To insinuate that Connery lacked acting chops when he came to Dr. NO is ridiculous! He was already an accomplished and highly regarded actor on stage, TV and films before he took on Dr. No.
Agreed, he'd dome some great TV work which had been praised
By the critics, so I'd say even without Bond, Connery would have
Become a major force in the movies. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Agreed, he'd dome some great TV work which had been praised
By the critics, so I'd say even without Bond, Connery would have
Become a major force in the movies. -{
No doubt. Connery clearly had the charisma, swagger, good looks and acting ability to become a star, Bond or no Bond.
Lazenby would have excelled as Bond had he stayed on.
Possibly. Possibly not....
*Alternate Earth NYT Movie review from 1975* The Man With The Golden Gun
George Lazenby is back. Again. Oh my.
Yes, his debut in On Her Majesty's Secret Service was rather fresh, but as we learned in Diamonds Are Forever when he killed Blofeld, this Bond only has that one 'look'. Is it angry? Is it morose? One thing it seems to be is very useful. In Live And Let Die he used it when he blew Kananga up. When dispatches the villain in his latest movie, there it is again. Please George, for God's sake take some acting lessons will ya? You made your co-star Christopher Lee visibly smirk in spots that couldn't be edited.
Too bad he did more than one, he might have been looked back on more fondly as a good Bond. Connery, oh how we miss you.
119 minutes. At area theatres.
No doubt. Connery clearly had the charisma, swagger, good looks and acting ability to become a star, Bond or no Bond.
Sorry, old pal - I have to disagree with you here.
I don't doubt Connery's merits for the show but let's keep in mind that most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped. So where is his charisma and acting ability? Connery failed to convince the audience until "The Name of the Rose" and from there his second carreer went uphill.
But he was far away from Cary Grant who could have played everything and turn it into gold.
You may object the kind of typecasting which has been much more one-way in the 60s than it is now but in my opinion a really good actor is able to convince the audience in different roles and genres (talk about Neeson).
I am not saying that he would have polished coffins again but The Name of the Rose and Red October turned the cards for him after a long and dry period.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
No doubt. Connery clearly had the charisma, swagger, good looks and acting ability to become a star, Bond or no Bond.
Sorry, old pal - I have to disagree with you here.
I don't doubt Connery's merits for the show but let's keep in mind that most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped. So where is his charisma and acting ability? Connery failed to convince the audience until "The Name of the Rose" and from there his second carreer went uphill.
But he was far away from Cary Grant who could have played everything and turn it into gold.
You may object the kind of typecasting which has been much more one-way in the 60s than it is now but in my opinion a really good actor is able to convince the audience in different roles and genres (talk about Neeson).
I am not saying that he would have polished coffins again but The Name of the Rose and Red October turned the cards for him after a long and dry period.
Are you kidding? It was clear from the moment he appeared on screen in Darby O'Gill and the Little People that Connery had acting skills, charisma and star power to spare! )
Seriously, though, I'm not convinced at all that because "most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped", that somehow disproves the point that Connery has charisma and acting ability even without Bond. He was lauded for his perfomances in The Hill and The Offence, and he received decent notices for his work in The Molly Maguires, The Anderson Tapes, Murder On The Orient Express, and A Bridge Too Far, all of which pre-dated The Name of the Rose. Connery's roles were different in each of those films, and although they may not have been blockbusters, not all of those movies were "flops". And I contend that even if they were, there are any number of factors that could have been responsible for the films' lack of box office success that have nothing to do with any lack of Connery's acting ability. Bottom line - I stand by my original statement, old pal! :007)
No doubt. Connery clearly had the charisma, swagger, good looks and acting ability to become a star, Bond or no Bond.
Sorry, old pal - I have to disagree with you here.
I don't doubt Connery's merits for the show but let's keep in mind that most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped. So where is his charisma and acting ability? Connery failed to convince the audience until "The Name of the Rose" and from there his second carreer went uphill.
But he was far away from Cary Grant who could have played everything and turn it into gold.
