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
In honour of Craig's return, I decided to endure the latest entry once more. I've seen it about 10 times this year already and it's far and away my most viewed Bond film. I just viewed FRWL during the previous evening, and so comparisons to one of Connery's best were naturally in my mind. A few things immediately stood out.
--
1. SP has a very overcast visual palette and that impacts perceptions negatively. I used to think this was purely on account of the notorious filter, but it's not. I don't think the filter is used in the London scenes (or if it is, it's not as pronounced), but these scenes suffer from the effect most notably. FRWL in contrast is very vibrant, rich & textured throughout.
2. Craig looks pretty old in a lot of the scenes when compared to Connery in FRWL. There is a real energy and deadly lethal aspect to Sean in the earlier film, like he could break you with merely a stare. Craig lacks that in this last film. It's very apparent. He looks tired and disinterested.
3. There's too much political shenanigans in the latter film. The Nine Eyes nonsense is so opaque and poorly articulated that it's almost an unnecessary distraction. Moreover, things seem to drag, while FRWL is much more 'on point'.
--
An important phone call interrupted me just after the plane chase. I will possibly get back to it later tonight, realizing that I will only be watching the weakest and most uninteresting parts of the film.
To be continued....
This is one I used to not like, but then I let its noir influence really come over me and I was sold on much of it. I find it an endlessly better ending to Sean's run than YOLT could have been, where he at least looks like he's having a good time and that contributes so much to the feeling of DAF. He's older and bulgier, but at times in YOLT he's just going through the paces with scenes that don't give him anything to do. In DAF he's an active force by great comparison.
The themes of DAF, the cinematography, Wint & Kidd's black comedy and the fight in Amsterdam and chase in Vegas amount to other highs in the movie, in addition to so much great satire and double-meaning throughout that ties right into Blofeld's own doubles and his deceitful use of Whyte's empire. All in all, a smartly crafted movie that could be looked over by those that think it's just a camp adventure (I personally don't think it's as campy as some say, with many serious parts in it).
To be fair here matey,Connery was only in his second year as Bond,Craig was in his 9th year when SP was made,he is bound to look older.
You need to compare them in YOLT & SP and see who looks older,fatter and more disinterested,and its not Craig.
I'm merely stating that Craig looks old and extremely tired and disinterested in SP in comparison to Connery in FRWL. Check them out back to back and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Why is this relevant? Well, because he's back in two years time. Connery is long gone from the role.
Fair enough but Connery,as I said,was still fresh and riding on a high after DN,the whole Bond phenomena was in its infancy,he had little pressure on him,and he was a relatively unknown still.
By the time SP came around ,Bond is a global machine,with immense box office and financial pressure,its a monster,and Craig is a world known actor with a massive reputation and standard to maintain,a hell of a lot of pressure on him.
As did bond in his shit car chase with a phone call. Agree with what is said here
Again, my point is he does not seem 'lethal' in SP in comparison to Connery in 'FRWL'. I feel he seems disinterested and tired.
I watched these two films recently and it's something I noticed. The difference is glaring to me. Which is why I pointed it out. I feel it's relevant because he will be back in the saddle as Bond in two years time. Not for any other reason.
Aaah you are referring to the 'Bondness' of them,well yes I agree on that,the fact that I see FRWL as Sean's best and SP as Dan's worst,even performance wise, concurs your theory matey haha ;)
I think it's important to point out, because it could perhaps provide some insight into the kind of Bond we get in B25. Some are holding out hopes for the type of Craig we got in CR/QoS. I'm not sure that's going to happen. Even Connery in NSNA wasn't the man from FRWL. Night and day.
The only point I'd compare Dan and Sean on performance wise is their quality and consistency of that quality. There's performances like we see in DN, FRWL, TB, CR, QoS and SF, and then there's all the other ones. Both actors have had moments where they were given lesser material or that couldn't match their earlier work, but when it comes to the gold standard of Bond I don't think two performers could lay as much claim to successful and impactful takes on the character in the way they can. Watching Dan is sometimes like the snake easting its own tail, where Bond is being taken seriously to a degree that it wasn't since the 60s to such a degree. Either way a viewer could get all they need from the Bond character from their best work, and it's no wonder why I watch those two eras thrice more than the others.
As for what Dan's final performance will be, let's see. He's had the time to rebuild his energies and is ready to attack it with everything he has. If the film scales back on the cinematic Bond and lets him do the kind of stuff he did most prominently in CR and QoS, the better. It makes little point to postulate at this point, but it's not outside the realm of possibility that he finishes strong. He's a quality actor, so there's no reason to doubt it, and the motivation applied from it being his last in addition to EON likely pulling out all the stops could create a fiery send-off to behold. He also will be doing the role for the immense satisfaction and determination of it, and not just for the paycheck, which is more than we can say about certain actors.
