Controversial opinions about Bond films

1552553555557558707

Comments

  • Posts: 230
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I always wondered why so many of us dislike Connery's performances in YOLT and DAF. Granted, they are not as lean as DN-TB, but even in easy-going mode the man is a joy to watch.

    The issues with YOLT are NOT Connery.
  • Posts: 230
    Connery is fine in YOLT, but compared with the previous four (especially TB where he’s at his best and is seems to be having a lot of fun in the role) he’s clearly not as tuned in to playing Bond anymore. The huge focus on him by the press and the people of Japan I’m sure affected his attitude, which is why he’s better in DAF, where he didn’t have to deal with that quite so much.

    Exactly. His "what the hell - why not" attitude about it all fit perfectly with the "what the hell- why not" feel of the movie.
  • Posts: 1,916
    I think with YOLT it's Dahl's screenplay and Gilbert's direction that contribute to Connery's portrayal, which just doesn't give him a lot to do since he's being shuffled constantly from one action scene to another, one vehicle to another, one location to another or in disguise that there isn't a lot interesting for him to do acting-wise. There are some standout moments like the conference with M, his encounter with Henderson or first meeting with Tiger where classic Connery shines through.

    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.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    The craziness of Bondmania subsiding making it easier as well as the paycheck for his charity for Connery in DAF I suppose he kinda owes to OHMSS and Lazenby not going over quite so well. 😉
  • Posts: 16,149
    I think he's still great in[ those films, but the overall experience on YOLT
    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.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    If only it were Connery being out of shape. His performance in DAF is the epitome of "No offense, love, but i'm only here for the money." Next time I am about to watch DAF, i'll watch FRWL instead.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I think with YOLT it's Dahl's screenplay and Gilbert's direction that contribute to Connery's portrayal, which just doesn't give him a lot to do since he's being shuffled constantly from one action scene to another, one vehicle to another, one location to another or in disguise that there isn't a lot interesting for him to do acting-wise. There are some standout moments like the conference with M, his encounter with Henderson or first meeting with Tiger where classic Connery shines through.

    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.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,244
    For me it isn't Connery's performance that drags DAF down, it's the mess thay made on the editing table.
  • Posts: 15,106
    Revelator wrote: »
    I don't think Femme Fatales have to be evil to qualify. Black Widow for instance.

    Wouldn't she be an exception that proves the rule though? A femme fatale should have a some degree of fatality or at least harm-inducement toward her lover(s), whereas Severine is ultimately sympathetic toward Bond. She seems like a femme fatale at first but develops into a tragic Bond girl.

    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.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 2,915
    I think if a female character is a tragic victim of fate herself, then it negates or compromises her femme fatale status. No La Belle Dame sans Merci is she.
  • Posts: 1,394
    The elevator fight in DAF is superior to the train fight in FRWL.It may actually be the best hand to hand fight in the entire franchise.Just my opinion.
  • Posts: 7,653
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The elevator fight in DAF is superior to the train fight in FRWL.It may actually be the best hand to hand fight in the entire franchise.Just my opinion.

    They are both brilliant and Connery at his best.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    AstonLotus wrote: »
    The elevator fight in DAF is superior to the train fight in FRWL.It may actually be the best hand to hand fight in the entire franchise.Just my opinion.

    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.
  • Posts: 16,149
    I think the elevator fight in DAF is far superior to the stairwell fight in CR.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Now that we're on the subject of DAF, I have a blast watching Charles Gray as Blofeld. Not as menacing as the unseen one, nor as athletic as Telly Savalas, but definitely one of the most amusing villains in the series. Has great chemistry with Connery too.
  • Posts: 16,149
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Now that we're on the subject of DAF, I have a blast watching Charles Gray as Blofeld. Not as menacing as the unseen one, nor as athletic as Telly Savalas, but definitely one of the most amusing villains in the series. Has great chemistry with Connery too.

    Connery and Gray have a great Bond/villain rapport. More so, I think than with Pleasence. The again, Pleasence was cast very last minute.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 17,744
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Now that we're on the subject of DAF, I have a blast watching Charles Gray as Blofeld. Not as menacing as the unseen one, nor as athletic as Telly Savalas, but definitely one of the most amusing villains in the series. Has great chemistry with Connery too.

    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.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    edited March 2020 Posts: 7,108
    The thing with DAF is that if I watch it after OHMSS it always feels out of place, but on its own it's a highly entertaining watch with witty dialogue and hilarious characters.

    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.
  • Posts: 1,916
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The thing with DAF is that if I watch it after OHMSS it always feels out of place, but on its own it's a highly entertaining watch with witty dialogue and hilarious characters.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The thing with DAF is that if I watch it after OHMSS it always feels out of place, but on its own it's a highly entertaining watch with witty dialogue and hilarious characters.

    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.

    Interesting. Puts a welcome spin on "If he fires me, I'll thank him for it."
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    DAF really should be seen more as a follow up to YOLT, because that’s how the makers meant it to be perceived, given that’s how most audiences in 1971 perceived it. Criticizing DAF for not being a proper sequel to OHMSS is utterly missing the point. You could literally jump from YOLT to DAF and not miss anything. That’s how TV stations used to do marathons, IIRC.
  • Posts: 1,596
    DAF really should be seen more as a follow up to YOLT, because that’s how the makers meant it to be perceived, given that’s how most audiences in 1971 perceived it. Criticizing DAF for not being a proper sequel to OHMSS is utterly missing the point. You could literally jump from YOLT to DAF and not miss anything. That’s how TV stations used to do marathons, IIRC.

    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.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I've gone one about this before. Two timelines that work, and kind of make sense.

    DN>FRWL>TB>OHMSS>LALD (only for the consistency of Hedison's Felix)>TSWLM>FYEO>LTK

    or

    GF>YOLT>DAF>NSNA

    That is well thought out. Pretty neat.
  • Posts: 1,596
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Thanks. I've actually done mini-marathons of each and they work very well.

    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.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Well with On Her Majesty's Secret Service really its faithfulness to Fleming, the quality of the film, and especially its ending are what demanded a follow-up/continuation. So that will likely always be part of the conversation.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,546
    Well with On Her Majesty's Secret Service really its faithfulness to Fleming, the quality of the film, and especially its ending are what demanded a follow-up/continuation. So that will likely always be part of the conversation.

    I'll continue to say a follow up with Lazenby, Savalas, and Ferzetti would have been incredible.
  • Posts: 17,744
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The thing with DAF is that if I watch it after OHMSS it always feels out of place, but on its own it's a highly entertaining watch with witty dialogue and hilarious characters.

    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.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    It goes without saying that a proper follow up with Lazenby, Savalas, and Hunt directing would have been great. It’s just too bad Ilse Steppat would have never returned.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Lazenby and Hunt returning, together with a third Dalton film, is the big unfulfilled wish of the franchise.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    Controversial opinion: I wish Lazenby never got the role. I love OHMSS, but that's in spite of him. He just never clicks for me. An experienced and professionally trained actor like Connery or even Moore would have CRUSHED it. Lazenby, to his credit, turns in an adequate performance for a first time actor, but he doesn't have the charisma of a leading actor, and he's just way too young for the Bond that should be portrayed in the story OHMSS has. It's even more evident when paired with Diana Rigg, who even she regretted in an interview about not being paired with Connery or Moore.
Sign In or Register to comment.