You may object the kind of typecasting which has been much more one-way in the 60s than it is now but in my opinion a really good actor is able to convince the audience in different roles and genres (talk about Neeson).
I am not saying that he would have polished coffins again but The Name of the Rose and Red October turned the cards for him after a long and dry period.
Are you kidding? It was clear from the moment he appeared on screen in Darby O'Gill and the Little People that Connery had acting skills, charisma and star power to spare! )
Seriously, though, I'm not convinced at all that because "most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped", that somehow disproves the point that Connery has charisma and acting ability even without Bond. He was lauded for his perfomances in The Hill and The Offence, and he received decent notices for his work in The Molly Maguires, The Anderson Tapes, Murder On The Orient Express, and A Bridge Too Far, all of which pre-dated The Name of the Rose. Connery's roles were different in each of those films, and although they may not have been blockbusters, not all of those movies were "flops". And I contend that even if they were, there are any number of factors that could have been responsible for the films' lack of box office success that have nothing to do with any lack of Connery's acting ability. Bottom line - I stand by my original statement, old pal! :007)
After Diamonds Are Forever, wasn't Sean Connery looking for more varied/challenging roles, rather than appear/star in blockbuster films? It was a conscious decision to separate himself from his "Bond persona" and all that represented. He could have taken the "Hollywood route" but chose not to at that time.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Sorry, old pal - I have to disagree with you here.
I don't doubt Connery's merits for the show but let's keep in mind that most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped. So where is his charisma and acting ability? Connery failed to convince the audience until "The Name of the Rose" and from there his second carreer went uphill.
But he was far away from Cary Grant who could have played everything and turn it into gold.
You may object the kind of typecasting which has been much more one-way in the 60s than it is now but in my opinion a really good actor is able to convince the audience in different roles and genres (talk about Neeson).
I am not saying that he would have polished coffins again but The Name of the Rose and Red October turned the cards for him after a long and dry period.
Are you kidding? It was clear from the moment he appeared on screen in Darby O'Gill and the Little People that Connery had acting skills, charisma and star power to spare! )
Seriously, though, I'm not convinced at all that because "most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped", that somehow disproves the point that Connery has charisma and acting ability even without Bond. He was lauded for his perfomances in The Hill and The Offence, and he received decent notices for his work in The Molly Maguires, The Anderson Tapes, Murder On The Orient Express, and A Bridge Too Far, all of which pre-dated The Name of the Rose. Connery's roles were different in each of those films, and although they may not have been blockbusters, not all of those movies were "flops". And I contend that even if they were, there are any number of factors that could have been responsible for the films' lack of box office success that have nothing to do with any lack of Connery's acting ability. Bottom line - I stand by my original statement, old pal! :007)
After Diamonds Are Forever, wasn't Sean Connery looking for more varied/challenging roles, rather than appear/star in blockbuster films? It was a conscious decision to separate himself from his "Bond persona" and all that represented. He could have taken the "Hollywood route" but chose not to at that time.
OHMSS is near the top of my film rankings because it followed the novel so closely and I thought the location work was stunning.
When I saw if in the theater on very cold winter day in 1969 (which made the Swiss scenes in the film even more realistic, as I had a long cold walk to the theater downtown and back), I was so impressed with the film I think I returned to see it four or five times before it left. God, was it such a relief after what I considered the tragedy of DAF.
They had gone back to Fleming, got a new young actor and a nearly great cast (more later).
Since those initial viewings that long ago and so many subsequent ones since, I can say that I personally never faulted Lazenby for his performance. Yes he was an acting novice and yes, he did not have the seasoned elasticity in some scenes that one gets from years of experience. However, given the enormous responsibity he was given, I think he did a solid job with the help of the other veteran actors. It's a pity Hunt wasn't a better actor's director, he could have gotten an even better performance from him. However, his talent at setting the scenes up and editing clearly was a benefit in boosting Lazenby's presence. Lazenby can be charming and confident in some scenes than realistically brutal in the action scenes. He even shows some elements of anxiety in some (as when Blofeld has him manhandled into the the aerial cable car wheelhouse). I'm personally glad he did not stay on as Bond as the first set of Moore's films veered so far away from Fleming's novels. It would have been too much of a jolt to see Lazenby's Bond in these comedy/action trips. However, if they had followed his film with FYEO and OP (particularly showing him at Tracy's grave) then the continuity of his role would have been more logical for me.
