BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
That any of them are actually bad! They're all bloody good in different ways & transport me to wonderful worlds of adventure. I'm a James Bond fan & proud of it!
Part of the attraction admittedly is adherence to a certain formula: danger, beautiful women, exotic locations etc. But there couldn't be more difference between say Skyfall and, say, TMWTGG.
My two cents on YOLT. I recently rewatched it, and I agree Connery gives a better performance than I initially gave him credit for. However, I don't fully give him a pass in the criticism department, and here's why.
I think you owe it to the fans to give 100 percent if they're going to come out and pay money for your franchise. If you're disillusioned, I get that. I've done things that I don't like to do, but I do them to the best of my ability. I just feel that in YOLT and DAF, Connery should have given us what he gave us in FRWL, GF, and TB.
Well, I lean toward giving Sean Connery a pass in Diamonds Are Forever, adjusting his portrayal to suit the lighter tone of the film. But I do agree that he did not give 100% in You Only Live Twice. There were mitigating circumstances but I think he should have been professional enough to put them aside while in front of the camera.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
"Well, I lean toward giving Sean Connery a pass in Diamonds Are Forever, adjusting his portrayal to suit the lighter tone of the film. But I do agree that he did not give 100% in You Only Live Twice. There were mitigating circumstances but I think he should have been professional enough to put them aside while in front of the camera."
This is true, and DAF is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I like Charles Gray enough as an actor that I enjoy him, even if he is a pushover as Blofeld. But yeah, a performance like the one from Thunderball would have been well-appreciated in YOLT.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a specific example of what was so bad about Connery's performance in YOLT. You can quibble about the film's plot being to fantasy-based or just plain unrealistic, but given the requirements of the script, where did Connery go wrong?
My two cents on YOLT. I recently rewatched it, and I agree Connery gives a better performance than I initially gave him credit for. However, I don't fully give him a pass in the criticism department, and here's why.
I think you owe it to the fans to give 100 percent if they're going to come out and pay money for your franchise. If you're disillusioned, I get that. I've done things that I don't like to do, but I do them to the best of my ability. I just feel that in YOLT and DAF, Connery should have given us what he gave us in FRWL, GF, and TB.
Well, I lean toward giving Sean Connery a pass in Diamonds Are Forever, adjusting his portrayal to suit the lighter tone of the film. But I do agree that he did not give 100% in You Only Live Twice. There were mitigating circumstances but I think he should have been professional enough to put them aside while in front of the camera.
I think we're starting to enter personal taste territory. To me, she didn't do much if anything for me. On the other hand, let's face it: we see people on this forum admitting they've not watched DAF in literally 15+ years and are critiquing it as if they saw it yesterday, repeating "Connery was bored" in YOLT without citing a specific, non-debatable example, saying the only problem with FYEO was the ending (they liked the PTS?!?!?), saying the OP clownsuit was played for laughs (it wasn't...), saying Bond does nothing in GF (he does; watch the film again...), and saying that QoS was really realistic when compared to the actual situation in Bolivia (it wasn't), etc., etc. These are genuine problems with logic as applied to the situation vs. personal taste.
I'm still waiting for someone to give me a specific example of what was so bad about Connery's performance in YOLT.
When he looks at Kissy near the volcano just before the helicopters arrive. He looks overweight and lechy.
The opening scenes after the credits I mean, boredly faffing about at the sumo thing, following Aki out slowly.
In a way he still looks more animated than Moore, but Connery's style is to be credible and involved, and here he is not really the instigator much, so the film makes him more of a bystander - perhaps because he's a guest in Japan's country and doesn't want to look to unPC, unlike how he was with Quarrel in Dr No!
There's a lot of boring leisure time in all this, training to be Japanese, getting soaped down, getting married - it doesn't really match the 'cripes, world war 3's about to start' countdown
But is this really Connery's fault as opposed to what's in script? I, for one, don't see anything lacking in the way Connery played the hand he was given.
There's a lot of boring leisure time in all this, training to be Japanese, getting soaped down, getting married - it doesn't really match the 'cripes, world war 3's about to start' countdown
I said before. Connery's not having fun in YOLT. And it bleeds through into his performance. Connery's having a ball in "Thunderball", and it shows. The film isn't spectacular, but it crackles because Connery is so invested in it. At least that's how it seems to me. I'm not saying it's BAD, I'm just saying that I perceive a difference in Connery's performance when I watch TB and YOLT back-to-back. If it works for you, great. I already said I re-evaluated it after watching YOLT again recently and it's not as bad as my mind told me it was, but it's still lacking the fun of his prior TB outing.
I already said I re-evaluated it after watching YOLT again recently and it's not as bad as my mind told me it was, but it's still lacking the fun of his prior TB outing.
