Moore was the best. I know he was a bit quirky and there was comedy but the movies were most entertaining and I believe a legitimate spy must be many things. He seemed to have them all.
Sean Connery was good because he was closer to the source material and he took it seriously. But his later ones edge towards camp.
By the time they got to Moore, the thing had become High Camp. There were some of the movies that took the material seriously, and others that were a pure clown show. I remember the one movie that started with him dropping an unnamed Blofeld down a chimney.
Timothy Dalton- bleh.
Pierce Bronson? I remember the one movie that had him go over a cliff in a small plane, and then somehow start it up again and get out of the situation. I turned it off because it was silly.
I watched one of Daniel Craig's movies... and frankly lost interest.
The real question is how do you handle Bond in this day in age. It was written at a time when the UK was still a major power, today it is not.
I compare it to how writers handle Sherlock Holmes. There's two different approaches. One is to treat it as a period piece, with costumes and situations that respect the source material. BBC's Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brent did this well. Those awful movies with Robert Downey and Jude Law, less so.
The other is to modify it for a modern setting, and adjust the characters accordingly. CBS's
Elementary and BBC's
Sherlock did this very well.
I think if I were doing a Bond story, I would try the former approach. Set it in the 1950's and make it a period piece.