As I mentioned in the beginning of the post, I thought the casting was fine as far as getting seasoned actors for Blofeld and Tracy. Rigg is one of my favorite women in the series (and it didn't hurt that I had a crush on her along with millions of other boys and men at that time). However, since I had read the novel again before the film came out, I had actually wished they had cast actors closer to Fleming's descriptions. After some research, I concluded long ago that Peter Van Eyck would have made a more convincing Blofeld and Virna Lisi would have been closer to Fleming's Tracy.
I like Lazenby anyone who can bluff their way into an audition and then
Land the leading role, with no acting experience. ) that's something
Bond would have done !
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I like Lazenby anyone who can bluff their way into an audition and then
Land the leading role, with no acting experience. ) that's something
Bond would have done !
By a weird coincidence, Van Eyck was in The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and was in Requiem For A Secret Agent - a Stewart Granger film. I always though Granger would have made a good Bond had they been able to do the films in the fifties and Fleming could have helped on the screenplays.
I belive Lazenby is underrated. In OHMSS he shows raw talent and does a admirable job for an acting novice. I'm not sure the Bond movies would have continued to be as successful as they were (for along time) With Moore playing Bond, but I for one would very much love to have seen more Lazenby Bond Movies.
At a different time Stewart Granger would have made a perfect Bond.
He's one of my favourite actors from the "old Hollywood" days. -{
Stewart Granger was Roger Moore's boyhood idol. Roger's first film role was as an extra on Ceasar & Cleopatra in 1945 (aged 17), Granger played Apollodorus. Thirty three years passed before they worked on the same film again, The Wild Geese. They never shared any screen time, but they did meet off camera. Granger had heard about Roger's boyhood adulation of him and said, "I'm flattered, the guy must be an idiot - but he's still my buddy."
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
At a different time Stewart Granger would have made a perfect Bond.
He's one of my favourite actors from the "old Hollywood" days. -{
Stewart Granger was Roger Moore's boyhood idol. Roger's first film role was as an extra on Ceasar & Cleopatra in 1945 (aged 17), Granger played Apollodorus. Thirty three years passed before they worked on the same film again, The Wild Geese. They never shared any screen time, but they did meet off camera. Granger had heard about Roger's boyhood adulation of him and said, "I'm flattered, the guy must be an idiot - but he's still my buddy."
Stewart Granger's real name was James Stewart. Since Hollywood already had a much-loved actor of that name, he used his grandmother's name and became Stewart Granger onscreen, though his friends & family continued to call him Jimmy.
Fleming is on record as thinking "Jimmy Stewart" would have been a good Bond, and some have taken this to refer to the star of "Vertigo", etc- but it's far more likely he was thinking of Granger.
At a different time Stewart Granger would have made a perfect Bond.
He's one of my favourite actors from the "old Hollywood" days. -{
Stewart Granger was Roger Moore's boyhood idol. Roger's first film role was as an extra on Ceasar & Cleopatra in 1945 (aged 17), Granger played Apollodorus. Thirty three years passed before they worked on the same film again, The Wild Geese. They never shared any screen time, but they did meet off camera. Granger had heard about Roger's boyhood adulation of him and said, "I'm flattered, the guy must be an idiot - but he's still my buddy."
Stewart Granger's real name was James Stewart. Since Hollywood already had a much-loved actor of that name, he used his grandmother's name and became Stewart Granger onscreen, though his friends & family continued to call him Jimmy.
Fleming is on record as thinking "Jimmy Stewart" would have been a good Bond, and some have taken this to refer to the star of "Vertigo", etc- but it's far more likely he was thinking of Granger.
