Critical assessment of Connery's Bond performances

chrisisall

DN- A thirty year-old Connery comes off as both suave and rough. A strange and interesting mix. He seems to both enjoy & be repulsed by the things he does. This is no portrait of a hero. Amazing first performance.
FRWL- Bond demonstrates both swagger and vulnerability here. A softer side slips out in certain moments with Tatiana. But he is tough as nails when the need for it arises. A very complex and pleasing job of thespian-ism. The Fleming is with him.
GF- Bond seems to be quite enjoying himself most of the time in this one. The saving grace is the undercurrent of contempt he shows for Goldfinger- it gives him that slightly sadistic edge in an otherwise lighter performance.
TB- Connery's Bond seems supremely confident in this entry, and this is where the super secret agent syndrome is truly born. Only Paula's death can crack the armour... for a moment.
YOLT- Bond is less playful in this movie, and we've read that Connery was beginning to feel done with the character, but for whatever reason, he seems very Fleming-like here; more business and less pleasure, with a touch of burn-out.
DAF- The sparkle is back in Connery's eyes (created, no doubt, by dollar signs), and so is the fun. A fairly surface "I told you so" performance, but enjoyable on that level at any rate.

Thoughts?

Blackleiter

I can't find a thing to disagree with. What happened????? )

Absolutely_Cart

Connery was golden in his first three performances. He slipped just a little bit in TB, declined significantly in YOLT and by the time DAF came around he was completely ossified. But his comeback in NSNA was a very good performance.

His lack of consistent passion for the role compared to other actors is why Connery isn't #1 in my book overall, but at his very best, he may have been the best Bond.

DevilMayCare007

TB is my favorite bond film, but I believe Connery's first 2 are his best, because his performance is close to the Bond novels

Thunderpussy

Agreed, -{ in DN and FRWL, Connery is playing Fleming's creation
With GF, eon's Bond takes over.

chrisisall

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

TB is my favorite bond film, but I believe Connery's first 2 are his best, because his performance is close to the Bond novels

Well, I feel his performance is close to the novels in YOLT, it's just the movie around him that isn't.

DevilMayCare007

chrisisall wrote:

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

TB is my favorite bond film, but I believe Connery's first 2 are his best, because his performance is close to the Bond novels

Well, I feel his performance is close to the novels in YOLT, it's just the movie around him that isn't.

Agree, I felt if like if they did OHMSS in 1967 and Connery gave it his best, then did YOLT in 1969 and had the "boring" performance it would had work because I believe in the novel James Bond is a bit bored and depress ?
I still like Connery in YOLT maybe if he wasn't over weight it would have been better

chrisisall

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

maybe if he wasn't over weight it would have been better

Overweight in YOLT? Boy, how long precisely has it been since you actually watched the movie?
DAF? Yeah, he was on the heavy side, but in YOLT he basically looked the same as in TB...

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

maybe if he wasn't over weight it would have been better

Overweight in YOLT? Boy, how long precisely has it been since you actually watched the movie?
DAF? Yeah, he was on the heavy side, but in YOLT he basically looked the same as in TB...

I agree. Connery is by no means out of shape in YOLT.

Blackleiter

Thunderpussy wrote:

Agreed, -{ in DN and FRWL, Connery is playing Fleming's creation
With GF, eon's Bond takes over.

There's some truth to that, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I believe the additional wit and touches of humor that began to emerge in GF, as well as the less brooding and more confident Bond Connery projected in the films, are what helped make the Bond movie phenomenon so huge. Remember, none of the Bonds depicted on screen is perfectly aligned with Fleming's creation, although some come closer than others. I have always had a preference for what I consider to be the more serious Bond films (most of Connery's, OHMSS, the Dalton films and the Craig films), to the more lighthearted fare, but that's not attributable primarily to how close they are to Fleming. I just generally find them to be more interesting and enjoyable. And of all of those, I enjoy the Connery films most of all because of the touches he adds to his performance without going completely over the top (until DAF). :007)

DevilMayCare007

chrisisall wrote:

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

maybe if he wasn't over weight it would have been better

Overweight in YOLT? Boy, how long precisely has it been since you actually watched the movie?
DAF? Yeah, he was on the heavy side, but in YOLT he basically looked the same as in TB...

I believe he was over weight to play Bond in YOLT, compared to DN and FRWL Connery looks heavy in YOLT

Thunderpussy

) Oh, I don't think it's a bad thing either BL. -{
I too prefer the films were Bond is more human, as in
OHMSS, CR, LTK, SF etc, as Bond has to show more emotions
Making him a more interesting character. Than in some of the
More light hearted films, Where he's a more two dimensional
Character, introducing action sequences.

welshboy78

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

Agree, I felt if like if they did OHMSS in 1967 and Connery gave it his best, then did YOLT in 1969 and had the "boring" performance it would had work because I believe in the novel James Bond is a bit bored and depress ?

Interesting theory indeed and since I just read past YOLT in the books I think you are maybe right, though I can't imagine Connery in OHMSS as I love it as it is

Thunderpussy

I can't imaging Connery being as vulnerable as Lazenby in
Some scenes, not after playing Bond for so long. It was
One aspect of his inexperience that worked for him.

UltimateTruth

I think that Connery has a great acting talent in that he can act scared without looking like a wuss. I think his appeal as Bond also has to do with him being able to bridge that very complex gap between being good looking and being tough looking....he probably gets closer to this than any other onscreen Bond.

Unknown007

While not meaning to say that I didn't enjoy Dr No or From Russia With Love, I think that Sir Sean Connery's tenure as James Bond really came to it's best between Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, after that and after a certain Australian had his one try at the part I thought Diamond Are Forever was a little weaker than Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice.

Blackleiter

UltimateTruth wrote:

I think that Connery has a great acting talent in that he can act scared without looking like a wuss. I think his appeal as Bond also has to do with him being able to bridge that very complex gap between being good looking and being tough looking....he probably gets closer to this than any other onscreen Bond.

Another reason why Connery was the best! {[]

DEFIANT 74205

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

but at his very best, he may have been the best Bond.

That alone qualifies him for the title of the best Bond, irrespective of his other performances, because no one has yet matched Connery's early performances as Bond.

75vette

Heartily agree with Chrisisall's Connery assessment above as well as Thunderpussy's observation, "I can't imaging Connery being as vulnerable as Lazenby in some scenes, not after playing Bond for so long. It was
one aspect of his inexperience that worked for him."

As for Connery being the best Bond, until Craig and CR in 2006, I would have agreed for many of the reasons mentioned above. However, once I saw CR, I felt like Fleming's Bond had finally come to life on the big screen, the deeply flawed, internally tormented, super spy of the Fleming Bond from the books.

Before the Craig trilogy, I would re-watch all of the Bond films though I much preferred the Connery ones. Since CR, I'm not sure I've watched but one or two Moore/Brosnan/Dalton films and the times I have it's been almost painful. For me, the best Bond is Craig, followed by Connery, followed by those other guys.

Thunderpussy

) Funnily enough, lately I too find some of the Brosnan and Moore Films
At Times a little slow etc ( doesn't mean I don't still love them ) but for me
It's the more human Bond films that I watch more often as opposed to
The gadget filled, over the top stuff.

chrisisall

Thunderpussy wrote:

for me
It's the more human Bond films that I watch more often as opposed to
The gadget filled, over the top stuff.

{[]