James Bond expert's verdict on every new 007 candidate - there's a common theme

With as many twists and turns as one of Ian Fleming’s spy novels, the identity of the new James Bond has moved a step closer to being revealed - with Amazon MGM reportedly drawing up a shortlist of three potential 007s.

All accomplished actors - and dashingly handsome - the line up includes Saltburn star Jacob Elordi, Spider-Man's Tom Holland and Babygirl actor Harris Dickinson. And they are all under 30 - adding the potential for a long secret service career ahead of them.

But what do the experts think of their potential for playing the super spy? Robert Sellers, author of The Search for Bond: How the 007 Role was Won and Lost, tells The Mirror: “Amazon are looking for a younger choice. One of the rumours flying about is that Amazon may set the next Bond film in the 1950s or 1960s.

“Is it the right choice to go young? Probably. You need a contrast to Daniel Craig, who by the end of his tenure in the role did look old and tired. He was 38 when he started in Casino Royale. So yes, go young, then this actor can stay in the role for the next 10 or 15 years.”

Here, Robert reviews the 007 candidates, as well as giving his verdict on which past Bonds left him shaken, not stirred.

Jacob Elordi, 28

“The first thing to say about Elordi is that he’s Australian, but that isn’t really an issue, after all, George Lazenby got the gig and other Aussies like Sam Worthington have been contenders. One won’t expect him to arrive at some glamorous casino bar and ask for a pint of Fosters.

READ MORE: James Bond role narrowed down to three actors - who all have one thing in common

Elordi is notable for the 2023 film Saltburn, he’s a very smooth ladies’ man in that film, the girls are queuing up to get into bed with him. He’s probably the sexiest of the three candidates and in my mind would be the best bet to fill Daniel Craig’s shoes, because he’s got the sex appeal.

And if the rumours about setting Bond in the 1950s or 1960s are true, Elordi would look the best in that glossy 60s milieu. He would look more suited to that environment.

He also has smouldering dark looks, and most of the actors who have played Bond have had dark looks. Remember the controversy when the blond Craig won the role?”

Harris Dickinson, 29

“Craig will be a tough act to follow, but a completely fresh interpretation is required for a character that a lot of contemporary audiences think is probably a bit hackneyed now.

And Dickinson is probably the most interesting of the three candidates. He is scheduled to play John Lennon in Sam Mendes’ upcoming Beatles four-part biopic to open early in 2028. Mendes, of course, directed two of Daniel Craig’s Bonds - Skyfall (2012) and Spectre (2015).

Dickinson could be the outside bet to win the role. He was in a film called Triangle of Sadness and was excellent in that. He’s also a director in his own right and directed a film called Urchin - telling the story of a homeless London drug addict trying to turn his life around - that played at this year’s Cannes. So, he’s multi-talented.

He was also in the erotic thriller Babygirl, as a young man who has a torrid affair with an older woman, played by Nicole Kidman. He is a bit slight of build, like the other two candidates, and would need to bulk up if he’s going to look effective in the action scenes.”

Tom Holland, 29

“All three candidates have the potential to be sex symbols (think Daniel Craig coming out of the sea all buff in his blue swimming shorts), although it would be a bigger stretch with Tom Holland, because young people associate him with Spiderman - and Spiderman is a very innocent character in some aspects.

Spiderman is pretty sexless, too, even though he has a girlfriend, whereas Bond has to exude sexuality, as well as danger.

Holland also still retains very youthful looks. Bond must look a bit world-weary, like he’s been round the block a few times - a problem when you are casting actors still in their twenties.

Still, I think, any actor coming in to play the role must not hark back to any of the previous Bond actors. And, on the plus side, Holland can do action. Not just in the Spiderman movies - he did a movie called Uncharted with Mark Wahlberg and that was a big action movie and he handled himself well in the fight scenes.”

Robert’s verdict on past Bonds: Sean Connery

“Connery remains the standard by which all future Bonds will be judged. He is the touchstone.

And the reason is very simple – he combined all the elements that make Bond who he is and why he’s been so universally accepted. He has charisma, coolness, he looks great in a suit, he’s dangerous, handles himself realistically in a fight, and has the right touch of sardonic humour.”

George Lazenby

“Connery’s immediate successor, Lazenby was really a diet version of the Scotsman. He wasn’t able to stamp his own identity onto the role, because the producers wanted a Connery clone.”

Roger Moore

“Moore was next and, being an experienced actor, was able to make his own mark. Clearly lacking the killer instinct of Connery’s Bond, Moore focused on very different strengths - a sophisticated wit and gentlemanly charm.

Connery knew the world of Bond was fantasy, but the trick for him was to make it as believable as possible.

Moore took the opposite approach. He knew Bond was utterly ridiculous to start with and not to take the role too seriously. ‘Bond has nothing to do with the real spying world,’ he said. ‘I mean, what sort of spy is recognised in every bar in town.’”

Timothy Dalton

“Moore’s successor, Dalton wanted to take out a lot of the OTT humour - he wasn’t comfortable with that.

He wanted a much more serious James Bond, which ultimately is what Daniel Craig did. Coming, as he did, from the theatre, Dalton genuinely respected the source material and studied the Fleming novels, expressing a desire to recapture the essence of the literary character.

Here was a man who could get killed at any moment and that stress and danger was reflected in the way he lives. Unfortunately, this serious approach did not find favour and Dalton lasted just two films.”

Pierce Brosnan

Brosnan was, to some extent, a greatest hits package, employing the best elements from the two most successful previous incarnations - those of Connery and Moore. He brought great wit, style, and sophistication. His Bond was always cool under pressure.

Daniel Craig

Craig was very much his own man. There was nothing that harked back to any of the other Bond actors. He didn’t fit the mould of the classic Bond persona. To prepare for the role, he not only had a personal trainer to bulk him up, but found inspiration in the words of Ian Fleming.

One description caught his imagination, when Fleming described Bond as a, ‘blunt instrument.’ That simple description underpinned a lot of what Craig brought to his characterisation. He manages to exude not only danger and unpredictability and wit - but also, and this is a first, some vulnerability.

Craig sought his own path and made his Bond utterly different to anything that came before.”