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

167891012»

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Your opinion, of course.

    I find Brozz to be particularly smarmy with a side of cheese. I find he's at his best and most relaxed in TND , but the cheese-smarm factor goes up in his last two films.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,223
    peter wrote: »
    Your opinion, of course.

    Yes, of course.
  • Posts: 7,518
    peter wrote: »
    Your opinion, of course.

    I find Brozz to be particularly smarmy with a side of cheese. I find he's at his best and most relaxed in TND , but the cheese-smarm factor goes up in his last two films.

    Couldn't agree more re Brosnan and smarm, its the one trait he brought to the role that wasnt wanted, or needed!
  • peter wrote: »
    Your opinion, of course.

    I find Brozz to be particularly smarmy with a side of cheese. I find he's at his best and most relaxed in TND , but the cheese-smarm factor goes up in his last two films.

    I blame more on the filmmakers though. First you have the producers deciding to make the films campier and campier after Goldeneye, then you have the hiring of P&W, who would probably sit there thinking themselves while writing; “Huh, isn’t this one liner smart and clever? Doesn’t it sound great if we made him Kite Surf?” then you have the directors sitting there like “Alright that passes; let’s shoot it!” In fact despite all the issues I have with Die Another Day, Brosnan gives it his best and is just having fun with it.
  • Posts: 3,327
    peter wrote: »
    Your opinion, of course.

    I find Brozz to be particularly smarmy with a side of cheese. I find he's at his best and most relaxed in TND , but the cheese-smarm factor goes up in his last two films.

    I blame more on the filmmakers though. First you have the producers deciding to make the films campier and campier after Goldeneye, then you have the hiring of P&W, who would probably sit there thinking themselves while writing; “Huh, isn’t this one liner smart and clever? Doesn’t it sound great if we made him Kite Surf?” then you have the directors sitting there like “Alright that passes; let’s shoot it!” In fact despite all the issues I have with Die Another Day, Brosnan gives it his best and is just having fun with it.

    And didn't I read somewhere that Brozza was pushing for more serious things to do, and was jealous of what they managed to pull off with Craig in CR?

    I guess the filmmakers response to being more serious was the rather poor TWINE, which ran more like a bad soap opera.
  • peter wrote: »
    Your opinion, of course.

    I find Brozz to be particularly smarmy with a side of cheese. I find he's at his best and most relaxed in TND , but the cheese-smarm factor goes up in his last two films.

    I blame more on the filmmakers though. First you have the producers deciding to make the films campier and campier after Goldeneye, then you have the hiring of P&W, who would probably sit there thinking themselves while writing; “Huh, isn’t this one liner smart and clever? Doesn’t it sound great if we made him Kite Surf?” then you have the directors sitting there like “Alright that passes; let’s shoot it!” In fact despite all the issues I have with Die Another Day, Brosnan gives it his best and is just having fun with it.

    And didn't I read somewhere that Brozza was pushing for more serious things to do, and was jealous of what they managed to pull off with Craig in CR?

    I guess the filmmakers response to being more serious was the rather poor TWINE, which ran more like a bad soap opera.

    Yeah Brosnan wanted a chance to go darker with his take, and sadly Goldeneye is perhaps the closest we got to that. I’m sure he didn’t want to be seen CGI Kite Surfing or whatever. In the end, Brosnan kind of got the shaft when it came to writers and directors. It’s not his fault by any means, Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson unfortunately just hired the wrong people for the 3/4 films he did. Makes me glad that they learned from this mistake when it came to putting teams together for the Craig era. But Brosnan’s still a great Bond, and literally every single Bond actor has come across as “smarmy” at one point in their tenures.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I think there was a time Brosnan had his finger on “dark” and that was with the Fourth Protocol.

    I’m not convinced he had the talent to really show depth in his Bond performances. I’ve always found him a capable, small screen performer.

    He has some gravitas now that he is aging and I think that will go a long way for his screen persona. But back in the day, whatever he had starred in, I always was quite meh about him, sadly.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,223
    peter wrote: »
    Your opinion, of course.

    I find Brozz to be particularly smarmy with a side of cheese. I find he's at his best and most relaxed in TND , but the cheese-smarm factor goes up in his last two films.

    I blame more on the filmmakers though. First you have the producers deciding to make the films campier and campier after Goldeneye, then you have the hiring of P&W, who would probably sit there thinking themselves while writing; “Huh, isn’t this one liner smart and clever? Doesn’t it sound great if we made him Kite Surf?” then you have the directors sitting there like “Alright that passes; let’s shoot it!” In fact despite all the issues I have with Die Another Day, Brosnan gives it his best and is just having fun with it.

