Not to debate your choices, but I want to address your (admittedly rhetorical) question about Brosnan, since it’s something I’ve thought about once or twice.
There’s nothing wrong with Brosnan combining elements of his predecessors to shape his portayal, and no it’s not fair that folks (including me) hit him so hard for it.
First, every Bond actor borrows something from predecessors. Lazenby only had one and he “borrowed” almost everything. Second, Brosnan couldn’t have failed to notice that any time people praised"James Bond" in 1994, they were talking about the past. The chief appeal of the franchise at that stage was nostalgia. A critical “thumbs down” usually involved a phrase like “not as fun as the old days” while a thumbs up often meant, “best since Connery.” Third, every signal coming from the producers and studio - - and maybe their explicit instruction – was to make a return to formula, tradition and all the iconic hallmarks of the franchise, after a muted reception to the experimental LTK and a 6-year hiatus that posed an existential threat to the whole enterprise.
The problem – for me – is that Brosnan’s casting and approach are merely one piece of an overall strategy of assembling hodge-podge, “amalgam” films by shuffling, tweaking or massaging elements from earlier entries, and usually not improving on the originals. There are stabs at “pushing the envelope”, like the Elektra twist or Bond’s capture in DAD, but always followed by a retreat to the safety of formula and repetition.
Brosnan, as the star, is the avatar of that trend, its most visible symbol, so he gets the stick. And no, it’s not fair. With better films, I’ve no doubt he’d be higher up my list. I rooted for him in '86 and '94, too.