Novel Bond is very different from Movie Bond.

Novel Bond is described by the author, Ian Fleming, as an "extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument." He picked the name "James Bond" from the author of the book, "Birds of the West Indies," which he thought was a very boring, average name.

This Bond is a loveless, depressed alcoholic who only lives for the next mission. He doesn't really have a personal life and throws himself completely into his work as a distraction from his terrible life. He knows spies tend to live short lives, and he secretly hopes the job will be the end of him one day.

Movie Bond was spiced up to be a charming, handsome womanizer, who drinks and smokes socially (attractive traits at the time) and always has clever one-liners. This Bond is the hero who saves the day and gets the girl every time. He lives an extravagant lifestyle, funded by MI6, and loves his work. He's a sex icon for women and an ideal role model for men. At least, back in the '60s where he originated.

I will say that Daniel Craig's version of James Bond is the closest on-screen adaptation we've ever had to Novel Bond. I thoroughly enjoyed his run as the character, even if some of his movies weren't all that good.

But I highly recommend reading the original novels. They're very different from the films, even though some films borrowed novel titles occasionally. For instance, the Moonraker novel is about a nuke being aimed at London while James Bond tries to stop its launch; whereas the Moonraker film is about a guy planning to kill off everyone on the planet while creating his own human "ark" in space, to repopulate the planet with his own chosen specimens. Wildly different stakes.