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
Yes!
Yes, because he had a much longer time between then and 1979 to get back in shape. What’s your point? He still brought a energetic performance. Frankly, I enjoy watching Connery in DAF than I ever did of Lazenby in OHMSS.
It did not take 9 years to get back in shape, lol.
What’s my point? His appearance , which includes his physical condition and grooming, was sloppy and not what it should have been; these qualities are part of his performance and detract from whatever energy he brought to it. If it doesn’t bother you, then more power to you.
And he would have benefited from being in better shape.... with better haircuts 😏
But then there's the small matter or Moore being 54-58, compared to Connery only being 41.
Even Moonraker, often looked at as the "goofiest" or most outrageously campy Bond film, isn't comedic in the traditional sense and it's pretty clear that Gilbert was going for his usual aim-for-the-fences approach. It's a spectacle film, primarily, with oodles of camp.
DAF, on the other hand, contains a script so obviously geared toward comedic banter (definitely one of the sharpest scripts in the entire series, maybe the sharpest) that I can't view it any other way than as a comedy, and I respect it for being the lone entry to aim for that -- and achieve it in my opinion. The movie is riotously funny, and the dark comedy in it has (for the most part) aged quite well since we're now in a place where most comedies function as "dark comedies" (at least that's how I feel). At the multiplex, I should say.
Definitely agree. It works really well this way (comedy first, action thriller second), much because of the script and the fantastic dialogue. This is why DAF is a top ten film for me – it's too entertaining not to be.
It is painful to watch, great Barry score and Bassey's best theme of the series though.
I wouldn’t be forgiving if he came off bored like in YOLT.
I agree with all of this. But DAF is SO bad that it is a delight, my true Bond guilty pleasure. I sometimes wonder how much everyone involved in this film was toking on the mighty herb throughout the entire production. LOL
Then we have some terrific casting. Morton Slumber, the thugs that take Bond to Slumber. Shady Tree Dr. Metz. I could go on, but they all suit and play the characters well.
I love Wint and Kidd. I may not feel like they are a great threat to Bond but they sure entertain and make the scenes interesting. Finally Jimmy Dean as Willard Whyte. Wow what a performance.
As for Connery, he looks engaged and seems to be enjoying being Bond. Did he look at tip top shape? Nope and I don't find that distracting. He delivers the lines with aplomb. The scene with M and him is a treasure. He has good chemistry with St. John. The fight in the lift is something to behold. I might be wrong but I don't think there is a double for him in this fight. He always had a way of making the fights look genuine and real. No "ooh" ommphf" here. Look at TSWLM fight between Bond and Sandor. Should be a good fight but there is Moore with the sounds that distract. Then they layer on these sound effects and it just takes any credibility away. I'm not even sure Moore does the whole fight himself.
But I digress! DAF to me is a great light Bond. It isn't FRWL but it doesn't pretend to be. It's just a fun romp well written and perfectly cast.
BTW, see it as a stand-alone film, not as some sort of follow-up to OHMSS.
The chances of filming a real follow-up to OHMSS vanished after Lazenby and Hunt left the series. Richard Maibaum's first treatments, written while Lazenby was still Bond, opened with Bond still in mourning. After Lazenby walked and the producers changed direction, Maibaum brought in the idea of Goldfinger’s twin brother.
The James Bond films are commercial cinema and tend to follow its rules: after you establish a successful formula, stick to it; when box office is in peril, play it safe. In that light, the unconventional aspects of OHMSS are what's really unusual, not the safe self-parody of DAF. Experimentation happens only when the higher-ups can't resort to the old ways.
As others have pointed out, after the turbulence of the late 60s and the Vietnam War, the mass audience preferred lighter escapism. A film like OHMSS denied this by showing the inescapable consequences of Bond's world--the death of the innocent. DAF went in the other direction: Bond's world became a comforting cartoon realm.
Sean Connery among the last of the mythic, larger than life movie stars. If DAF made few demands on his dramatic skills, it takes full advantage of his talent for light comedy, rich sense of irony, and matchless handling of throwaway dialogue.
