Many people look at Sean Connery as their favorite Bond, but I guess I just don't see why ?

1235712

Comments

  • Getafix wrote:
    I appreciate Craig is giving the character a greater depth in terms of background etc but I just don't enjoy his performances as much as Sean, Rog or Tim. Dalts did a 'darker' Bond and did it better IMO. Sean was charm and danger personified and Rog was just pure quilty pleasure. As much I welcomed DC's arrival after Brosnan I find myself increasingly bored by his navel-gazing characterisation. I want Bond to get over himself and live a little.
    Individual tastes vary; I was introduced to the character through the books, not the movies, and that likely has a lot to do with what I find enjoyable in a film translation.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    I appreciate Craig is giving the character a greater depth in terms of background etc but I just don't enjoy his performances as much as Sean, Rog or Tim. Dalts did a 'darker' Bond and did it better IMO. Sean was charm and danger personified and Rog was just pure quilty pleasure. As much I welcomed DC's arrival after Brosnan I find myself increasingly bored by his navel-gazing characterisation. I want Bond to get over himself and live a little.
    Individual tastes vary; I was introduced to the character through the books, not the movies, and that likely has a lot to do with what I find enjoyable in a film translation.

    Personally, while I like and respect Dalts, I think Craig does "darker Bond" better than him.

    I'm with @NicNac in that you can see that Dalton has thought about a lot of the expression's he's going to make before he make them at times. He is very visual (I'm angry so I'm going to move my eyes, scowl and breathe heavily). With Craig it feels a bit more spontaneous.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,425
    It's no doubt intentional on the part of Mendes as SF was supposed to be a film about M, but I don't really feel Craig was given a lot to do in SF. He felt like a more 'real' character in CR and QoS to me. As someone else mentioned, he does a lot of 'standing' in SF - legs apart, looking tough.
  • Getafix wrote:
    It's no doubt intentional on the part of Mendes as SF was supposed to be a film about M, but I don't really feel Craig was given a lot to do in SF. He felt like a more 'real' character in CR and QoS to me. As someone else mentioned, he does a lot of 'standing' in SF - legs apart, looking tough.

    I really enjoyed what Mr. Craig was doing in that film. He didn't have to necessarily be doing much of anything to keep a viewer's attention. He was just interesting to look at while sitting quietly at the bar.
  • Posts: 1,107
    Im give you an example that Connery isnt jut a good actor but also a good person her is way: Joe Robinson, who portrays Franks in DAF, was getting off a bus in Cape Town, South Africa in 1998 and was attacked by eight muggers. Robinson has a 6th degree black belt in judo, and used to be a professional weightlifter. They came at him with knives and baseball bats, but the 70-year-old Robinson took out two with leg kicks, karate-chopped another in the chest and broke the arm of a fourth. The rest turned and ran. When Sean Connery heard about this, he sent Robinson a Get Well card that said, “Give this to the muggers, if you can find them. Sean.”
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 803
    Dalton12 wrote:
    Im give you an example that Connery isnt jut a good actor but also a good person her is way: Joe Robinson, who portrays Franks in DAF, was getting off a bus in Cape Town, South Africa in 1998 and was attacked by eight muggers. Robinson has a 6th degree black belt in judo, and used to be a professional weightlifter. They came at him with knives and baseball bats, but the 70-year-old Robinson took out two with leg kicks, karate-chopped another in the chest and broke the arm of a fourth. The rest turned and ran. When Sean Connery heard about this, he sent Robinson a Get Well card that said, “Give this to the muggers, if you can find them. Sean.”

    Mr. Connery is an interesting cat, I think. He can be very loyal and caring -- and he can be quite a ******sometimes, from all accounts.
    EDITED
  • lahaine wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    QOS rival anything Connery done.

    I have no response to this.

    Its a great film i've no shame in saying it.

    Fair enough if you like it, personally I hate it but people have different tastes. I'm just honestly not sure why anybody would put it above the 60s films.
  • Posts: 11,425
    lahaine wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    QOS rival anything Connery done.

    I have no response to this.

    Its a great film i've no shame in saying it.

    Fair enough if you like it, personally I hate it but people have different tastes. I'm just honestly not sure why anybody would put it above the 60s films.

    I am a QoS defender but it's clearly daft to claim it's any where near as good as the 60s films.
  • Fair enough if you like it, personally I hate it but people have different tastes. I'm just honestly not sure why anybody would put it above the 60s films.
    Personally, I like the actor in the role more than the actor in the 60s movies; I enjoyed the plot more than a lot of the plots found in the 60s films; I can appreciate the improvements in the overall film qualities, shooting techniques and such.

    Certainly different tastes and all that, but I don't have trouble seeing why some people think Roger Moore was terrific in the role while I don't particularly enjoy his take.

  • Getafix wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    lahaine wrote:
    QOS rival anything Connery done.

    I have no response to this.

    Its a great film i've no shame in saying it.

    Fair enough if you like it, personally I hate it but people have different tastes. I'm just honestly not sure why anybody would put it above the 60s films.

    I am a QoS defender but it's clearly daft to claim it's any where near as good as the 60s films.

    Well, it's better than Dr. No anyway. The rest though, yeah. Probably.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dr. No is a work of genius.

    QoS is an entertaining but fairly lightweight action adventure romp.
  • Getafix wrote:
    Dr. No is a work of genius.

    QoS is an entertaining but fairly lightweight action adventure romp.
    Dr. No is in my top 10, but I find Quantum the more entertaining film, personally.

  • Getafix wrote:
    Dr. No is a work of genius.

    QoS is an entertaining but fairly lightweight action adventure romp.