So, the Bond starting to burn out thing doesn't enter into your perception of what you call 'lack of fun' in a movie series featuring a professional assassin and his eventual brush with the 'dark side'? ?:)
Sorry ) , some of us are in it strictly for the light fun, some for the dark introspective stuff, and others (like me) enjoy the polarities (sometimes within a single film), for all this is just entertainment after all. -{
"So, the Bond starting to burn out thing doesn't enter into your perception of what you call 'lack of fun' in a movie series featuring a professional assassin and his eventual brush with the 'dark side'?"
No, because the films of Connery and Moore were quick to squash any mention of Bond's brushes with "The Dark side" in favor of presenting us with a cool agent that men wanted to be and women wanted to be with, Hence when OHMSS came out and they put Bond's 'Brush with the darkside" at the forefront and it made less money, that entire theme was jettisoned in favor of the most hokey outing of all the Connery films, and featured no mention at all of Tracy's death, and showed no ill-effects on Connery about losing his wife. Connery's Bond could have been pissed at Blofeld for cutting him off on the expressway as far as DAF is concerned.
Then Dalton came in and gave us repeated brushes with the darkside and people are still complaining 24 years after the fact that his Bond was too serious, too dark, and not funny enough. And despite acting his @ss off and giving us one of the most realistic portrayals of Bond in the history of the franchise, he's never above 5th place on any Bond ranking.
So no, in this instance, I don't agree. Connery's lack of fun during YOLT has nothing to do with EON trying to inject some of the serious side of Bond's lifestyle into the film, because it seems to me they went out of their way to avoid touching on it as much as possible, save for the brief scene in TSWLM discussing how people get killed in their line of work (And finally, a brief mention of Tracy, and Bond discussing the dangers of revenge in FYEO and visiting Tracy's grave.
Neither of our interpretations is wrong, they're just different.
Of course. I'm merely responding to the above statement as to why Connery is interpreted as being bored in YOLT. That's my personal feeling. I wasn't there during filming, I don't know what he was thinking, so that's all we have. Interpretation. Just like not everyone's Bonds are the favorites of everyone else's. It comes down to perception and who gives a performance that suits what your interpretation of James Bond should be.
Misguided criticisms? Those who say films like On Her Majesty's Secret Service; Thunderball and From Russia With Love are slow. Makes me wonder how long some people's attention spans are.
I have to agree with you there. A film that actually takes the time to build up characters and create suspense is too often brushed off as "too slow". It helps to be able to pay attention and not expect a fight, explosion or chase every five minutes.
Misguided criticisms? Those who say films like On Her Majesty's Secret Service; Thunderball and From Russia With Love are slow. Makes me wonder how long some people's attention spans are.
No, speaking personally as an ADD sufferer, that's the last thing James Bond should be.
Not makin' fun or anything, I have it to a degree myself. My Dad has it big time.
It's just I don't really see HOW Connery should have been different in YOLT... other than to be more excitable or hyper-focused or something.
When I was a kid YOLT was awesome.
A decade ago I felt the movie was a little OTT for me, so I layed off it for some time.
Today I find the film HIGHLY enjoyable. Only reading stuff here & at MI6 did I discover this perception of Connery's performance as "bored". ?:)
Well, it almost is, quite honestly. MR is better shot, Moore's better as Bond than Connery in DAF, and Lonsdale's Hugo Drax is a far better villain than Charles Gray's Blofeld.
"Lonsdale's Hugo Drax is a far better villain than Charles Gray's Blofeld."
Ehhh....I dunno about that. They're both pretty well pushovers as villains. Surrounded by people, they have power. One-on-one, fairly easily defeated. I will say though that performance-wise, Gray is way ahead of Lonsdale. I like Lonsdale enough, but it's pretty one-note. Even the speech he gives after they've arrived at the space station. And the final confrontation where he's got the gun on Bond, there's no rage or hatred in his voice that he's finally going to end the man who's farked up his space station and basically ruined his plans. Gray seems to be enjoying himself a bit, and I can't help but get a chuckle when he's screaming in the escape pod. "LOWER! Not UP!"
I will say though that performance-wise, Gray is way ahead of Lonsdale.
and I can't help but get a chuckle when he's screaming in the escape pod. "LOWER! Not UP!"
YES!!! The villain enjoyment factor is high with Gray! Thin as the movie's plot is, the performances MAKE DAF; MR is just a disappointment all around except from Sir Rog (and Meddings & Barry, of course).
I stand by what I said about Gray; he was absolutely horrid as Blofeld, especially by being the third (visible) Blofeld in the series. At least Londsdale is a far more credible threat, and I didn't think he was one-note at all - he is, in fact, the subtlest of the '70's Bond villains (Kananga comes close, but his third act appearence really remedies that), as far as subtle anyway.
IMHO, Gray made a Poor Blofeld, at least in the way He play the Part.
Although I'm sure as it was a camp/fun Movie, that's how he was
Told to play the character.