He was referring to Granger. In Britain he was still known as Jimmy Stewart. He had made a range of B&W "B" movies like Soldiers Three, The Light Touch and The Secret Mission.
Fleming probably saw him in one of them and though he would make a good film Bond. He may have even met him, because Stewart made a couple of films with David Niven, who was a casual friend of Fleming - they met at their gentlemen's club in London during the war - Niven mentions it in his autobiography. I think it's another reason why Fleming considered Niven for playing Bond. He liked him personally and knew him. Seeing Fleming next to Stewart, I think I can see why he considered he could be Bond. He could have even played Fleming for that matter.
I like Lazenby anyone who can bluff their way into an audition and then
Land the leading role, with no acting experience. ) that's something
Bond would have done !
^ THIS! ^
Yep, he deserves respect for this stunt alone. And even Peter R Hunt (sort of) said to him, "Don't tell me you can't act: you just fooled the two most ruthless men I know in the business. You're an actor, alright." )
Yes, George Lazenby was more than acceptable as Bond. B-)
Yep, he deserves respect for this stunt alone. And even Peter R Hunt (sort of) said to him, "Don't tell me you can't act: you just fooled the two most ruthless men I know in the business. You're an actor, alright." )
Yes, George Lazenby was more than acceptable as Bond. B-)
Comments
{[]
By the critics, so I'd say even without Bond, Connery would have
Become a major force in the movies. -{
No doubt. Connery clearly had the charisma, swagger, good looks and acting ability to become a star, Bond or no Bond.
*Alternate Earth NYT Movie review from 1975*
The Man With The Golden Gun
George Lazenby is back. Again. Oh my.
Yes, his debut in On Her Majesty's Secret Service was rather fresh, but as we learned in Diamonds Are Forever when he killed Blofeld, this Bond only has that one 'look'. Is it angry? Is it morose? One thing it seems to be is very useful. In Live And Let Die he used it when he blew Kananga up. When dispatches the villain in his latest movie, there it is again. Please George, for God's sake take some acting lessons will ya? You made your co-star Christopher Lee visibly smirk in spots that couldn't be edited.
Too bad he did more than one, he might have been looked back on more fondly as a good Bond. Connery, oh how we miss you.
119 minutes. At area theatres.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Sorry, old pal - I have to disagree with you here.
I don't doubt Connery's merits for the show but let's keep in mind that most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped. So where is his charisma and acting ability? Connery failed to convince the audience until "The Name of the Rose" and from there his second carreer went uphill.
But he was far away from Cary Grant who could have played everything and turn it into gold.
You may object the kind of typecasting which has been much more one-way in the 60s than it is now but in my opinion a really good actor is able to convince the audience in different roles and genres (talk about Neeson).
I am not saying that he would have polished coffins again but The Name of the Rose and Red October turned the cards for him after a long and dry period.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Are you kidding? It was clear from the moment he appeared on screen in Darby O'Gill and the Little People that Connery had acting skills, charisma and star power to spare!
Seriously, though, I'm not convinced at all that because "most of his non-Bond Movies (exception Marnie) basically flopped", that somehow disproves the point that Connery has charisma and acting ability even without Bond. He was lauded for his perfomances in The Hill and The Offence, and he received decent notices for his work in The Molly Maguires, The Anderson Tapes, Murder On The Orient Express, and A Bridge Too Far, all of which pre-dated The Name of the Rose. Connery's roles were different in each of those films, and although they may not have been blockbusters, not all of those movies were "flops". And I contend that even if they were, there are any number of factors that could have been responsible for the films' lack of box office success that have nothing to do with any lack of Connery's acting ability. Bottom line - I stand by my original statement, old pal! :007)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
After Diamonds Are Forever, wasn't Sean Connery looking for more varied/challenging roles, rather than appear/star in blockbuster films? It was a conscious decision to separate himself from his "Bond persona" and all that represented. He could have taken the "Hollywood route" but chose not to at that time.
