Is anybody else sick of the Connery comparisons?

ZorinIndustries

He's a good Bond, but you cannot compare any of the six. They have their own interpretations of Bond and I don't think any of them should be compared to Sean.

So many people compare the other five back to Connery. Is it because Sean was the first? Lots of fans say he was the best, but every Bond is different. Apples to oranges. Other Bonds have delivered great performances on their own. You never see Brosnan or Dalton compared to Moore. It always goes back to Connery. Your thoughts?

Brosnan_fan

Well I grew up during the Moore era, so I can't comment on Lazenby. I was only 3 or 4 when I saw TSWLM, I knew little about James Bond, or who played him before. I would not have known about Connery until 8 years later, when I was watching the Bond classics on TV, and after I saw AVTAK (my first real Bond cinema experience), I was quite certain Connery and Moore couldn't have been more different.

During the Dalton and Brosnan eras, I heard very little about them associated with Connery comparisons, and if I did, I would have instantly dismissed them without a thought. Both men IMO brought their own styles to portraying the character, and I didn't care for any of that "compared to Connery" stuff.

As for Craig, (Ahhhh.... Craig :v ), though I'm not a particular fan of his, he has brought his own style to the table as well, and it certainly is different from Connery's.

In the final analysis, I feel people should stop with comparing every new Bond actor to Connery, but (unfortunately) they are inescapable as Connery has so many fans. It would be better for us to just get over it and move on.

Le Samourai

Yes. Each actor should bring his own interpretation to the role, and be judged on that interpretation. I reject fully the notion that Connery established some sort of template that other actors must slavishly adhere to. It would be akin to saying that all actors who play Hamlet must follow Olivier's lead, or that every actor who plays Sherlock Holmes must play him like Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett.

Moore Than

The Sean Connery comparisons can be rather tiresome at times, but then he was the first and set such a high bar in those first four films. Roger Moore proved that you didn't have to be a Connery clone to be successful, which paved the way for Timothy Dalton et al to bring their own interpretation to the role. For me, the varying interpretations has been one of the series greatest strengths. Long may that continue.

Silhouette Man

Le Samourai wrote:

Yes. Each actor should bring his own interpretation to the role, and be judged on that interpretation. I reject fully the notion that Connery established some sort of template that other actors must slavishly adhere to. It would be akin to saying that all actors who play Hamlet must follow Olivier's lead, or that every actor who plays Sherlock Holmes must play him like Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett.

Well said, my good man and that's precisely what Roger Moore said about the James Bond role in fact - he said that Hamlet as a character had been portrayed by hundreds of different actors, so why could the character of James Bond not be played by more than one actor. Why indeed? Echo answers why! Sean Connery first played James Bond some 51 years ago in January 1962 - yeah, get over it!

Dalkowski110

ZorinIndustries wrote:

You never see Brosnan or Dalton compared to Moore.

Dalton? Nope. Brosnan? Almost constantly.

ZorinIndustries

Everyone has made great points. All to which I've agreed 100%!

Blackleiter

I guess I'm the outcast on this point, but I do still find myself comparing the other Bond actors to Connery. But not because I think the others are bad or because I think only Connery could play Bond. It's because I thoroughly enjoy the way Connery portrays 007, and I find myself asking if I enjoy any of the others as much or more. Not that I expect any actor to play the role exactly the same as any other actor. As has been noted, each actor has brought his own perspective to Bond. I have enjoyed most of the others, especially Craig and Dalton. But when I ask myself if I enjoy the other Bonds as much as I do the Connery version, for now the answer is no. What's the problem with that?

ZorinIndustries

There's no problem with that thinking! It's just when people compare actors to Connery simply to find if they're a good Bond or not. My case is that there are six different James Bond characters and that's what makes the series so special to me. Connery's not above the others, nor is anyone above Connery. They're all different in their own ways, so I don't think it's accurate comparing actors to Connery.