If it had of been a little gritter ( more in keeping with OHMSS) and
less camp. I'm positive that Charles Gray would of given us a much
sinister and menacing Blofeld. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
Part of the attraction admittedly is adherence to a certain formula: danger, beautiful women, exotic locations etc. But there couldn't be more difference between say Skyfall and, say, TMWTGG.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well, I lean toward giving Sean Connery a pass in Diamonds Are Forever, adjusting his portrayal to suit the lighter tone of the film. But I do agree that he did not give 100% in You Only Live Twice. There were mitigating circumstances but I think he should have been professional enough to put them aside while in front of the camera.
This is true, and DAF is a bit of a guilty pleasure. I like Charles Gray enough as an actor that I enjoy him, even if he is a pushover as Blofeld. But yeah, a performance like the one from Thunderball would have been well-appreciated in YOLT.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
So I'm not alone here? Good to know!
I think we're starting to enter personal taste territory. To me, she didn't do much if anything for me. On the other hand, let's face it: we see people on this forum admitting they've not watched DAF in literally 15+ years and are critiquing it as if they saw it yesterday, repeating "Connery was bored" in YOLT without citing a specific, non-debatable example, saying the only problem with FYEO was the ending (they liked the PTS?!?!?), saying the OP clownsuit was played for laughs (it wasn't...), saying Bond does nothing in GF (he does; watch the film again...), and saying that QoS was really realistic when compared to the actual situation in Bolivia (it wasn't), etc., etc. These are genuine problems with logic as applied to the situation vs. personal taste.
When he looks at Kissy near the volcano just before the helicopters arrive. He looks overweight and lechy.
The opening scenes after the credits I mean, boredly faffing about at the sumo thing, following Aki out slowly.
In a way he still looks more animated than Moore, but Connery's style is to be credible and involved, and here he is not really the instigator much, so the film makes him more of a bystander - perhaps because he's a guest in Japan's country and doesn't want to look to unPC, unlike how he was with Quarrel in Dr No!
There's a lot of boring leisure time in all this, training to be Japanese, getting soaped down, getting married - it doesn't really match the 'cripes, world war 3's about to start' countdown
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sorry
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
No, because the films of Connery and Moore were quick to squash any mention of Bond's brushes with "The Dark side" in favor of presenting us with a cool agent that men wanted to be and women wanted to be with, Hence when OHMSS came out and they put Bond's 'Brush with the darkside" at the forefront and it made less money, that entire theme was jettisoned in favor of the most hokey outing of all the Connery films, and featured no mention at all of Tracy's death, and showed no ill-effects on Connery about losing his wife. Connery's Bond could have been pissed at Blofeld for cutting him off on the expressway as far as DAF is concerned.
Then Dalton came in and gave us repeated brushes with the darkside and people are still complaining 24 years after the fact that his Bond was too serious, too dark, and not funny enough. And despite acting his @ss off and giving us one of the most realistic portrayals of Bond in the history of the franchise, he's never above 5th place on any Bond ranking.
So no, in this instance, I don't agree. Connery's lack of fun during YOLT has nothing to do with EON trying to inject some of the serious side of Bond's lifestyle into the film, because it seems to me they went out of their way to avoid touching on it as much as possible, save for the brief scene in TSWLM discussing how people get killed in their line of work (And finally, a brief mention of Tracy, and Bond discussing the dangers of revenge in FYEO and visiting Tracy's grave.
Neither of our interpretations is wrong, they're just different.
#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
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
No, speaking personally as an ADD sufferer, that's the last thing James Bond should be.
It's just I don't really see HOW Connery should have been different in YOLT... other than to be more excitable or hyper-focused or something.
When I was a kid YOLT was awesome.
A decade ago I felt the movie was a little OTT for me, so I layed off it for some time.
Today I find the film HIGHLY enjoyable.
Only reading stuff here & at MI6 did I discover this perception of Connery's performance as "bored". ?:)
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ehhh....I dunno about that. They're both pretty well pushovers as villains. Surrounded by people, they have power. One-on-one, fairly easily defeated. I will say though that performance-wise, Gray is way ahead of Lonsdale. I like Lonsdale enough, but it's pretty one-note. Even the speech he gives after they've arrived at the space station. And the final confrontation where he's got the gun on Bond, there's no rage or hatred in his voice that he's finally going to end the man who's farked up his space station and basically ruined his plans. Gray seems to be enjoying himself a bit, and I can't help but get a chuckle when he's screaming in the escape pod. "LOWER! Not UP!"
The guy was about 11 at the time.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Although I'm sure as it was a camp/fun Movie, that's how he was
Told to play the character.
If it had of been a little gritter ( more in keeping with OHMSS) and
less camp. I'm positive that Charles Gray would of given us a much
sinister and menacing Blofeld. -{