Fortunately there's plenty of good dialogue in DAF. But the film comes up short in every other department. Good dialogue in an other wise bad film is like tasty icing on a badly baked cake. But in 1971 audiences were demonstrably happy to have Connery and the old formula back, so the flaws of the Mankiewicz/Hamilton approach were applied to the next two films until audiences finally tired of it. And then Broccoli did what any good commercial filmmaker does--discard the weak newer formula and revert to the previous successful older one. And so the mega-excess approach of YOLT was dusted off for TSWLM and MR.
I enjoy both films and also Live and Let Die....but after this, despite box office returns Bond, for me went into decline and didn't recover until The Living Daylights nearly 15 years later.
DAF is one of the very, very few Bond films that has virtually no redeeming qualities, for me. Apart from the usual stellar work of John Barry, and the occasional amusement of Wint and Kidd, it's pretty rubbish.
The Vegas locales look cheap and tawdry. Connery is clearly mentally done with the role. Charles Gray's incarnation of Blofeld was the most by the numbers Villain, up to that point. The finale is one of the most forgettable of the series. It's hard to believe that it's made by the same production team that gave us, essentially 6 classics, up to that point.
This. Though I'd argue he was still at his best in TB too, he looks much more comfortable in DAF than YOLT.
I really like a lot of things about DAF, but my biggest problem with it is that it’s basically the first film that really embraces camp. There had been silly, over the top aspects about the previous six, but it not to this degree.
I do agree to a certain extent with @Roadphill about how Vegas looks in the film. I also can’t friggin’ stand Charles Gray’s Blofeld. Not the worst villain in the Bond series, that would be Mr. Video Game Suit Who Talks In Clichés from DAD, which itself is hundreds of times crappier than the worst that DAF has to offer. Coming after OHMSS, it’s a huge disappointment, a huge missed opportunity (at least partially chalk that up to Lazenby leaving the role? You decide. Also to consider is Peter Hunt’s departure), a lazy movie, and a definite overreaction.
I still kinda sorta like it, though, I guess?
Lots of agreement here. I love how much it looks like Connery enjoys himself in TB (which has become my favorite of his Bond adventures)! Yes, it goes too full camp, especially with Connery in the lead; with Moore's style, the camp feel at least felt a little more at home (but still went too extreme at times, like double-take pigeon). I don't like Gray's Blofeld either. If given the opportunity, knowing nothing else would be changed, I'd take my chances on getting a second Lazenby film over Connery's DAF.
Ken Adam delivers some wonderful sets again. Blofeld's or Whyte's penthouse is a great set as is the room that Bond and Case stay in. I love the moon buggy attempt for what it is. The screenplay is rich and alive with some great dialogue. I would say that the overall cast of DAF is stronger then most other films. St. John, Glover and Putter deliver in their roles. But lets not overlook Shady Tree, Slumber and the hoods convention. All colourful and adding to the fun of the movie.
It is clearly not OHMSS but it never really pretends to be. While not as dramatic a swing but look at FRWL and GF following it. The producers were not opposed to playing around and realized that tone shifts helped keep the series alive.
Connery is glorious in TB. Whilst it certainly isn't my favourite Bond film, it is my favourite Bond performance. He just strikes the perfect balance of being a serious spy and the insouciance and arrogance of the character. Great stuff
It’s still my idea of a truly great Bond film. It has so much that keeps coming back over and over:
- The greatest Bond there ever was at his absolute peak
- Domino, one of the best Bond girls and perhaps the most beautiful
- Fiona Volpe, one of the best characters in the entire series, regardless of gender
- The locations are beautiful, and the underwater photography is amazing
- The sharp, snappy dialogue is a delight
- Some of John Barry’s best ever work
- Maurice Binder’s outstanding titles, the best of the ‘60s definitely
I mean, this is all subjective, but there you go. TB is just holy $#&% phenomenal.
Anyway, my bad, let’s get back to the topic at hand.
While YOLT is clearly Connery's least interesting Bond appearance, I would chalk a lot of that up to the script. Roald Dahl pretty much had things to himself, had to watch all of the films before starting, likely not getting what made Bond and his world special. It's all about moving the action along, going from one vehicle to another, one action scene to another. Had Richard Maibaum been involved it could've made a difference. Instead it's all about look at that volcano set and such. It also doesn't help they disguise him as a Japanese man for part of the film.
Connery has his moments in the film. I particularly like the coolness of his burning the paper with Henderson's address down, the banter with Henderson, the Siamese vodka scene, bantering with Blofeld and a few others.