It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yep. Can't disagree with any of the above regarding Connery. The man was a machine (I only use the past tense because he's retired!).
But the one thing that links all three? They're all terrible at accents!
Interesting but any of Craig's 4 outings so far trumps any of Brosnans.
No comparison. Like Coke and supermarket own brand cola.
I think Craig will have a career outside of Bond similar to what Brosnan and Moore had. Fairly respectable, decent, but will not reach the same legacy status as Connery.
Yes I agree. He is very good in a supporting role, like Road to Perdition and Munich, before he became Bond.
It's not quite 6 years yet.
Craig has been Bond for 30 years? Damn. I must have accidentally swallowed a bottle of Xanax after CR.
Mine was valium. :-?
@Getafix I cant wholeheartedly agree with you on this one. I think GE is better than three of Craig's films, maybe even on par with CR. And, for me at least, QOS is at least as disappointing as any of the weaker Brosnan films.
There is no question that Craig's era has attracted a different calibre of people in front, and behind the camera's, but that hasn't always translated into enjoyment.
There have been "very serious" Bondmovies before Craig's run.
Of course, and some of them are excellent. FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO and LTK are all 'vey serious' Bond movies, and excellent ones at that. That wasn't really what I was getting at, though. I was talking the era as a whole, rather than a film by film basis.
I'm talking about acting, the ability to be a chameleon, inhabit different types of roles, sorry Connery really can't do this, he coasts on his charisma and star quality, there are exceptions but Connery has never done anything to equal the performance Craig puts in for Our Friends In The North.
Isn't it enough he is regarded as the bonafide Bond, the blueprint that all have to be compared to who inhabit the role?
Connery is more like what Pacino became someone who is a lot of the time playing an extension of their own personality, hugely enjoyable to watch when on form but they aren't fooling us they are stepping out of their own skin and becoming something totally different.
He isn't a character actor supreme, Craig has shown this countless times, also as much as I like Malone in Untouchables, please that was one of those we need to give him one now moments.
No one is denying the star quality that Connery exudes but trying to defend he is a better actor across the board than Craig, sorry I can't buy that.
It is like when Moore fans try to make out he's a subtle actor and he is much more varied than he appears. Again Rog is adept at playing his Bond and does it effortlessly.
Also he proves that this isn't something that anyone can do, we only need to look at Brosnan to see that. Though making him out to be some kind of subtle performer that is overlooked is like me trying to say that Craig is the most charming and light footed Bond of the series.
There is plenty of proof out there to show that Craig is the most versatile performer who has inhabited the role and also he is the most assured and confident actor in a varied amount of roles since Connery.
Benoit Blanc shows what Craig is capable of, now we know he can do comic timing, not take himself too seriously, Bond is just one element to this very talented actor.
I also don't imagine we'll see Craig clinging onto the Bond style roles like Connery, Moore and Brosnan are all guilty of.
Trying to be the tough guy with a gun, turning up in roles that remind you of them in Bond. I can pretty much say Craig will definitely be avoiding them.
Craig's previous output already showed he was capable of variety roles, the actors previous with maybe the exception of Dalton just hadn't displayed any of that.
Connery is king of Bond no doubt and very very unlikely to be unseated but a better actor than Craig which my original point was making, sorry no, star quality and acting prowess are 2 different things.
I'm certainly not saying Craig exudes charisma and the level of star quality that Connery he does but acting that is a totally different story.
He certainly knows how to act but a craftsman a subtle and varied performer sorry no.
He has given us all endless amounts of entertainment playing the character that is Sean Connery.
Either way, the time seems to have gone by quickly.
Quite so. :-?
And Craig is an actor. He embodies a role and plays it according to his truth (and he didn't "sink" GWTDT; you can blame Sony for releasing this fine Fincher film during the Holiday season. It still made decent bank-- not the type they were hoping, but everyone saw this as a marketing mis-fire)
Connery was always Connery (which I happily plunked down my money to see time and again); Craig is an actor who gets into the character and brings life to it.