Again, and for the final time: One actor is coming back in two years. The others are not. I'm commenting on my opinion of his relative interpretation in his last film (in comparison to a noted benchmark from his predecessor), which has some relevance on how he may (it's not a given of course) play it in the next outing. It was made in the context of him being the incumbent who is coming back. That's the reason I viewed the film again in the first place and that's the prism through which the comment was made. I could have just made the comparison to Craig himself in CR, QoS or SF, but these are not films I've viewed recently. Perhaps that could have avoided all this defensive comparative discussion.
I'll be happy to go and compare each actor through each stage of their performance, but it's hardly the point I was making.
Ultimately I don't know what that's supposed to convey to someone, really. If we're talking about what Dan will offer when he comes back, it makes relevant sense to compare his past work from CR to now and where the trajectory could shift come 2019 more than anything else. Looking at Sean's unique and different work and saying Dan in SP doesn't match it is an argument that loses itself because the focus should be on Dan and not others, as if his own approach isn't worthy if it's not bent to something someone else did. It's just too different to bother comparing, as actors can be menacing in different ways, seduce in different way, walk a room in different ways. As @barryt007 pointed out, it's not just the lost cause of comparing a Sean and Dan performance, but also the performance of two men in two different films and one at the beginning of their Bond career and one near his end, with so many factors that warp things in between. It becomes such a lost and misty argument that at the end I struggle to see the point.
A better argument would've been to point out how Sean wavered in his portrayal as time set in leading up to YOLT, which was a clear point where his old self was lost, showing how Dan could toe the same line by being in it for so long. But again, Dan isn't Sean so who is to say that the pattern one actor carried is one that Dan will, and furthermore I think Dan has remained far more consistent and committed than Sean was during his time so there's so many sides to that viewpoint. It's like making the argument that Dan's last movie can't be good because according to some (I read this tripe this week), no Bond actors have finished strongly. It leaves no logical room for the plausible outcome that anything can happen and just because one thing hasn't happened before doesn't mean that it couldn't happen at one point or another. In the end that math of Dan in SP not equaling Sean in FRWL doesn't cleanly end up with a decisive or clear product of Dan being bad in Bond 25 for me. Too many loops and hoops for me.
Craig may be older and he, as a man, has changed since CR. So the director will be working with the man now, in the present, not the man from CR.
But, if DC's recent reviews on stage are to be believed, he is still plenty masculine, gritty and brooding (albeit, I assume, in a different way than the one we saw in 06 and 08).
Whether his character arc will allow him to go there in B25 and whether he wants to is a different question. Time will tell.
Elements of 06/08 Craig is what I'm hoping to see, but as you said it will probably not come across in the same way due to time having passed. I just hope he can still be credible when going a bit dark, which I felt Roger was not in AVTAK (despite giving a darker overall interpretation than he had in OP) due to age.
@bondjames, quite salty today, aren't we? No need to die on such a trivial and innocuous hill. I've read your posts, otherwise I wouldn't have responded, and I don't think it's an accident or just a bit of collective ignorance on the side of those that've read it and been just as confused by what you're arguing.
We can talk about what Craig still has to bring to the table in relation to what he already has brought, questioning if his old fire is still there without anything else attaching to that. What was unnecessary and redundant could be tying that argument to Sean, weighing it down and unfocusing it because at the end of the day we're criticizing an apple for not being an orange. It's far better to ask if Dan can realize his old sense of deadliness than if he can match Sean's, as each actor achieves the layers of Bond differently.
It seems that what Sean did in FRWL pointed out a lapse in Dan's work that you are worried about, fine, but the same argument could've been made in a far more relevant way by saying that the work in SP didn't match up to CR or QoS, films I know you hold up in that regard when it comes to a Bond performance. Those arguments would matter more because they would be focused on Dan's work and his work alone, isolating and focusing your points and being far more cohesively attached to the big question you have of, "Can Dan finish as he started?".
Ultimately Dan's role in Bond 25 will come down to a lot of factors, those being what material he has, his energy level (which should be high) and the overall experience of making the movie; so many factors beyond how he looked the last time we saw him, which doesn't give half the picture. When we find out some of those features we'll be able to postulate far better than now just days after we found out who the lead actor of #25 will be.
I think Connery is actually the most inconcistent when it comes to how good he is. When he could be arsed he's brilliant. Whenever he thought a script was beneath him (I think he said he didn't like how gadget driven/sci fi the films got) or decided he was bored then he just phoned it in completely. Whereas the other actors always seem to be giving 100% no matter what. I don't think you can always blame the material either. Brosnan got given a film with an invisible car and tsunami surfing and still managed to give his best performance in the role. A good actor can shine even with a bad script imo as long as they commit to it. Connery is a good actor but he didn't always do that.
