Bond Performance - This week; Roger Moore as James Bond, 007 in A View To A Kill

1568101116

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I have to confess last time I rewatched DAF Connery didn't leave much of an impression. v

    He just didn't feel like Bond.

    I liked him, but then again I only watched him. I had no compulsion to feel him.

    fair enough, but, as other people have said, he virtually unrecognisable to the character he played in DN.
    For all you know, it might not have been Connery, it could have been someone else wearing the rubber mask from FRWL?

    Time for another thread!
  • BAIN123 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I have to confess last time I rewatched DAF Connery didn't leave much of an impression. v

    He just didn't feel like Bond.

    I liked him, but then again I only watched him. I had no compulsion to feel him.

    fair enough, but, as other people have said, he virtually unrecognisable to the character he played in DN.
    For all you know, it might not have been Connery, it could have been someone else wearing the rubber mask from FRWL?

    Time for another thread!
    I fear I may have inadvertently ran into a possibility here. There is a consensus that the Moore films were camp and more tongue in cheek that their predecessors with the exception of DAF. And I have explained elsewhere the fact that Diamonds Are Forever was part of a LALD dream sequence and the serious discrepancy between it and the other films, so........

    Who is to say DAF wasn't used as a warm up for Moore, with him playing Bond whilst wearing a Connery mask, but as part of a Moore dream sequence from when he was Connery?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Do it.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 1,146
    I prefer NSNA to this picture. A lot of Moore fans can accept the words camp and parody, but a few hard-liners actually hold onto the idea that they were serious spy films.
  • I prefer NSNA to this picture. A lot of Moore fans can accept the words camp and parody, but a few hard-liners actually hold onto the idea that they were serious spy films.
    Seeing as your default position is to hate all Moore films, that does not surprise me.
  • Posts: 1,146
    FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
  • FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
    Is DAF you're favourite Moore film?
  • Posts: 11,189
    FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
    Is DAF you're favourite Moore film?

    apparently Moore's favourite Bond film outside of the ones he did is DAF according the man himself.
  • BAIN123 wrote: »
    FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
    Is DAF you're favourite Moore film?

    apparently Moore's favourite Bond film outside of the ones he did is DAF according the man himself.
    Hmm. The plot thickens.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
    Is DAF you're favourite Moore film?

    apparently Moore's favourite Bond film outside of the ones he did is DAF according the man himself.
    Hmm. The plot thickens.

    ;)) This is just too good to be not true.
  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
    Is DAF you're favourite Moore film?

    apparently Moore's favourite Bond film outside of the ones he did is DAF according the man himself.
    Hmm. The plot thickens.

    ;)) This is just too good to be not true.

    I heard him say it in an interview on The ONE Show on BBC.
  • BAIN123 wrote: »
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    FYEO is watchable, sans the hockey stuff.
    Ok, not great. Sure rather watch DAF than any of the Moore films.
    Is DAF you're favourite Moore film?

    apparently Moore's favourite Bond film outside of the ones he did is DAF according the man himself.
    Hmm. The plot thickens.

    ;)) This is just too good to be not true.

    I heard him say it in an interview on The ONE Show on BBC.
    God bless you internet

  • Posts: 1,314
    DAF is the first film that lacks that vital Bond constituent: class.

    Maybe the American setting, the clothes, the hair, Vegas, the camp aspect. Considering it followed OHMSS the world changed a lot in 2 years

    Anyway, Connery looks to have aged about 10 years since YOLT and lost most of his acting ability.

    ALTHOUGH, the final scene with the Mouton Rothschild is still one of my favourite scenes in any Bond Film. Glimpses of the greatness.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 11,189
    I half expected Rog to say:

    "I've had Plenty too. Plenty of Bond girls"
  • Posts: 1,146
    lol, I'd rather watch a very mediocre Sean Connery Bond film than any of the Moore debacles, yes.
  • lol, I'd rather watch a very mediocre Sean Connery Bond film than any of the Moore debacles, yes.

    you are going to be shocked when the truth behind DAF is exposed
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,331
    lol, I'd rather watch a very mediocre Sean Connery Bond film than any of the Moore debacles, yes.
    I have the perfect movie for you. ;)
    16850.jpg

