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
The issues with YOLT are NOT Connery.
Exactly. His "what the hell - why not" attitude about it all fit perfectly with the "what the hell- why not" feel of the movie.
And there's a lot repeated from other films such as Miss Brandt being a blatant and inferior Fiona Volpe clone, Aki's death being similar to Paula's in TB, Little Nellie being a flying DB5 and on and on. It's also interesting that if you look at behind the scenes photos or footage that Connery is often laughing, clowning or smiling. It wasn't all negative.
I agree with Makeshiftpython on Connery in DAF. How can people not see the enthusiasm in his performance? He is very laid back and relaxed in behind the scenes photos and knows he's getting a nice salary and not having to deal with the intense media pressure he was as Bondmania had long subsided. He gets to play with the lighter side while still bringing the physical presence we associate him with. It's part of why I like DAF a lot more than most fans do.
affect his enthusiasm.
I think he's just as good in DAF as he ever was. it never really bothered my that he's a bit older looking and not quite as trim.
Good point. In the previous four films there was a lot more opportunity for Connery to play with character scenes that show you who these people are beyond just their professions, taking the time to get to know them and how they fit in the story/plot. YOLT doesn't have as much of that going on as the focus is more on the gimmicks and spectacle, to the point you never even learn Kissy's name until the end credits. At the time DAF was coming out he praised the script as being one of the best, but I'm sure that mainly had to do how there were much more scenes where he got to interact with actors with Mankiewicz's witty dialogue.
I might be wrong, but I understand a femme fatale is a gorgeous woman who leads a man to his doom, whether she wants it or not.
They are both brilliant and Connery at his best.
Been a long long time since I've watched DAF but I really like the sound of this. Might have to pop it in before long.
Connery and Gray have a great Bond/villain rapport. More so, I think than with Pleasence. The again, Pleasence was cast very last minute.
I'd go as far as to say that Charles Gray's Blofeld was one of the best villains of the series. I never get bored watching him in DAF.
Always feel that right after OHMSS's heartbreaking ending, the Dalton films are the best follow-ups. First with the toned-down womanizing of TLD and then with the revenge driven plot of LTK.
In conclusion, I love DAF though not as a successor to OHMSS.
For me, the spiritual successors to OHMSS are TLD-LTK.
Good take, that's how I feel. It seems that too many want to dismiss DAF on the basis that it wasn't the "proper" follow-up to OHMSS they'd have liked. Just take it on its own merits and it can be a rewarding view. I may be a little biased as DAF was the first Bond I saw when it was new when I was a preschooler.
Interesting. Puts a welcome spin on "If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."
100% agree with this. I also try (and usually fail) to watch Bond films in somewhat of a vacuum since, until the Craig era, continuity is hardly ever emphasized. So why should that film be derided for being a poor follow-up when the Bond series as a whole is never concerned with follow-ups.
That is well thought out. Pretty neat.
Yeah, these pseudo-timelines are excellent. And I'm definitely not opposed to viewing 007 as having continuity, but whenever I see criticisms leveled at any film for its weakness as a sequel/follow-up (the only exception being QoS which is explicitly a sequel) I just don't really understand it. Unless, of course, the person leveling the critique isn't well versed with the series and thus understandably assumes they are all tightly connected/sequential in the timeline.
I'll continue to say a follow up with Lazenby, Savalas, and Ferzetti would have been incredible.
Can't say I've ever watched OHMSS and DAF back-to-back, which might be part of the reason I can so easily enjoy DAF so much (and rank it so high!). I've found FYEO to be a good follow-up to OHMSS though.