In terms of whose portrayal you enjoy, that makes sense to compare to Connery (I assume he's your favorite). I'm just saying it's unfair to decide if someone's a good Bond just by comparing them to Sean. That's all

toddthatcher

I agree that comparing the other five to SC doesn't paint the whole picture. For me, it's more comparing the films to one another. With Dalton and Craig (to me, at least), there's more of a concentration to get back to some of the SC elements. Not in all cases with them, but many. And the producers of Bond certainly like to throw in constant reminders of the SC era. I actually admire Moore for being honest about making his own stamp on the role, even if a lot of them didn't really work for me, personally

Donald Grant

For me it's not about comparing the actors that followed Connery to Connery. For me it's about recognizing the fact that if it was not for Connery there would be no other Bonds or for that matter 50 years of Bond in the cinema. Connery was a big part of the success of Bond and if not for him we would not be talking about Craig today. Sorry guys, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

DG

LastRatStanding

I respect what Connery did - he brought Bond into cinema in the best way possible. He stands out above the others because he was the perfect FIRST Bond. As for being the best bond of all time - that's debatable. Everyone has their favourites and their least favourites but I think mostly everyone will agree that Connery kickstarted the cinematic Bond and for that he has to be respected. Let's not forget however that by the time DAF came along his acting was mediocre at best.

Hugo Drax

I think people get nostalgic about the Connery era and assume that he set the benchmark which others have to be compared to. They are all different: I like Craig's gritty realism and dry humour; Moore's suaveness; Dalton's straight bat etc.

Blackleiter

Good point!

Donald Grant wrote:

For me it's not about comparing the actors that followed Connery to Connery. For me it's about recognizing the fact that if it was not for Connery there would be no other Bonds or for that matter 50 years of Bond in the cinema. Connery was a big part of the success of Bond and if not for him we would not be talking about Craig today. Sorry guys, but you have to give credit where credit is due.

DG

Donald Grant

Hugo Drax wrote:

I think people get nostalgic about the Connery era and assume that he set the benchmark which others have to be compared to. They are all different: I like Craig's gritty realism and dry humour; Moore's suaveness; Dalton's straight bat etc.

Connery did set the benchmark. Thunderball was the top earning Bond movie (adjusted for inflation) until Skyfall. That's a long, long run. Connery's Bond movies used to run 24 hours a day and was a phenomenon. Think about all the Bond's between Connery and Craig. Although Craig seems to have topped Connery, his Bond is not a phenomenon. I don't get nostalgic about the Connery era because I was too young during the era. However Connery was my first Bond because of a thing known as a theatrical re-release. Something common back then but rare now.

A true Bondphile has to understand the history of Bond. It's simple. No Connery means no Craig and no 50 years.

DG

Edit: One must also consider that Thunderball was tops at a time when a lot of markets were closed to James Bond. So no China and no Russia just to name a couple. That says a lot about Connery's Bond.

DEFIANT 74205

For me personally, my "yardstick" is not so much Connery as Fleming. My view is that the character of James Bond should only be played as he was written by Fleming, and based on that "yardstick", Connery in his first two films and Dalton have come closest to matching that. Adherence to the Fleming vision of James Bond is the standard by which I decide whether I like an actor's portrayal or not, so there will always be comparisons. Some actors have done this better than others.

Donald Grant

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

For me personally, my "yardstick" is not so much Connery as Fleming. My view is that the character of James Bond should only be played as he was written by Fleming, and based on that "yardstick", Connery in his first two films and Dalton have come closest to matching that. Adherence to the Fleming vision of James Bond is the standard by which I decide whether I like an actor's portrayal or not, so there will always be comparisons. Some actors have done this better than others.

I am firmly in Fleming's corner. But one must also consider that if Connery's portrayal was strictly according to Fleming it may not have done as well with the public. Fleming's Bond is very serious and without humor, while Connery's Bond is quite the opposite. If the early Bond's were stictly done according to Fleming I doubt it would have been so successful. So again, no fifty years. Just look at Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer. Very successful novels, but not so successful in movies. So today no 50 years of Mike Hammer and he is a semi-forgotten character.

Fleming's Bond novels were successful, but it was Connery's Bond that made the charachter a worldwide phenomenon that lasts to this day.

DG

Silhouette Man

Donald Grant wrote:

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

For me personally, my "yardstick" is not so much Connery as Fleming. My view is that the character of James Bond should only be played as he was written by Fleming, and based on that "yardstick", Connery in his first two films and Dalton have come closest to matching that. Adherence to the Fleming vision of James Bond is the standard by which I decide whether I like an actor's portrayal or not, so there will always be comparisons. Some actors have done this better than others.