  • Murdock wrote: »
    lol, I'd rather watch a very mediocre Sean Connery Bond film than any of the Moore debacles, yes.
    I have the perfect movie for you. ;)
    16850.jpg

    the wig! I mean THE WIG!
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Mankiewicz really started things for the 70s with diamonds. Maibaum really took a back seat to these movies and it showed. Wilson co writing with Maibaum really brought the series back in the right direction. It took dalton in 87 and 89 to really help things along.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Dyan Cannon looks great in that poster.
  • Posts: 1,523
    While DAF is my least favorite SC Bond film, I place less blame on SC's lethargic performance than I do on the uninspired screenwriting and production. The Blofeld mud bath, Jimmy Dean's junior high portrayal of Howard Hughes, moon buggy loses wheel continuity, Mustang changes sides, etc. What a sorry effort by all after OHMSS.

    For some time Connery's return eclipsed GL and OHMSS. Even when you felt SC didn't quite have the vigor of previous outings, you were glad for his return. But then the obvious began to set in after repeated viewings. OHMSS grew in stature while we faced the reality that Diamonds weren't Forever.

    Even snoozing his way through a mediocre film, SC can't but help convey charm and ease.
  • Posts: 4,600
    I find it embarrassing.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 1,146
    CrabKey wrote: »
    While DAF is my least favorite SC Bond film, I place less blame on SC's lethargic performance than I do on the uninspired screenwriting and production. The Blofeld mud bath, Jimmy Dean's junior high portrayal of Howard Hughes, moon buggy loses wheel continuity, Mustang changes sides, etc. What a sorry effort by all after OHMSS.

    For some time Connery's return eclipsed GL and OHMSS. Even when you felt SC didn't quite have the vigor of previous outings, you were glad for his return. But then the obvious began to set in after repeated viewings. OHMSS grew in stature while we faced the reality that Diamonds weren't Forever.

    Even snoozing his way through a mediocre film, SC can't but help convey charm and ease.

    I can't help agreeing with you, despite all of the blandness of DAF. THis picture to me is simply embarrased by OHMSS, yet is more watchable to me than any of the Moore films to follow.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,981
    What's disappointing about Connery's appearance is just that, his appearance. He came in out of shape, wore an ill fitting hairpiece, and did nothing with his catterpiller eyebrows. He was only in his early 40's at the time and showed over a decade later that he could be in shape if he desired. There is no reason that he could not have looked close to his Thunderball prime.
    Some describe his performance as relaxed; well I guess he is with the amount he was paid. For me he showed contempt for the series, the producers, the character and ultimatly the audience.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 1,778
    Although it was very nice to see Connery get that verve for life back that was sorely missing in YOLT (I'm sure it had something to do with that sweet deal MGM cut him) at the same time, physically this was Connery at his very worst. Out of curiosity am I the only one here who thought Connery actually looked better 12 years later in NSNA than he did in DAF. Atleast in 83 he bothered to get to the gym and work off that beer gut. In DAF he looks bloated, old, and worn out. His most unbondian appearance by far.

    Performance-wise he was much better here than in YOLT but it still doesn't come anywhere remotely close to the magic of his work in DN, FRWL, GF. Especially in FRWL and GF, Connery encapsulated everything a Bond performance should be.

  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    Ah, discussion, hey? Very neat!
    Matt007 wrote: »
    DAF is the first film that lacks that vital Bond constituent: class.

    Maybe the American setting, the clothes, the hair, Vegas, the camp aspect. Considering it followed OHMSS the world changed a lot in 2 years

    Yes, 2 years have passed since Majesty's but it feels like a different world.
    Although it was very nice to see Connery get that verve for life back that was sorely missing in YOLT (I'm sure it had something to do with that sweet deal MGM cut him) at the same time, physically this was Connery at his very worst. Out of curiosity am I the only one here who thought Connery actually looked better 12 years later in NSNA than he did in DAF. Atleast in 83 he bothered to get to the gym and work off that beer gut. In DAF he looks bloated, old, and worn out. His most unbondian appearance by far.

    Performance-wise he was much better here than in DAF but it still doesn't come anywhere remotely close to the magic of his work in DN, FRWL, GF. Especially in FRWL and GF, Connery encapsulated everything a Bond performance should be.

    Quite, two of my favorite Bondian performances are FRWL and GF. Just class. As you said, everything that one should expect in a Bond performance, was encapsulated with Connery's portrayal.