I wouldn't say Craig is one of the most impactful either. He's a great Bond and a brilliant actor. But pretty much everything he's bought to the role has been done before. Not his fault at all, it's entirely a consequence of there being so many before him. But in terms of impact nobody is ever going to beat Connery and Moore (Dalton should be up there too but sadly a lot of people didn't appreciate how good he was). They're the two definitive takes in terms of impact imo, because of how groundbreaking they were. They were the originals and because of that, any actor who comes after them is bound to feel derivative of them at times.
Craig I think is like Brosnan. They both took bits of what came before and combined them to create their own takes on the role. But those bits are still visible. There's a reason so much of the praise for Craig is because of how he channels Connery at times, and there's a reason Brosnan is compared to Moore so often. Because the influence is impossible to avoid. So in terms of being the most impactful Connery and Moore can't be beaten. Dalton was just as original and groundbreaking as they were but sadly still remains underrated, so he can't really be called one of the most impactful either.
I'm not knocking Craig and Brosnan, and this is in no way representitive of who my favourite Bond's are. I just think that the more actors there are that play the role, the harder it gets to do something genuinely groundbreaking that has a big impact on how the character is seen and portrayed in the future.
Just realised I haven't mentioned Lazenby but I don't think anyone would argue he's one of the most impactful Bond's. Noone outside of sites like this is going to say "hey the new Bond really reminds me of Lazenby" in the future. He's very good and the closest to Fleming's Bond imo but even back then it was a struggle to escape Connery's shadow. He's very similar in a lot of ways, they hadn't figured out back then that the best way to move on was a complete reinvention.
"Of course: Mr. White!"
"Better make thattttttt two"
I never had a problem with the Dalton example myself but I think the point is, even though the other actors might have had some awkward line deliveries in the past, they at least tried. I can't think of any Bond actor ever phoning it in except Connery.
I think Brosnan would be better described as inconsistent style wise — almost Dalton-esque for GE, smooth for TND, emotive for TWINE, and blunt in DAD. The only one where quality may have been an issue was TWINE. Moore's style was cemented and lived-up to from TSWLM onwards, but his LALD and TMWTGG performances are good in their own right, so I'd say he was probably the most consistent all around (Tim and George didn't have much chance not to be, to be fair).
And Dan ? you missed him out,just curious.
Craig tends to be even more subtle with his acting. He is less openly expressive, but the variations are there in the eyes and in the understated changes in expression. Blink and you'll miss it.
@thelivingroyale, some I agree with, other stuff I don't. I don't look at parts of the Bond character and say actors owned them. Especially when it comes to Sean and what he started, the sexual fire he had, the certain maverick confidence, the deadliness and all the rest are also intrinsic parts of how Fleming wrote the character and without those he's not the same man. I don't think you can get away with having a Flemingesque performance without recalling some of Sean, as the man hit a lot of those notes despite the movies being cinematic as opposed to literary in power.
I wasn't making questions of who is groundbreaking either, as that really comes down to Sean as he is the face of the Bond "brand." But what I mean is two actors who took their takes and made an impact through them. Perhaps I jumped the gun including Dan in that, as his era isn't over yet, but the acclaim, financial boom and certain craft he's brought to the character, such that A-listers are clamoring for the job or for working with him, is a great thing and has changed how one thinks of the Bond films. I think there's been a reconsideration of them as serious films worthy of discussing because audiences and critics have seen how far an actor can go in the part and what he can do with his talents.
That very much started with Sean too, and one only has to look at his work in the Young films and even his sexually caked performance in GF to see the levels the man could reach. Nobody will ever hit all those notes so perfectly, the wit, the sex appeal, the danger, vulnerability, lust, all of it, because Sean really had it all and he was a performer who could captivate. Just the Orient Express scenes of FRWL alone point to why Sean is up there as one of the best actors of the series, for me with Dan, because of what he could emote and make the viewer sense in his character without overacting or overselling. It's like watching a stage play and he and Shaw go at it, everything subtle but so powerful. You can see the ripples forming under his skin as he condemns or derides a villain, feel his arousal in front of a beautiful woman, and sense his joy at the camaraderie he shares with his allies. So much of Fleming's original is there in a mix, but so is the natural sense of sex appeal, style and life that Sean had native to him. So while he certainly dipped in reaction to his possible disinterest in where the movies were going (me too) and his relationship with EON, those first four films are just prime Bond and everything that makes this series worthy of praise, with much of that being down to how Sean commanded it and led the pack for the first time out. I'm not one of those to think that any actor could've succeeded, or that Sean is only great because he was first. Sean was Sean and that's why. I'd hate to see the 60s go any other way, because those first few films are fundamental parts of what this series is and who we think of as Bond. Sean didn't play James Bond, he was James Bond, and that wasn't an accident pop culture made.
