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
His relaxed self assured performance in GF is heavily influenced by his Hitchcock-coached turn in Marnie, the movie that he did immediately prior.
His delivery of the "man talk" comment alone surely explains why many consider this to be the definitive Sean performance.
He's pretty cool in Thunderball as well.
The only performance that's below his others is DAF. He seems old, out of shape and disinterested at that point.
I'll play the devils advocate; does Connery seems less intense to you?
Yes, that's why I like him. He's more laid back.
Even after realising the true nature of SPECTRE's plan he still has time to crack a few one liners convincingly.
Connery's 007 performance in Thunderball is particularly well characterized; we see him at his most blunt instrument best when he and Largo, the villain of the piece, are playing Chemin de Fer, provoking Largo, and paradoxically, 007 is at his most suave and achingly cool in this scene.
We also see some rare emotion from said “blunt instrument”, when Bond tells Domino, the villains “kept woman”, about her brother, who'd been stabbed. In a moving scene, Bond, much to his chagrin, was very harsh on Domino. 007, after all, has a job to do, as much as he wanted to protect Domino. To avoid betraying his emotion’s, Bond covered his eyes with sunglasses; secret agent first, human second.
It's a multi-faceted Bond performance, all carried of with great panache, great virility and undeniable charisma by Sean Connery, who is at his zenith playing James Bond, 007.
Terence Young ensured Thunderball would be brutal, visceral and very stylish and sophisticated, just like his two previous entries. What is more Young, and indeed Connery, who had a distaste for “gimmicks”, (and there were a lot of “gimmicks” in Thunderball) would not overwhelm the story.
Hence, for me, Connery came up with the ideal blend of Fleming's 007, as perfected in From Russia With Love, and the cinematic 007 of Goldfinger.
4 years later in DAF, he was reprising a role that was fully created. It was an homage of sorts to his own creation. I thought he carried it brilliantly, despite being a little heavier. He was still as smooth and tough as ever.
Back to TB I think @royale65, has very well articulated the Connery-Bond circa TB.
Back to GF, if anyone gets a chance, watch Hitchcocks Marnie starring Connery. You'd swear he was carrying over his GF Bond, until you realize, that he did Marnie first.
In actuality, what he learned from Hitch, he used to perfect GF Bond.
The two characters, Connery in Marnie and Connery in GF, are almost identical, in so far as how they move, body language, posturing, manner of speech. Connery I think even admits to carrying over some wardrobe.
The resemblance is uncanny.
Devil's Advocate; Connery is bored in Thunderball.
George Lazenby is exceptional during the action scenes, which, when added to the fact he was good looking, he moved very well, almost in a Connery-esque manner, and arrogant, Lazenby was an ideal template for portraying Bond.
With no prior acting experience Lazenby does remarkably well. At times, it must be said, Lazenby is rather wooden, but at other times, he is terrific, such as when Lazenby confronts M and Blofeld.
One can see him growing in stature throughout the movie, and by the end of it, Lazenby makes one care for Bond; he is a human Bond, much more akin to Ian Fleming's novels.
Remember Lazenby was acting on instinct, and when his instinct is so true to the novels, one can imagine Lazenby developing, evolving into the role, with future efforts.
Yes, agreed, he was best in the fight sequences, made all the more effective by Moore's rather tepid fights that followed.
He was physically very fit and to my eyes, along with young Connery & Dalton had the best physique for Bond. Lean and spy like. Craig seemed a little beefcake-like in CR IMO, although I'm sure the ladies will disagree.
His acting was a little wooden, but I'll give him credit: he kept his composure on screen when faced with Bond's greatest personal trauma - his performance at that point was most Bond-like - there was no hint of the melodrama that was to follow in similar affairs of the heart in much later installments. One of course wonders how Connery would have handled that scene, but we will never really know.
I think Lazenby could have grown into the role, but I'm unsure if he would have ever got that chance.....any future Bond movie that he would have done would have been made in the 70's , a decade in which audience's tastes and demands were changing rapidly. It's uncertain if Lazenby would have been able to make the role his own, or if he would have always lived in the shadow of Connery in the public's mind. His performance has a nostalgic effect today, but at the time, it may have not caught on, even with a 2nd movie. I guess we'll never know. Similar in some degree to Dalton, who today is also facing a renaissance of sorts.
I think in Moore & in Brosnan, we got the Bonds we needed to keep the series alive, until the time was right for more adventurous fare.
But, Majesty's as it is, is pretty fantastic :-)
For me there was something more too: Lazenby just looked fit - super fit. One believed he could throw those guys around in the pretitles. Not overly thin or undernourished, as Brozza looked in GE, nor undermuscled, like Moore looked in LALD.
Connery brought physicality too, in the first two (he was already putting on the pounds by time GF came along) as did Dalton for sure, but Lazenby just looked the part to me.
Maybe it was the conservative cut of his suits combined with his physique and height.
I like certain aspects of OHMSS very much indeed: the cinematography, the score, Diana Rigg's superb performance, Telly as Blofeld ... but Lazenby is the lowest of low points in the film for me. I do think his only two strengths are his physicality/fighting ability and good looks. That's it. For me, every time I have seen the film, I do not buy him as James Bond. And that is crucial. He is lacking severely. I never see him as Bond and find his performance mostly a downer. The only scenes that I feel were actually well acted at all were the final wedding scenes with Moneypenny and Tracy. That's it. So no, he was not James Bond for me in this one and therefore I have to be one of the few (on this forum anyway) who feel that he was not believable and did not give a convincing or even very enjoyable performance. It took away from the film a lot having him in the lead role.
Too bad George was a complete jerk and forced EON's hand into the mediocre-to-bad Bond films of the 70's and 80's.
Oh, and some character moments thrown here & there...
:))