I am firmly in Fleming's corner. But one must also consider that if Connery's portrayal was strictly according to Fleming it may not have done as well with the public. Fleming's Bond is very serious and without humor, while Connery's Bond is quite the opposite. If the early Bond's were stictly done according to Fleming I doubt it would have been so successful. So again, no fifty years. Just look at Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer. Very successful novels, but not so successful in movies. So today no 50 years of Mike Hammer and he is a semi-forgotten character.

Fleming's Bond novels were successful, but it was Connery's Bond that made the charachter a worldwide phenomenon that lasts to this day.

DG

Writing as a Fleming purist here, yet I think there is very much merit in what you have said here. Connery was the first and as such, there will always be comparisons back to him. It would have been an entirely different thing if Connery had been rubbish at Bond and Moore was seen as the saviour of the series, but that's not the case at all, of course. The level of debate here on AJB in these certain threads is very good. Well done to all of you. I raise my glass to you all! -{

ZorinIndustries

Silhouette Man wrote:

Donald Grant wrote:

DEFIANT 74205 wrote:

For me personally, my "yardstick" is not so much Connery as Fleming. My view is that the character of James Bond should only be played as he was written by Fleming, and based on that "yardstick", Connery in his first two films and Dalton have come closest to matching that. Adherence to the Fleming vision of James Bond is the standard by which I decide whether I like an actor's portrayal or not, so there will always be comparisons. Some actors have done this better than others.

I am firmly in Fleming's corner. But one must also consider that if Connery's portrayal was strictly according to Fleming it may not have done as well with the public. Fleming's Bond is very serious and without humor, while Connery's Bond is quite the opposite. If the early Bond's were stictly done according to Fleming I doubt it would have been so successful. So again, no fifty years. Just look at Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer. Very successful novels, but not so successful in movies. So today no 50 years of Mike Hammer and he is a semi-forgotten character.

Fleming's Bond novels were successful, but it was Connery's Bond that made the charachter a worldwide phenomenon that lasts to this day.

DG

Writing as a Fleming purist here, yet I think there is very much merit in what you have said here. Connery was the first and as such, there will always be comparisons back to him. It would have been an entirely different thing if Connery had been rubbish at Bond and Moore was seen as the saviour of the series, but that's not the case at all, of course. The level of debate here on AJB in these certain threads is very good. Well done to all of you. I raise my glass to you all! -{

That's what makes AJB so wonderful! -{

And I totally agree with what you guys are saying; Connery set up the greatest movie franchise. He deserves all the credit he receives!

But 42 years later, the actors shouldn't be based off what Connery did. Connery did what he did, and only he could do it. But Moore did what he did, Dalton did what he did, etc.

The main point is, only Dalton could've done Dalton Bond. Only Pierce could've done Brosnan Bond. These guys are all unique in my opinion and they should not be compared to Connery. (I'm not taking anything away from Sean; he did wonders for the series!)

Donald Grant

ZorinIndustries wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Donald Grant wrote:

I am firmly in Fleming's corner. But one must also consider that if Connery's portrayal was strictly according to Fleming it may not have done as well with the public. Fleming's Bond is very serious and without humor, while Connery's Bond is quite the opposite. If the early Bond's were stictly done according to Fleming I doubt it would have been so successful. So again, no fifty years. Just look at Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer. Very successful novels, but not so successful in movies. So today no 50 years of Mike Hammer and he is a semi-forgotten character.

Fleming's Bond novels were successful, but it was Connery's Bond that made the charachter a worldwide phenomenon that lasts to this day.

DG

Writing as a Fleming purist here, yet I think there is very much merit in what you have said here. Connery was the first and as such, there will always be comparisons back to him. It would have been an entirely different thing if Connery had been rubbish at Bond and Moore was seen as the saviour of the series, but that's not the case at all, of course. The level of debate here on AJB in these certain threads is very good. Well done to all of you. I raise my glass to you all! -{

That's what makes AJB so wonderful! -{

And I totally agree with what you guys are saying; Connery set up the greatest movie franchise. He deserves all the credit he receives!

But 42 years later, the actors shouldn't be based off what Connery did. Connery did what he did, and only he could do it. But Moore did what he did, Dalton did what he did, etc.

The main point is, only Dalton could've done Dalton Bond. Only Pierce could've done Brosnan Bond. These guys are all unique in my opinion and they should not be compared to Connery. (I'm not taking anything away from Sean; he did wonders for the series!)

I would agree with that. Each of the Bond's have brought their own interpretation to the Bond character. I would never want to see any of them trying to impersonate Connery. It's just that everyone tries to undercut Connery. The producers did it when Connery wanted to be paid more.
While they (Broccoli and Saltzmen) re-negotiated their contracts with United Artist based on Bond's ever increasing success, they kept Connery to his original contract. Which is why Connery eventually walked away. Although there were a lot of elements that made the early Bond films a success, it was Connery's portrayal more than anything else that sold it to the public. Now Bond is a success and will survive regardless of who plays Bond. Back then it was not a foregone conclusion.

DG

Blackleiter

Spot on again, my friend! -{

Donald Grant wrote:

ZorinIndustries wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Writing as a Fleming purist here, yet I think there is very much merit in what you have said here. Connery was the first and as such, there will always be comparisons back to him. It would have been an entirely different thing if Connery had been rubbish at Bond and Moore was seen as the saviour of the series, but that's not the case at all, of course. The level of debate here on AJB in these certain threads is very good. Well done to all of you. I raise my glass to you all! -{

That's what makes AJB so wonderful! -{

And I totally agree with what you guys are saying; Connery set up the greatest movie franchise. He deserves all the credit he receives!

But 42 years later, the actors shouldn't be based off what Connery did. Connery did what he did, and only he could do it. But Moore did what he did, Dalton did what he did, etc.

The main point is, only Dalton could've done Dalton Bond. Only Pierce could've done Brosnan Bond. These guys are all unique in my opinion and they should not be compared to Connery. (I'm not taking anything away from Sean; he did wonders for the series!)

I would agree with that. Each of the Bond's have brought their own interpretation to the Bond character. I would never want to see any of them trying to impersonate Connery. It's just that everyone tries to undercut Connery. The producers did it when Connery wanted to be paid more.
While they (Broccoli and Saltzmen) re-negotiated their contracts with United Artist based on Bond's ever increasing success, they kept Connery to his original contract. Which is why Connery eventually walked away. Although there were a lot of elements that made the early Bond films a success, it was Connery's portrayal more than anything else that sold it to the public. Now Bond is a success and will survive regardless of who plays Bond. Back then it was not a foregone conclusion.

DG

Donald Grant

Thank you sir and thanks for the vote of confidence.

DG

Blackleiter wrote:

Spot on again, my friend! -{

Donald Grant wrote:

ZorinIndustries wrote:

That's what makes AJB so wonderful! -{

And I totally agree with what you guys are saying; Connery set up the greatest movie franchise. He deserves all the credit he receives!

But 42 years later, the actors shouldn't be based off what Connery did. Connery did what he did, and only he could do it. But Moore did what he did, Dalton did what he did, etc.

The main point is, only Dalton could've done Dalton Bond. Only Pierce could've done Brosnan Bond. These guys are all unique in my opinion and they should not be compared to Connery. (I'm not taking anything away from Sean; he did wonders for the series!)

I would agree with that. Each of the Bond's have brought their own interpretation to the Bond character. I would never want to see any of them trying to impersonate Connery. It's just that everyone tries to undercut Connery. The producers did it when Connery wanted to be paid more.
While they (Broccoli and Saltzmen) re-negotiated their contracts with United Artist based on Bond's ever increasing success, they kept Connery to his original contract. Which is why Connery eventually walked away. Although there were a lot of elements that made the early Bond films a success, it was Connery's portrayal more than anything else that sold it to the public. Now Bond is a success and will survive regardless of who plays Bond. Back then it was not a foregone conclusion.

DG

Nick37

Without Connery we have no franchise. I get that. I respect that. What bothers me about it is that some of the other actors are unfairly criticized now that Connery has become so iconic. While Moore's not my favorite Bond, I don't feel the need to compare him to Connery. I prefer "Fleming's" Bond, so under that comparison, he's the farthest away from that. But I can appreciate the humor and films enough to place him higher on my list of favorites than some of the others.

Dalton also gets unfairly criticized for not having Connery's "It factor" or Moore's gift for humor. Dalton wasn't trying to play the role like Connery and Moore. Just because it's popular doesn't mean everyone that follows should emulate it, nor does it mean it's the best. Maybe he's not as good with the ladies, but the script doesn't allow him much opportunity in either film to get close to more than two. And while he may not radiate cool, I fear his Bond more than all others.

Donald Grant

Nick37 wrote:

Without Connery we have no franchise. I get that. I respect that. What bothers me about it is that some of the other actors are unfairly criticized now that Connery has become so iconic. While Moore's not my favorite Bond, I don't feel the need to compare him to Connery. I prefer "Fleming's" Bond, so under that comparison, he's the farthest away from that. But I can appreciate the humor and films enough to place him higher on my list of favorites than some of the others.

Dalton also gets unfairly criticized for not having Connery's "It factor" or Moore's gift for humor. Dalton wasn't trying to play the role like Connery and Moore. Just because it's popular doesn't mean everyone that follows should emulate it, nor does it mean it's the best. Maybe he's not as good with the ladies, but the script doesn't allow him much opportunity in either film to get close to more than two. And while he may not radiate cool, I fear his Bond more than all others.

Well, since Connery was my first Bond it is only natural to compare the ones that followed to him. At least initially. But I don't do that so much anymore. When Roger Moore took over, he was not Connery's Bond, but I liked him a lot in the role. But then his movies began to get silly. As for Dalton, he just never did "it" for me. I went to see both his movies in their initial releases but I just did not buy him as Bond despite the fact that he was touted as Fleming's Bond. A whole lot of other people didn't buy him as Bond either. His movies did not do as well with audiences. As for having "it", that is what stardom and celebrity are about. Has been that way for a long time. I think there is even a silent movie with that title, "It". "It" is not easily define-able but I know "it" when I see "it". There are, of course, different degrees of "it" and Connery had "it" to the Nth degree.

DG

Napoleon Plural

It's a bit lazy, but you get that with most stars. I mean, such and such will be 'the new James Dean' or 'the new Marilyn Monroe'. Even Craig got compared to Steve McQueen.

I do think Connery did a lot to create the character, okay not literally, but putting his stamp on it, his mannerisms and so on. Others, imo, such as Lazenby, Dalton and Brosnan more kind of play the character rather than create anything new, they are just donning the tux. Moore, okay, brings his own persona to it but again, it is a created persona, he did it. And while I don't love Craig, he has brought something new to the table largely I guess cos like Moore, he has to, at first glance it isn't an obvious fit.

But if Cavill does Bond, I can see him donning the tux and playing safe with it, a bit like Brozzer. And the writers won't be forced to go outside their comfort zone.

Nick37

"As for Dalton, he just never did "it" for me. I went to see both his movies in their initial releases but I just did not buy him as Bond despite the fact that he was touted as Fleming's Bond. A whole lot of other people didn't buy him as Bond either."

I first caught TLD in a Bondathon, Found him to be good, but unspectacular. Eventually caught LTK and liked that as well. Got the books as a gift from a friend, liked them, then rewatched the films in sequence from the ultimate editions and Dalton blew me away the 2nd time round.

I agree, he's no Sean Connery, but I guess I prefer the dark, serious approach. He and Daniel Craig really seem like they could be ruthless killers, and the Bond/Pushkin hotel room scene really feels like the top for suspense in the franchise. I like it just a little bit better than the opening between Bond and Dryden in CR. So did Connery was also a bit on the ruthless side in the first two, but the concentrated more on Bond's jet-setting lifestyle and classy cars in the later films of Connery, and through all of Moore.

Connery has been the best at balancing killer and gentleman. Dalton's got the killer, less the gentleman. Still, his approach to Bond is more when he's in the burn-out stage, so it works for me.

I think all the actors have put something of their own spin on it, though I think Brosnan's been on the tightest leash, and not able to inject much of his own style into the role. Still, he's an enjoyable Bond, even if he is low on my list, and I like him in other films. "Dante's Peak" is one of my guiltiest of pleasures, and it owes a lot of it's success on the talent of Mr. Brosnan and Ms Hamilton.

Silhouette Man

Nick37 wrote:

"As for Dalton, he just never did "it" for me. I went to see both his movies in their initial releases but I just did not buy him as Bond despite the fact that he was touted as Fleming's Bond. A whole lot of other people didn't buy him as Bond either."

