to give more convincing performances. And the rest of the cast in OHMSS also happened to be experienced actors in some way, so Lazenby's inexperience showed - and his delivery of the lines unfortunately couldn't match his physical displays. Had he continued to go on to play Bond, I'd say he could have been higher on my list. But really, this is his one outing before he voluntarily retired from the role. So it's clear his general performance of Bond is mostly not as convincing as that of the other Bonds. His action scenes are good, his more romantic/emotional scenes are surprisingly good - but that's all I can say. There are no more compliments to be given about him as Bond, though there is much to say about On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But I can't just use a film as a basis for an actor, especially when the film is largely so good only because of other elements.

5. Pierce Brosnan

I grew up with Brosnan, and he was the first Bond I saw, so it's honestly pretty painful for me to have him to be so low on this list. But it's not that he wasn't a good Bond, because he was, but it's more the fact that I just liked the other Bonds better. As I said, Pierce being this low doesn't mean that he's bad, just that there's others I would rank over him. I still like him very much as Bond.

Pierce Brosnan is arguably the reason that Bond continues to survive now - because GoldenEye was a huge success, and Brosnan was the one who brought Bond out of the Cold War and into the modern era, when many thought Bond couldn't survive anymore. But he did. That's quite the accomplishment, and it can't be overlooked. Brosnan's also a likeable Bond, but probably most notably is the fact that he's an attempt at a complete package, a combination of all the Bonds before him - he has the charm and wit of Roger Moore and Sean Connery, but also the more human side of George Lazenby (it's pretty minor, but it's there) and the intensity of Dalton. The closest comparison would be Sean Connery, who also has a myriad of characteristics. I've always felt that Brosnan was trying to bring Connery into the 1990's, into a new era of Bond where his very survival was threatened, especially since Dalton's films weren't even that well-received. Brosnan outright saved the franchise, and for that, I think he has to be commended.

But there's drawbacks to everything - including trying to be all the Bonds of the past. While GoldenEye involved an excellent portrayal of Bond by Brosnan, his following performances end up being unstable and inconsistent, but he mostly ended up teetering towards a similar path as Roger Moore - only he was, if anything, even more delicate as Bond at times. The only time the dark intensity really comes back is when he kills Elektra King. Otherwise, I'd argue that Brosnan's Bond, good as it was, ended up collapsing under the weight of trying to support all the different types of Bonds at once instead of focusing on any in particular. Still, I will always have a soft spot for Brosnan in my heart, and he is probably one of the first people who'd come to my mind when I think of James Bond.

4. Daniel Craig

Pierce Brosnan is generally considered the modern Bond - because of his gadgets, and technological Bond, as well as the fact that he brought Bond into the 1990's and out of the Cold War (and technically into the 21st Century as well, but not in a good way). Daniel Craig is considered a modern James Bond as well, alongside Brosnan. But not because he's a techno-Bond, because he's definitely not. It's only because he's the current Bond. If anything, he's the exact opposite of a techno-Bond. After the disastrous peak of CGI and it replacing of the beloved daring stunts, it was decided that the new Bond would have to change dramatically. In a sense, continue what Dalton did, and in similar circumstances - after something else had gone overboard and reached ridiculous levels. They dumped overblown CGI for hard-hitting practical effects. And the man they chose to embody this change? Enter Daniel Craig.

People complained about Daniel Craig's height and eyes and hair and brutish appearance and whatever else. But they were all shut up when Casino Royale came out and blew the critics away. This should tell you something. While Daniel Craig never immediately comes to my mind when I think about Bond, the fact that he isn't a very definitive Bond doesn't mean he isn't a very good one. Daniel Craig's films are beginning to attract a larger base of fans, fitting perfectly with the way films are made in the 21st Century, and thus delivering when it comes to the box office. I won't speak too much of Craig, since he's still the current Bond and I'd recommend that you watch his films, but if you're a fan of physical action and intensity, with great practical effects cleverly combined with CGI in reasonable amounts, you won't get much better than Craig. And it's not as if he's not as emotionally or mentally intense as the other Bonds, either. Still, Daniel Craig's Bond is one best understood by watching his films, rather than being told about him. So I would encourage people to rewatch Casino Royale, to watch Skyfall if they haven't already, and watch the upcoming Spectre (which may alter my placement of Craig as well).

3. Timothy Dalton

I've always preferred Timothy Dalton's grittier Bond than Craig's. Maybe because there were still a touch of one-liners/gadgets in his films, even if they were sparse, and maybe those elements simply rubbed off on me after watching all the other ones. But to be fair, I also have to say that I believe Dalton played truer to Bond's original roots, in Ian Fleming's novels. I've only read some of them, but I can already tell that the reports of Dalton actually reading them on-set to attune his Bond to that style of character must be true. The melding of physical and emotional/mental intensity and darkness in Dalton's films is just amazing.

Dalton's Bond is probably my favorite. He's mostly poorly received by the general population/critics at the time, because they had just come out of Roger Moore's era of what was probably the exact opposite Bond of Dalton's. And so Timothy Dalton seemingly appeared to be an "unsuccessful" Bond, because the audience didn't like him. But Dalton's Bond remains watchable today, whereas Moore's films have weathered in quality over the years. Moore's Bond was suited solely for his time, whereas Dalton's Bond was suited for only one thing - his interpretation of Bond, nothing else. That's why the changing of audiences hasn't weathered away Dalton's Bond films. If anything, Craig's newer films, of a similar dark class as Dalton's, are mostly beginning to remind people of Dalton and hold him in a higher light.