Again, I'll ask. Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?
Have you seen The Offence or The Hill?
;))
Of course I have-- and I love Connery in these films, and I do think that he was trying something new , especially in The Offence (Lumet's always been one of my favourite directors, right up to his death).
But that type of film was a blip and he went back to playing Connery for the rest of his career (it's the same thing with Stallone: did you see Rocky and Cop Land-- he was genuinely playing something outside of his archetype, but then went back to playing Stallone The Movie Star again).
Connery was a charismatic movie star, and the bulk of his career represents this trait (larger than life, he could play an Irish cop or a Russian sub captain and breeze across the screen not embodying a character (or an accent), but extending and projecting his personality (which in itself was larger than life)).
Craig's method is far different and he tries to dig into a character and build something from there. My 18 year old son noted after Knives out that Craig even moved differently as Benoit Blanc, and it was a performance that's a far cry from his physicality as James Bond.
I have to agree.
Connery is like Tom Cruise (although Connery was far more charming, sophisticated, intelligent and charismatic in every way), in that they play themselves in a multitude of different films. Sean was always Sean. Tom is always Tom. Which is good enough for me, and like I said, I happily plunked down my $$$ to see Connery in anything he did (Tom Cruise on the other hand... not so much).
Daniel Craig is the definition of a character actor.
I've seen the Offence ( a few years back the last time) and The Hill a long time ago and yes Connery does come out of his normal box in these. I believe it was part of his deal for coming back for DAF to do this and with Lumet again, they obviously liked working together as we also have Murder On The Orient Express, all quality work from Sean. The Anderson Tapes and Family business not really in the same league.
Connery wasn't stretching himself in those other 2 like he did with the other 3, especially The Hill and The Offence.
Sidney Lumet was one of the masters, so I can imagine Connery loved working with him. Although unfortunately as he got older he accepted his fate and the likes of Rising Sun, The Rock and Entrapment became his bread and butter.
Trying to rip off Dead Poets Society with Finding Forrester was ill advised, Connery is no Robin Williams.
I'm not denying that Connery can't be compelling but varied and a chameleon, these are 2 roles in his whole CV, Craig was doing varied work years before he became Bond.
Craig has had the advantage of being an actor of acclaim before he became Bond, he had an impressive CV.
Look I don't go through Craig's career and say there is 2 moments he was displayed as much star quality as Connery, these are 2 films.
Can't it be enough that he is who he is, Connery will never be one of the all time great actors, I'm not saying that Craig is or will be, though his skill and varied roles show that he definitely is a better all round actor than Connery.
I do think sometimes think that because he is the first Bond and regularly voted the best that he can't do no wrong is some fans eyes and they make him out to be something more than he is.
:-? :D
Don't blame @MakeshiftPython for that comment, that was me and I've seen both films and Connery is terrific.
Though Craig's performance in OFITN I maintain is better, that character is a real journey, yes it is TV so the actor has more time to develop the character but Connery wouldn't have been able to nail that the way Craig does.
It takes an actor that immerses himself in the character goes skin deep and commits, Connery rarely has shown that ability.
He was very good in The Tailor Of Panama. Probably my favourite of his films. It's like watching an oily, unscrupulous, twisted version of James Bond. It's hard not to make this sound like an atatck on Brosnan, this really isn't, but he is very good playing a slippery little shit.
What's the film where he has a porn 'stache, and he free climbs up the side of a building. I watched it on tv once, never seen it on again. I think there's also a boat chase through the canals of Amsterdam.
Fair enough. You've seen Connery at his best then, in terms of performance. If you still think Craig beats these performances then its down to personal opinion. Let's see if Craig manages to bag himself an Oscar too whilst he's at it.... ;)
Another Connery performance worth watching is a TV mini series called Male of the Species. Connery was superb in that too.
Have you seen either of these films?