    I've always liked Dr. No, but it's getting worse and worse for me. It's just so painfully slow sometimes. Bond himself is probably at his coolest though.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I actually love Dr No. Gets better and better IMO. And Connery is brilliant.
  • Getafix wrote:
    I actually love Dr No. Gets better and better IMO. And Connery is brilliant.
    While I can see why some people would see Dr. No as being dated and slow, I also really enjoy the film, and agree Connery was quite good in it.

  • I'm not saying I don't enjoy it. It's a great film. It's just worse than many others in the series. Dr. No is among my favorite villains. He's just not in it enough.
  • I'm not saying I don't enjoy it. It's a great film. It's just worse than many others in the series. Dr. No is among my favorite villains. He's just not in it enough.

    Well, that's in keeping with his role in the book, too. He was actually given more screen time in the movie than he was given page concentration in the book.

    And I think that worked. There's something to be said for the villain of the piece being in the shadows. Certainly Stoker used that sort of approach to great effect in Dracula, for example.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I'm not saying I don't enjoy it. It's a great film. It's just worse than many others in the series. Dr. No is among my favorite villains. He's just not in it enough.
    That's a plus in this case. The way that EON set it up was so just you would let your mind work, wondering what he would be like, and then you get the actual shock to see he is just a normal man and not some strange legend he is played out to be, much like the dragon and the island of Crab Key in general.
  • Okay, yeah, the suspense is pretty great. I just prefer my villains to be more active than No was. Sanchez is a perfect example of how I like my villains to be.
  • Okay, yeah, the suspense is pretty great. I just prefer my villains to be more active than No was. Sanchez is a perfect example of how I like my villains to be.
    Sanchez is a much different sort of antagonist, but also very enjoyable, I thought.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Okay, yeah, the suspense is pretty great. I just prefer my villains to be more active than No was. Sanchez is a perfect example of how I like my villains to be.
    I undestand. It all depends on how the villain is used. No was kept in the shadows and we knew the plan so it didn't really matter that he was kept for the last because it built suspense, but for films like MIGP the villain needs to be present often and when he isn't the film suffers. With Hendricks there was no big reveal. He was weakly introduced and barely put in when needed most. And a lot of his character building scenes were cut, unfortunately.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    Getafix wrote:
    I actually love Dr No. Gets better and better IMO. And Connery is brilliant.
    Agreed, DN & TB are my Connery go-to films.

  • Okay, yeah, the suspense is pretty great. I just prefer my villains to be more active than No was. Sanchez is a perfect example of how I like my villains to be.
    I undestand. It all depends on how the villain is used. No was kept in the shadows and we knew the plan so it didn't really matter that he was kept for the last because it built suspense, but for films like MIGP the villain needs to be present often and when he isn't the film suffers. With Hendricks there was no big reveal. He was weakly introduced and barely put in when needed most. And a lot of his character building scenes were cut, unfortunately.

    Oh yeah, the villain in GP was so disappointing. I was really excited as well, since it's a Swedish actor playing him. The hype over here was pretty crazy.

  • chrisisall wrote:
    Agreed, DN & TB are my Connery go-to films.
    For me it'd be Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Never Say Never Again.

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    My favourite Connerys are YOLT, TB, FRWL and NSNA.

    I used to really like GF but I've lost some appreciation for that recently. DN I've always respected more than I enjoyed, I just think it's too boring and slow paced for it's own good until towards the end.

    DAF I think is just bad. Lazenby should've done it. Or if they kept the film the way it was, Moore should've done it. Connery was just bad in it I thought.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    Let me preface my post by saying that Timothy Dalton is my favorite screen James Bond but Sean Connery comes in at a solid second for me (with Craig at third for those wondering).

    People rightfully claim Connery as "defining" the role; however, those who take umbrage with this praise fail to understand that Connery defines the role with a great screen presence, a sense of cool you can cut with a knife, unexpected comedic precision, a unique swagger and voice and a very unappreciated penchant for piercing subtle acting. I think some of Connery's films are the best and find Connery to be not just a great Bond but one that remains near the top of the list, getting there first had nothing to do with it.
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Agreed, DN & TB are my Connery go-to films.
    For me it'd be Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Never Say Never Again.

    First of all, NSNA is NOT a Bond Movie so please do not address it as such. Secondly, I am a huge fan of Sean, and profess that he is indeed the best Bond without question because for me, he is what I think of when I think of James Bond, there is no other way to put it, he just fits the part. As for his films, I think that the first four are excellent, each one getting better than the previous placing TB at the pinnacle of his career as Bond, then YOLT falls off the mark a bit, and DAF a bit more.
  • Getafix wrote:
    NSNA is sadly better than quite a few of the official outings.

    Not in my world. Ever.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789

    Getafix wrote:
    NSNA is sadly better than quite a few of the official outings.

    Not in my world. Ever.
    Does your world include Moonraker? It's infinitely better than at least that one!
    B-)
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    NSNA is sadly better than quite a few of the official outings.

    Not in my world. Ever.
    Does your world include Moonraker? It's infinitely better than at least that one!
    B-)

    Yes it does, and that also includes DAD. WHY you ask? Because MR and DAD for all their flaws are original adventures. NSNA fails to improve on TB on any conceivable level that I can see. Brandauer and Carrera are fun and the only exceptions but do they improve on Celi and Paluzzi? No. In DAF you could say Sean was there only for the money, in NSNA it was that plus sticking it to Cubby. In worse shape than ever and like Moore cavorting with women way too young for Gramps. Watching my hero reduced to an utter joke is even harder to take than MR and DAD, therefore I'll watch those or any of the 22 before NSNA.

    Suffice it to say I find any opinion such as this to be severely lacking in good taste and judgment to the point of being ludicrous, nothing personal, just how I feel.


Sign In or Register to comment.