    Brosnan's great in DAD, for sure. He makes it all look rather effortless and he's a bonafide movie star. The films flaws are rightfully criticised and mocked but one of the things that rarely gets pointed is how Brosnan never gets eclipsed by all of the ridiculous spectacle and silliness. He anchors the film incredibly well.

    Of course, that evidently reads as smarm to some, which is unfortunate. On that front, I feel Moore will always be the most fitting of that description - but he seems to escape the negative label because he was funny. Moore does the exact same thing in the utterly daft Moonraker as Brosnan does in DAD.

    The ironic thing to me is that Bond is supposed to be a bit of a dick - sarcasm and thinly veiled comments are his forté - so the notion that smarm is an unwelcome trait is odd.
  • peter wrote: »
    I think there was a time Brosnan had his finger on “dark” and that was with the Fourth Protocol.

    I’m not convinced he had the talent to really show depth in his Bond performances. I’ve always found him a capable, small screen performer.

    He has some gravitas now that he is aging and I think that will go a long way for his screen persona. But back in the day, whatever he had starred in, I always was quite meh about him, sadly.

    I think he did because I look at films like Goldeneye, The Matador, Tailor of Panama, and The November Man and always walk away thinking; “Man EON really did screw him with those writers and directors they pared him with.” In fact I think that’s one of the primary reasons why a lot of the Craig films had rewrites after P&W wrote initial drafts.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I’m sorry @007ClassicBondFan …. I just have never been very surprised with any Brosnan performance outside of The Fourth Protocol. To me I’m always watching an actor who is superficially another “character”…

    I’ll still say he was most certainly the right man to bring 007 into a new era, I just personally have never found him to be anything more than a very capable, small screen performer. I didn’t find his James Bond something I was drawn to; nothing about him that I liked. In fact, I think Brosnan the man is more intriguing to me than Brosnan the actor (and the performances that belong to him).
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 2,277
    peter wrote: »
    I’m sorry @007ClassicBondFan …. I just have never been very surprised with any Brosnan performance outside of The Fourth Protocol. To me I’m always watching an actor who is superficially another “character”…

    I’ll still say he was most certainly the right man to bring 007 into a new era, I just personally have never found him to be anything more than a very capable, small screen performer. I didn’t find his James Bond something I was drawn to; nothing about him that I liked. In fact, I think Brosnan the man is more intriguing to me than Brosnan the actor (and the performances that belong to him).

    I respect that, I just disagree about his capabilities. He’s proven time and time again that he had all the qualities to be a great Bond, and despite scripts, I think he delivered. I’ll agree that the man himself is much more fascinating outside the work he does, he’s seems very relaxed, very creative/artistic, and down to earth, which is more than what you can say about a lot of other actors working today. Plus he ages like fine wine.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    And Connery's performance is the best part of NSNA.

    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.

  • M16_Cart wrote: »
    And Connery's performance is the best part of NSNA.

    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.

    Bingo!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    peter wrote: »
    I’m sorry @007ClassicBondFan …. I just have never been very surprised with any Brosnan performance outside of The Fourth Protocol. To me I’m always watching an actor who is superficially another “character”…

    I’ll still say he was most certainly the right man to bring 007 into a new era, I just personally have never found him to be anything more than a very capable, small screen performer. I didn’t find his James Bond something I was drawn to; nothing about him that I liked. In fact, I think Brosnan the man is more intriguing to me than Brosnan the actor (and the performances that belong to him).

    I respect that, I just disagree about his capabilities. He’s proven time and time again that he had all the qualities to be a great Bond, and despite scripts, I think he delivered. I’ll agree that the man himself is much more fascinating outside the work he does, he’s seems very relaxed, very creative/artistic, and down to earth, which is more than what you can say about a lot of other actors working today. Plus he ages like fine wine.

    He’s definitely had an interesting life, lots of heart break, and yes, very artistic and he seems deeply thoughtful. And I agree, he’s the embodiment of “aging like a fine wine”.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    peter wrote: »
    I’m sorry @007ClassicBondFan …. I just have never been very surprised with any Brosnan performance outside of The Fourth Protocol. To me I’m always watching an actor who is superficially another “character”…

    I’ll still say he was most certainly the right man to bring 007 into a new era, I just personally have never found him to be anything more than a very capable, small screen performer. I didn’t find his James Bond something I was drawn to; nothing about him that I liked. In fact, I think Brosnan the man is more intriguing to me than Brosnan the actor (and the performances that belong to him).
    Have you seen The Ghost Writer? That's my favourite performance from him.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    And Connery's performance is the best part of NSNA.