{[]
Good point! {[]
When I saw if in the theater on very cold winter day in 1969 (which made the Swiss scenes in the film even more realistic, as I had a long cold walk to the theater downtown and back), I was so impressed with the film I think I returned to see it four or five times before it left. God, was it such a relief after what I considered the tragedy of DAF.
They had gone back to Fleming, got a new young actor and a nearly great cast (more later).
Since those initial viewings that long ago and so many subsequent ones since, I can say that I personally never faulted Lazenby for his performance. Yes he was an acting novice and yes, he did not have the seasoned elasticity in some scenes that one gets from years of experience. However, given the enormous responsibity he was given, I think he did a solid job with the help of the other veteran actors. It's a pity Hunt wasn't a better actor's director, he could have gotten an even better performance from him. However, his talent at setting the scenes up and editing clearly was a benefit in boosting Lazenby's presence. Lazenby can be charming and confident in some scenes than realistically brutal in the action scenes. He even shows some elements of anxiety in some (as when Blofeld has him manhandled into the the aerial cable car wheelhouse). I'm personally glad he did not stay on as Bond as the first set of Moore's films veered so far away from Fleming's novels. It would have been too much of a jolt to see Lazenby's Bond in these comedy/action trips. However, if they had followed his film with FYEO and OP (particularly showing him at Tracy's grave) then the continuity of his role would have been more logical for me.
As I mentioned in the beginning of the post, I thought the casting was fine as far as getting seasoned actors for Blofeld and Tracy. Rigg is one of my favorite women in the series (and it didn't hurt that I had a crush on her along with millions of other boys and men at that time). However, since I had read the novel again before the film came out, I had actually wished they had cast actors closer to Fleming's descriptions. After some research, I concluded long ago that Peter Van Eyck would have made a more convincing Blofeld and Virna Lisi would have been closer to Fleming's Tracy.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Land the leading role, with no acting experience.
Bond would have done !
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
By a weird coincidence, Van Eyck was in The Spy Who Came In From The Cold and was in Requiem For A Secret Agent - a Stewart Granger film. I always though Granger would have made a good Bond had they been able to do the films in the fifties and Fleming could have helped on the screenplays.
He's one of my favourite actors from the "old Hollywood" days. -{
Stewart Granger was Roger Moore's boyhood idol. Roger's first film role was as an extra on Ceasar & Cleopatra in 1945 (aged 17), Granger played Apollodorus. Thirty three years passed before they worked on the same film again, The Wild Geese. They never shared any screen time, but they did meet off camera. Granger had heard about Roger's boyhood adulation of him and said, "I'm flattered, the guy must be an idiot - but he's still my buddy."
This Bond fan sure would! {[]
Stewart Granger's real name was James Stewart. Since Hollywood already had a much-loved actor of that name, he used his grandmother's name and became Stewart Granger onscreen, though his friends & family continued to call him Jimmy.
Fleming is on record as thinking "Jimmy Stewart" would have been a good Bond, and some have taken this to refer to the star of "Vertigo", etc- but it's far more likely he was thinking of Granger.
He was referring to Granger. In Britain he was still known as Jimmy Stewart. He had made a range of B&W "B" movies like Soldiers Three, The Light Touch and The Secret Mission.
Fleming probably saw him in one of them and though he would make a good film Bond. He may have even met him, because Stewart made a couple of films with David Niven, who was a casual friend of Fleming - they met at their gentlemen's club in London during the war - Niven mentions it in his autobiography. I think it's another reason why Fleming considered Niven for playing Bond. He liked him personally and knew him. Seeing Fleming next to Stewart, I think I can see why he considered he could be Bond. He could have even played Fleming for that matter.
^ THIS! ^
Yep, he deserves respect for this stunt alone. And even Peter R Hunt (sort of) said to him, "Don't tell me you can't act: you just fooled the two most ruthless men I know in the business. You're an actor, alright."
Yes, George Lazenby was more than acceptable as Bond. B-)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS