...but only in the first film, IMO. The second one (and it could've just been the movie, itself) seemed just a little too cheesy/Adam West-like for me to "buy it," so to speak. We won't even talk about the atrocities that made folks even think about Clooney or Kilmer in the role *cringe*... talk about harkening back to the campy 60's crap.
Anyhoo... gotta disagree with Lysk on this one. Being a Batman fan from waaaaaay back, I've gotta go with Bale as the Dark Knight. (In fact, when I saw Equilibrium, I thought; "Damn! Dude would make an awesome Batman!") He captures the duality of Bruce Wayne/Batman
almost perfectly per the comics and novelizations (like Keaton came close to doing in Tim Burton's first effort) and the 'dark and gritty' stuff of Gotham (and the overall ambience of the film itself) clinched it, for me.
Bond? Ummm... gotta admit I have
never really been a fan of Bond, even as a kid I had a hard time with the 'suspension of disbelief' in a lot of those films. I
did like Dr No and Thunderball wasn't to terrible so, of course, I'll go with Connery as Bond. Can't say as any of the other Bonds were that memorable or believable and, honestly, I haven't been coaxed into watching any Bond film post Roger Moore. Haven't seen Casino Royale, of course, but Daniel Craig (from the trailers and clips I have seen) seems to take Bond back to the less gadget oriented, more rough-and-tumble aspect that Connery gave the character, soooo... I'll be hanging in there with Lysk's choices on this one. Connery and Craig.
Bond girls? Ummm... none, really... Most of them were supposedly to smart and cunning to have ended up as the bimbos they were ultimately portrayed as, let alone in the sack with a goober like Moore or even Dalton. Based on looks, though, I guess Halle Barry? (not even sure which film that was or what her name was, though...

)