    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.
    Eh. Connery as Bond is always watchable, but I'd say he's better than in YOLT at least (and I don't even think he's bad there).
  • mattjoesmattjoes THE MOONRAKER TAPES ARE LOST THE MOONRAKER TAPES ARE LOST
    edited August 2022 Posts: 7,040
    peter wrote: »
    I’m sorry @007ClassicBondFan …. I just have never been very surprised with any Brosnan performance outside of The Fourth Protocol. To me I’m always watching an actor who is superficially another “character”…

    I’ll still say he was most certainly the right man to bring 007 into a new era, I just personally have never found him to be anything more than a very capable, small screen performer. I didn’t find his James Bond something I was drawn to; nothing about him that I liked. In fact, I think Brosnan the man is more intriguing to me than Brosnan the actor (and the performances that belong to him).
    Have you seen The Ghost Writer? That's my favourite performance from him.

    That was a good one. And The Foreigner, and No Escape, and The Tailor of Panama. And as mentioned, The Fourth Protocol. He was a terrific Phileas Fogg too.

    I find Craig's last two performances as Bond, which I love, reminded me quite a bit of Brosnan in TND and DAD. His GE and TWINE performances are a bit darker and more introspective, which fits the respective films.
  • Posts: 2,919
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.

    It's a fine performance; relaxed but not disengaged. He stepped back into the role like it was a pair of old shoes. Even at half-power Connery is more watchable than most other actors. NSNA obviously has its problems but I've never understood why some sectors of fandom consider it an outright bad film.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    Revelator wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.

    It's a fine performance; relaxed but not disengaged. He stepped back into the role like it was a pair of old shoes. Even at half-power Connery is more watchable than most other actors. NSNA obviously has its problems but I've never understood why some sectors of fandom consider it an outright bad film.
    It's certainly a very flawed film, but I'd never wish for it to not exist, and deprive myself of one last Connery Bond.
  • Revelator wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.

    It's a fine performance; relaxed but not disengaged. He stepped back into the role like it was a pair of old shoes. Even at half-power Connery is more watchable than most other actors. NSNA obviously has its problems but I've never understood why some sectors of fandom consider it an outright bad film.
    For all its faults NSNA still feels more like a Bond movie than most of Craig’s.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited August 2022 Posts: 24,218
    Revelator wrote: »
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    That's just because the other aspects of the movie were bad. Not because his performance was good.

    It's a fine performance; relaxed but not disengaged. He stepped back into the role like it was a pair of old shoes. Even at half-power Connery is more watchable than most other actors. NSNA obviously has its problems but I've never understood why some sectors of fandom consider it an outright bad film.
    For all its faults NSNA still feels more like a Bond movie than most of Craig’s.

    I don't really get the sense that 007 is in the DNA of NSNA as much as its opening logo wants us to believe. Compared to Craig's films, NSNA strikes me as a very unbondian Bond film so to speak. The problem for me is that NSNA lacks the charm, cool, and energy of the Bonds. In my opinion, it's a Bond wannabe so sloppily put together that it almost qualities as an unintentional spoof. Connery is good in the film, and that's a blessing. Otherwise, I would almost call the film unwatchable. My thoughts on NSNA can be summed up with the horrible horse diving shot which, incidentally, makes the Tarzan yell in OP look (sound) positively clever IMO.

    The only Craig Bond that is a better film than it is a Bond film IMO is SF. The other four are pureblood Bond compared to NSNA, at least in my opinion.
  • DarthDimi wrote: »
    The only Craig Bond that is a better film than it is a Bond film IMO is SF. The other four are pureblood Bond compared to NSNA, at least in my opinion.
    I guess I must have missed Bond in NTTD. I recall some guy running around shooting and jumping and doing some crazy stunts. Then he finds out he’s a father and has a child and mother that he needs to protect. But then he dies at the end. What was that all about? Anybody know ?

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited August 2022 Posts: 24,218
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The only Craig Bond that is a better film than it is a Bond film IMO is SF. The other four are pureblood Bond compared to NSNA, at least in my opinion.
    I guess I must have missed Bond in NTTD. I recall some guy running around shooting and jumping and doing some crazy stunts. Then he finds out he’s a father and has a child and mother that he needs to protect. But then he dies at the end. What was that all about? Anybody know ?