So why is Craig praised so much for the same things that Dalton was lambasted for? It's simple. Dalton was simply ahead of his time. If he played Bond now, he'd be accepted as Bond. If it wasn't Roger Moore who proceeded him, and the 70's and early 80's weren't full of ridiculousness, he'd probably be accepted as well. And I'll bet that part of why Daniel Craig's Bond is praised so much now is because Dalton's films served as a precursor, to slightly smoothen the ride for Craig.

I really could rant a whole lot more on Dalton and why he wasn't as accepted as Bond, but I don't think it'd be best to do that here. Maybe I'll make a blog for him in particular sometime in the future. Generally speaking, I'd recommend watching Dalton's films after, say, Craig's films, rather than Roger Moore's, so they can be understood in better context and not have such strong contrasts that might make the films seem less impressive.

2. Roger Moore

The love for Roger Moore is mostly non-existent on the internet. He appealed mostly to those of the generations of the early 1970's - mid 1980's, and not so much to the people of today, unlike Connery. So online, it's hard to find many Moore supporters in comparison to the others. But there has to be a reason for why he played Bond the most times, in seven films for over a decade, despite the fact that he was the oldest person to even begin playing Bond (he was 45 in his debut in Live and Let Die). Today, Roger Moore is mostly remembered as a silly, campy, witty, perhaps even a wimpy Bond. But even though I wasn't alive during his reign as Bond, I think it's pretty evident that in his time, people really did accept him as Bond. He might not have been Connery, but as soon as he said "My Name's Bond, James Bond" he owned the role for a dozen years. He had to have been an accepted, appreciated Bond. And it's clear that appreciation for a more humorous Bond is clearly almost non-existent now, decades after Moore relinquished his Walther and tuxedo.

But I'll say this - Moore was the Bond of his time. Connery is generally imagined of as the classic Bond of the sixties, the original. Brosnan is remembered as the post-Cold War Bond, the modern Bond. Craig is the Bond for the most recent generation. A heavy focus on physical action and intensity and stunts rather than sharp, witty remarks. But just as Lazenby was forced to toil in Connery's shadow, Dalton, as good of a Bond as he is, is largely overshadowed by the more popular Roger Moore. He wasn't even that popular in his time. Why? Because Dalton wasn't very good as Bond? No, not at all. Because people missed Roger Moore. They missed his comedic quips and raised eyebrows and winks at the screen. Roger Moore was the Bond of his time, of his generation (or rather, generations) which means from the early 70's, all the way to the mid 80's. He has to be commended for this. Connery was unable to properly adapt to the newer decades of the 70's and 80's - in both decades, Moore proved the more popular, beating Connery out in both Diamonds Are Forever and Never Say Never Again (though, to be fair, they're considered the worst of Connery's performances and far below his performances in the 60's). Dalton mostly ended up being a more forgettable Bond, in Moore's shadow, just as Lazenby's Bond was largely forgotten in Connery's vastly larger shadow. The only reason he's no longer considered favorable today except by those of his time who still carry nostalgia with them is because his Bond, as I said, is focused on fitting with his temporal context, which means he is now quite dated.

If anything, I actually do like Moore's comedic approach - he strays very far from Ian Fleming's interpretation, but Bond in film is different from Bond in literature. They're from different times, and have different audiences. And Moore, being watched by over a billion people as Bond, is more popular than the literature Bond. So that has to say something. As for why I like Moore, he makes me laugh, and he brings a real sense of fun to the series, while it always somehow still seems like Bond - certainly not if you compare his films to Dalton's, but he still seemed like Bond, probably because he owned Bond in his two prominent decades. And if Roger Moore could secure a spot alongside Connery as one of the classic Bonds, then he should be able to secure a spot alongside Connery here as well, as one of the best Bonds. Culturally relevant today? Probably not, he is indeed quite outdated. But then again, he never had plans to be one of the most revered Bonds more than forty years after his debut. This list isn't about who is more relevant as Bond today, though - it's about which Bond performed the best. And in that area, Roger Moore was a very solid performer up to For Your Eyes Only, with the exception of Moonraker.

1. Sean Connery

Most would probably have expected Connery at number 1. Sean's considered the best Bond, but even I find him overrated, with nostalgia and respect playing a large role in why he's generally hyped up to number 1. So why do I still have him as no. 1? Well, the simple answer is that he really does legitimately deserve the title. The first Bond, not irrefutably the best, as some like to claim, but still the best in my mind. He was a most suave Bond, the smoothest in all of his actions, but he was also capable of being a dark or dirty killer when necessary. He's the one who created the James Bond archetypal character, and when he says "Bond, James Bond" you really believe it. He has witty charm and humor, but doesn't go overboard with it. He can kill people in the nastiest and dirtiest ways if necessary. He's smooth in all he does. And most of all, he's a woman's man. Charming, sophisticated. Connery is the norm against which all other Bonds are compared, and in having set a tremendously high benchmark, things will probably always remain this way. Even the other Bonds have all commended Connery and praised him. While it's not an irrefutable fact, in my mind, Sean Connery is the James Bond.