Getting back to Dan, he was able to take those parts of Fleming's character, impossibly intertwined with Sean for being the first man to do it in the 60s, and has still done something new. He is what Bond needs to be, but in ways that fit his own, and his Bond is more bold and daring than others (just look at his interactions with M) and he has that true killer coldness that makes him less of a glorified character and more of a morally gray one in touch with the books. He's darker, more troubled, and that is rooted in the personal nature of his films. I don't think the man would get such criticism, or the movies for making certain bold choices, if they were just doing what Sean did but in modern times. They're their own beasts, for sure.
You're right about George, he just couldn't have impact because he was inexperienced and he followed Sean (though that performance is powerful in places and I always credit him for it). Roger did what he did, but he was terribly inconsistent too, far more than I'd say you think Sean was. If we just focus on his silly, more humorous side, I don't think pop culture focus on those performances as everything Bond is, nor are they remembered that well from what I see outside of maybe TSWLM or LALD. The movies took one element of Bond, the humor, and doubled down while leaving a lot of the others, including the danger and other parts of the character behind or diluted them. I love Roger and always will despite not being terribly moved by the films, but one can't look at the total sum of his work and say he gave a dramatically varied take on the character or reached all that a Bond actor could. But I also hate comparing because that wasn't the goal of those films, and why I argued against some of these comparisons earlier.
I know you like Dalton, but if you think that Dan is just doing what others have done, that's essentially still the same story with Dalton. Everything he doubled down on, the intensity and human nature of Bond, Sean conveyed far more effectively and without overselling it. I like Dalton and his performances, but as with Roger he's not as varied a performer to meet the expectations of a Bond. His era is marked with the leftover silliness of Roger, and the humor forced on him shows some of his weakness for it, as has happened to Dan a few times. Even still there's nothing I could like at in those two movies, despite enjoying them, that appear groundbreaking or that had never been done before in the series. And what Dalton didn't have, a certain cinematic charisma, style, sex appeal or an ability to convey dry wit, hurt him in the end. As you point out, he's a forgotten Bond and didn't have the impact his fans wish he did. I think even George may be more known than him, as the bizarre nature of how he was cast after Sean and the very experimental film that OHMSS is (and how publicized the man's involvement in entering Bond history has been) makes him more of a larger figure in the grand scope. Dalton just followed Roger and fell of the map, but with little to make him memorable in the end.
It's been a while since I've seen the Brosnan films, so I don't want to make large statements there, but for me his work is the real example of when an actor just did what others before him did, and he has admitted as much. Nothing wrong with that, but Brosnan's Bond is 100% a lesser version of the cinematic Bond that just took from the pop culture expectation of who Bond is, with that image doubled down to a near cartoonish degree at times. I don't see anything bold in the performances, or a way in which Brosnan took what came before and put his own spin on it that actually come off well, as I don't think folks like his habitual biting of women in the sex scenes or his infamous pain faces in moments of stress. I love him as I love Roger though, and mean no ill will.
It's just that when I stack up impact and impact through an actor's performances, Sean is the king and down below somewhere is Dan for their ability to both make waves with their portrayal, but also in the way that they've been able to convey the range of character that James Bond should be more than the others we've had. From George to Pierce each actor lacks something intrinsic to Bond since Sean came, and while he's not perfect (as no Bond actor has been, even the Great Man) Dan reaches the benchmark of Sean to the closest degree as a mixture of an actor's take and his ability to recall who Bond is as envisioned by Fleming. Dan can be as dry as the character should, be more brutal than anyone, convey his coldness and vulnerability, and give the same subtle performances (his range in CR alone is staggering) but he also was able to double-down on his own unique flourishes to the character on top of it all by making his Bond the stubborn bulldog who won't back down, who faces M like no other Bonds ever would, and who, for me, best realizes the loyal civil servant of the realm as England's great protector. In the aftermath of his work we've also seen amazing success for the films critically and financially, and even if parts of his films (like QoS) are critiqued, Dan is often singled out as an element that works.
There's been a reconsideration of the franchise since his time and the influence is felt in the industry. I don't think the Sam Mendes or Chris Nolan creators of the film world would be jumping at the chance to make a Bond movie even ten years ago, much less twenty. This current era changed expectations and showed what could be done with Bond, a man deep and interesting enough to layer existential stories around with all the bizarre and style Fleming did at the start of it all. Dan's take showed that you can entrap audiences without such a focus on the one-liners and traditional clichés, and that those elements of the past can be spun to make them fresh again when needed. The Craig era is not the 60s as nothing ever will be, but for what we've had after it's the closest for me to reaching that standard. If the 60s are the golden era, to borrow comic book dating, this is the silver age.