    So you don't like NTTD. And that's why NSNA is more of a Bond film than "most of Craig’s"? CR? QOS? SF? SP? Interesting. 😉 But that's fine. I am glad NSNA has its fans. I struggle with the film, immensely. But I can still enjoy it at some level.
  • M16_CartM16_Cart Craig fanboy?
    Posts: 541
    Eh. Connery as Bond is always watchable

    Watchable! That's really killing with faint praise lol

    Connery gets a magic pass for some reason. Do any of the other actors get praise for being watchable?

  • edited August 2022 Posts: 2,277
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    Eh. Connery as Bond is always watchable

    Watchable! That's really killing with faint praise lol

    Connery gets a magic pass for some reason. Do any of the other actors get praise for being watchable?

    George Lazenby???
    Barry Nelson???
    David Niven???

    But in all seriousness, I think Connery gets the magic pass because he was the first, and just managed to deliver four timeless and flawless performances back to back in 4 years. For my money, I think Brosnan and Craig both came really close to nailing down what Connery had done effortlessly, but always had some element holding them back whether it was script/direction or any other third party factors. Whereas Moore, and Dalton ultimately took a different approach to avoid comparisons to Connery.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited August 2022 Posts: 5,449
    The original is always given a sainthood. I am singing from the Connery chorus and will do so until my dying day. He delivered the goods in all of his films in my opinion.

    DN he highlights the danger and detective side of Bond. He has a confidence right out of the gate, that to my mind has only been matched by Brosnan and Craig in their debut efforts.

    FRWL we see the romantic side and the danger is heightened. He looks beaten on his knees and we see him deliver the physicality that the part demanded.

    GF we see a lighter tone to his performance but not with any less of the command. Here even though he's captured we don't fear he will come out on top. He plays the part with effortless cool.

    TB we see a mix of the romance from FRWL mixed in with the effortless cool. The film suffers underwater has we lose the connection with the character. He is able to make helicopter flying over water interesting.

    YOLT we see a lower key performance. He looks out of his element in the far east and unsure of himself at times. Great chemistry with the leading woman and the main ally.

    DAF he comes back and delivers a comedic performance that would become the template for the Moore films.

    NSNA he commits to the role again. Plays up the age of the character and has a twinkle in his eye which sparks the film.

    Although his films don't have the strong continuity of the Craig era I think he is able to show different sides of the character very effectively.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    thedove wrote: »
    The original is always given a sainthood. I am signing from the Connery chorus and will do so until my dying day. He delivered the goods in all of his films in my opinion.

    DN he highlights the danger and detective side of Bond. He has a confidence right out of the gate, that to my mind has only been matched by Brosnan and Craig in their debut efforts.

    FRWL we see the romantic side and the danger is heightened. He looks beaten on his knees and we see him deliver the physicality that the part demanded.

    GF we see a lighter tone to his performance but not with any less of the command. Here even though he's captured we don't fear he will come out on top. He plays the part with effortless cool.

    TB we see a mix of the romance from FRWL mixed in with the effortless cool. The film suffers underwater has we lose the connection with the character. He is able to make helicopter flying over water interesting.

    YOLT we see a lower key performance. He looks out of his element in the far east and unsure of himself at times. Great chemistry with the leading woman and the main ally.

    DAF he comes back and delivers a comedic performance that would become the template for the Moore films.

    NSNA he commits to the role again. Plays up the age of the character and has a twinkle in his eye which sparks the film.

    Although his films don't have the strong continuity of the Craig era I think he is able to show different sides of the character very effectively.

    Very nice summary.
  • Posts: 3,327
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    Eh. Connery as Bond is always watchable

    Watchable! That's really killing with faint praise lol

    Connery gets a magic pass for some reason. Do any of the other actors get praise for being watchable?

    Connery also gets a magic pass for being easily the most charismatic, suave, tough, cool actor to play Bond, leaving every other actor miles behind (yes, including your beloved Craig).
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    M16_Cart wrote: »
    Eh. Connery as Bond is always watchable

    Watchable! That's really killing with faint praise lol

    Connery gets a magic pass for some reason. Do any of the other actors get praise for being watchable?
    @007ClassicBondFan and @thedove covered it well already, so I'll just say that I don't mean watchable in the sense that I can tolerate him, but that he's a very easy presence to be absorbed by, even in weaker material. FWIW, this isn't unique to him among the 6.
Sign In or Register to comment.