I first caught TLD in a Bondathon, Found him to be good, but unspectacular. Eventually caught LTK and liked that as well. Got the books as a gift from a friend, liked them, then rewatched the films in sequence from the ultimate editions and Dalton blew me away the 2nd time round.

I agree, he's no Sean Connery, but I guess I prefer the dark, serious approach. He and Daniel Craig really seem like they could be ruthless killers, and the Bond/Pushkin hotel room scene really feels like the top for suspense in the franchise. I like it just a little bit better than the opening between Bond and Dryden in CR. So did Connery was also a bit on the ruthless side in the first two, but the concentrated more on Bond's jet-setting lifestyle and classy cars in the later films of Connery, and through all of Moore.

Connery has been the best at balancing killer and gentleman. Dalton's got the killer, less the gentleman. Still, his approach to Bond is more when he's in the burn-out stage, so it works for me.

I think all the actors have put something of their own spin on it, though I think Brosnan's been on the tightest leash, and not able to inject much of his own style into the role. Still, he's an enjoyable Bond, even if he is low on my list, and I like him in other films. "Dante's Peak" is one of my guiltiest of pleasures, and it owes a lot of it's success on the talent of Mr. Brosnan and Ms Hamilton.

Well said about Dalton as a killer, not a gentleman killer. I too like the darker side of James Bond as seen in the Connery, Dalton and Craig Bond films.

Blackleiter

Me, too.

Silhouette Man wrote:

Nick37 wrote:

"As for Dalton, he just never did "it" for me. I went to see both his movies in their initial releases but I just did not buy him as Bond despite the fact that he was touted as Fleming's Bond. A whole lot of other people didn't buy him as Bond either."

I first caught TLD in a Bondathon, Found him to be good, but unspectacular. Eventually caught LTK and liked that as well. Got the books as a gift from a friend, liked them, then rewatched the films in sequence from the ultimate editions and Dalton blew me away the 2nd time round.

I agree, he's no Sean Connery, but I guess I prefer the dark, serious approach. He and Daniel Craig really seem like they could be ruthless killers, and the Bond/Pushkin hotel room scene really feels like the top for suspense in the franchise. I like it just a little bit better than the opening between Bond and Dryden in CR. So did Connery was also a bit on the ruthless side in the first two, but the concentrated more on Bond's jet-setting lifestyle and classy cars in the later films of Connery, and through all of Moore.

Connery has been the best at balancing killer and gentleman. Dalton's got the killer, less the gentleman. Still, his approach to Bond is more when he's in the burn-out stage, so it works for me.

I think all the actors have put something of their own spin on it, though I think Brosnan's been on the tightest leash, and not able to inject much of his own style into the role. Still, he's an enjoyable Bond, even if he is low on my list, and I like him in other films. "Dante's Peak" is one of my guiltiest of pleasures, and it owes a lot of it's success on the talent of Mr. Brosnan and Ms Hamilton.

Well said about Dalton as a killer, not a gentleman killer. I too like the darker side of James Bond as seen in the Connery, Dalton and Craig Bond films.

chrisisall

Silhouette Man wrote:

Well said about Dalton as a killer, not a gentleman killer. I too like the darker side of James Bond as seen in the Connery, Dalton and Craig Bond films.

While I appreciate this new young chap Craig, MY cinematic Bond thrills peak with Connery (up to & including YOLT) & Dalton (all 2).
Colour me old school. ) -{
But, much fun to be had with Lazenby, Moore & Brosnan as well!

Donald Grant

chrisisall wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Well said about Dalton as a killer, not a gentleman killer. I too like the darker side of James Bond as seen in the Connery, Dalton and Craig Bond films.

While I appreciate this new young chap Craig, MY cinematic Bond thrills peak with Connery (up to & including YOLT) & Dalton (all 2).
Colour me old school. ) -{
But, much fun to be had with Lazenby, Moore & Brosnan as well!

I think the final analysis is that enjoying Bond is like enjoying sex. Even when it's bad it's pretty good. But nothing beats a great Bond or great sex! What constitutes greatness is, in the end, very personal.

DG

chrisisall

Donald Grant wrote:

I think the final analysis is that enjoying Bond is like enjoying sex. Even when it's bad it's pretty good.

Ha ha, a crude variation on the pizza analogy, very fitting. )