Edit: ok, that's kinda lame.
Brosnan's probably closer to the ideal, if not the actual novel original because while Craig's pretty good he's Not Really Bond in what are Not Really Bond movies.
I was thinking a bit on Skyfall
which is excellent but requires several un-Bond-like mistakes to work. Bond gets captured on the boat because he drops his guard. Silva gets a silly off-screen escape because he's not guarded by anyone that matters. Bond fails to interrupt an assassination, and then fails to get anything useful from the assassin that he didn't have to buy with an action die. I suppose it's also a consideration of how flawed Bond should be, and I favor him being The Best. Part of Cold War Bond wasn't just his universality, but how he was a British character who routinely outfoxed both the CIA and the KGB. Or outfoxed and seduced, but either way...
My point isn't about infallibility, but that Connery's Bond always felt intelligent
. Calculating. His endless womanizing and drinking might have been a crutch, but it also felt like a facade. He knew better and was rarely out of options. He was "The Man For All Seasons." I can buy that his behavior could be explained as "mechanically ethical sociopath" but frankly I don't care if that's what Bond actually ends up being when compared to how he functioned. The character's an ideal, an archetype. He's Spycraft
-not an SC PC.
Ironically in contrast is that while Craig's much more flawed he's also much more physically superhuman and does far flashier stunts. I'm sure part of that's the far greater technological possibilities of modern movies, but it's also taking the Bond idea to a kind of (admittedly gentle) exaggeration. IIRC classic Bond tended to get his Big Ben cleaned by actual martial arts minions and usually compensated with a gadget or by
improvising instead of being a John Woo-grade gunman in a better suit.
I've seen the others and can't remember a whole lot. Dalton seemed ok, and I haven't seen Lazenby since I was ineligible to vote.