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
He's amazing in those films. With him off the screens now for 14 years, it's easy to overlook just how great an actor he is as well as a major movie star. In the '90's he was still a major box office draw.
I agree with @ToTheRight Connery was a superb screen actor.
I think of Connery as kind of one of the last of his breed. A genuine movie star who was excellent at what he did, and versatile.
I suppose of his generation he can be put alongside Clint, Jack Nicholson, Paul Newman, Redford and Dustin Hoffman as a true legend. The next generation of movie screen icons after the likes of James Stewart, Clark Gable, Robert Mitchum, Spencer Tracy and so forth.
Is there even anyone today that has such impact?
The Untouchables is obviously really good as well, and I love The Rock. He's so great in that. "Can't cut anyone's ballsh off with a pair of thesesh can I".
I agree that they don't make them like they used to but every now and again you do get the odd one who breaks the mold. Obviously they're nowhere near as good an actor as Connery but Jason Statham, Scott Adkins. There are still proper alpha male types out there.
I think the best example though is Sean Bean. A proper mans man but also a brilliant versatile actor. I guess it isn't really fair to count him though as he's been around for a bit.
I think you're right.
When Goldeneye came out several reviewers said Sean Bean was better choice for James Bond than Brosnan.
Hence she got him to be the main villain instead.
I'm the same. Big Brosnan fan but I think Bean would have been just as good if not better. Can't say I'm not happy with the way things turned out though. Love Brosnan as Bond and love Bean as Trevelayn. One of the best Bond/villain parings.
I think there's a lot of similarities between him and Craig too. She definitely had an idea of what she wanted from day one, but had to go with Cubby's choice back in 95.
Had to mention Connery in this post as it's effectively his thread
I loved Brozza in the role back in the day and still have a soft spot for him. I'll put that down to being of an influential age when I first saw GE. When I see him in other films I still instinctively think "Bond".
That said I agree with you on Connery, Craig and Moore being the best three.
What do you mean? Don't you have Brosnan at the bottom of the pack?
Connery on the other hand could do whatever they asked him to do exceedingly well. Part of that was down to his look and natural style and part of it was just down to his personality which shone through in the films. With Bond more than other characters, sometimes it's not what you 'act' but rather who you 'are'. So much of it is swagger and persona.
Also I believe Brosnan was revered in his day as well. Like Craig, it was thought that he might surpass Connery even. I think that's just a thing for the incumbent Bond, and the immediately preceding Bond is always given flak.
I now bounce between Brosnan and Craig for 3rd and 4th as Bond. I'm quite settled on my first and last two.
One day I hope the media call someone 'the next Moore'.
However, I have heard that the "ahead of his time" arguments for Dalton are revisionist and he was simply not as attractive as Connery or Moore were at the box office. For instance, was there a reason for LTK not coming out on top of the box office scuffle in 1989 other than just the production not being as attractive as other Bonds? There were other years that were full of huge blockbusters like 1977 where TSWLM did just fine. I recall marketing issues on LTK's part but still, it seems as if Dalton just wasn't as appealing. His debut as Bond wasn't very successful relative to other films of the year despite enjoying a coincidence with the 25th year anniversary. It was similar to LALD, except LALD was competing with the likes of The Exorcist and The Sting which TLD wasn't.
Regarding Moore, I love him (my favourite) but I don't think he's popular or iconic enough in today's world to justify that. Unless of course, the next Bond is being played in a similar vein to Moore. But in terms of quality of the character, I think it's natural to defer to the man who defined the character: Connery.
I saw both of Dalton's films at the cinema,and they weren't greatly received at the time.
I think they didn't like the total about turn from Moore's Bond to Dalton's.
And TLD isn't the most exciting Bond film ,although I do remember the PTS got a very good response.
Also TLD does need to be concentrated on and people didn't go to Bond films at the time for that,they went for action,stunts,quips and all the other regular Bond features.
No doubt Dalton's more 'real' and 'down to earth' portrayal wasn't as commercially appealing as Connery/Moore, but then again I don't think that's what they were necessarily going for in the late 80's. They were facing a period of decline in box office that actually began during the later Moore years. The film market was changing (with far more rugged heroes like McClane, Riggs et al) and Bond was trying to find his place within it. Repositioning, if you will. I think the long absence before GE actually helped to resuscitate Bond (taking nothing away from Brosnan's cool) because it made people long for the suave, stylish English hero that nobody else could emulate and who had been missing from the big screen for so long.
I'll always remember my personal excitement at watching the GE teaser for the first time. It was like an old friend was back who had been missing since Moore retired.
Craig married that Fleming energy with cinema appeal, so I prefer him over Dalton.
Yeah, to an extent I feel really bad for Dalton since he put so much effort into it. But that also validates the idea that he might've been "miscast" in a sense. I know that's probably controversial as lots of people consider him the closest to Fleming's Bond, but as I see it that plays second fiddle to the cinematic aspects of Bond. If you can't nail the latter, it doesn't matter if you have the former. You won't be raking in the audiences. And I guess that was the situation with Dalton.
AVTAK did slip to unprecedented lows of the box office for its time, but from watching interviews then it seemed to be regarded as a blockbuster in that time. Something I don't know if I could say for Dalton's two efforts.
FYEO and OP had diminishing returns but still sized up well compared to other movies at the time. And I think it's all relative, so they did well to be premier films of their years.
Belittling other actors is in the spirit of the thread.
Good point !