    I rank DAF just ahead of YOLT, because in DAF Connery seems to be having fun.
    This film feels like a lark. It has none of the gravitas, menace, or suspense that Sean's first 3, even 4, films had. Sean is out of shape and doesn't seem to care. Mind you, I adored this film at the theater when it first showed; it is my first Bond film. Everything about it was sparkling, dazzling, fun, fantastic theme song and score, and I wanted to be Jill St. John. Now, I only enjoy parts of it and don't watch it often. The only thing that lasted for me as still being superb is the great theme song and soundtrack.

    I feel Connery brought a lot of presence, but as you said, not enough gravitas to the role. For my money, though, Connery is as his most relaxed in DAF. Which fits in with the veteran agent angle.

    Keep up the good work.
  • edited January 2015 Posts: 238
    royale65 wrote: »
    Ah, discussion, hey? Very neat!
    Matt007 wrote: »
    DAF is the first film that lacks that vital Bond constituent: class.

    Maybe the American setting, the clothes, the hair, Vegas, the camp aspect. Considering it followed OHMSS the world changed a lot in 2 years

    Yes, 2 years have passed since Majesty's but it feels like a different world.
    Although it was very nice to see Connery get that verve for life back that was sorely missing in YOLT (I'm sure it had something to do with that sweet deal MGM cut him) at the same time, physically this was Connery at his very worst. Out of curiosity am I the only one here who thought Connery actually looked better 12 years later in NSNA than he did in DAF. Atleast in 83 he bothered to get to the gym and work off that beer gut. In DAF he looks bloated, old, and worn out. His most unbondian appearance by far.

    Performance-wise he was much better here than in DAF but it still doesn't come anywhere remotely close to the magic of his work in DN, FRWL, GF. Especially in FRWL and GF, Connery encapsulated everything a Bond performance should be.

    Quite, two of my favorite Bondian performances are FRWL and GF. Just class. As you said, everything that one should expect in a Bond performance, was encapsulated with Connery's portrayal.

    I rank DAF just ahead of YOLT, because in DAF Connery seems to be having fun.
    This film feels like a lark. It has none of the gravitas, menace, or suspense that Sean's first 3, even 4, films had. Sean is out of shape and doesn't seem to care. Mind you, I adored this film at the theater when it first showed; it is my first Bond film. Everything about it was sparkling, dazzling, fun, fantastic theme song and score, and I wanted to be Jill St. John. Now, I only enjoy parts of it and don't watch it often. The only thing that lasted for me as still being superb is the great theme song and soundtrack.

    I feel Connery brought a lot of presence, but as you said, not enough gravitas to the role. For my money, though, Connery is as his most relaxed in DAF. Which fits in with the veteran agent angle.

    Keep up the good work.

    Just goes to show, must have been a dream
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,422
    That's your opinion. Let's try to keep this thread on topic.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I just rewatched DAF for the first time in ages. I was surprisingly impressed with Connery.

    I had previously written him off in this one as too fat, too old and too bored. Watching it again gave me new appreciation for the film in general and Connery in particular.

    I think his performance is very assured, from the opening scenes when he's hunting Blofeld, to the end with Wint and Kidd on the boat. it's good to see Connery back at the helm. The role fits him like an old glove, and he seems to be having fun again, something that seemed to elude him in YOLT IMO.

    His lines are really good (eg. "Plenty O'toole. Named after your father perhaps" ; "Right idea Mr. Bond. ..... But wrong pussy" etc.) and they are delivered with the grativas and effortlessness that only he could bring. I realize now more than ever why he is the definitive Bond. Everything just seems to come together so naturally. The same applies to Moore to a slightly lesser degree. There's a reason why these two are giants. The other seem to have to work at it to me.

    The only thing that hurt him was his look. He should have lost a little bit more weight for the role that made him, and he should have shaved those awful 70's burns (and why didn't they dye the damn things - he's the only Bond to show up with grey hair until Craig showed some grey in his stubble in SF!).

    Apart from that he really is vintage Connery in this one, and it only seems bad compared to his great performances from the early 60's.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Didn't connery only finalize his deal at the last minute? Because John Gavin was set to be the Man, until connery was finally coaxed back with the offer he couldn't refuse. He was also going thru marital troubles at the time, and his appearance certainly reflected that. He didn't look bad, but compared to his prime, yeah...
Sign In or Register to comment.