Jump to content


Photo

Bored Connery


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Golden Claw

Golden Claw

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 219 posts
  • Location:Ind-yeah!

Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:02 PM

Much has been made of his boredom in his last 3 Bond movies. I wonder if he was actually fed up of Bond or whether it was his personal problems. It seemed to me that the boredom started at the end of Thunderball. After reaching his peak, the only way to go was downward.

In YOLT, he seems to be universally bored with the proceedings and just phoning it in. As if he can't wait to call it quits. And the weight gain is also noticeable.

In DAF, he looks a little less bored than in YOLT. Maybe it was monetary motivation. But his laid-back performance seems to be on auto-pilot. It doesn't help that he looks older and pudgier than he actually was.

The 12-year break seems to have helped, because he looks much healthier and happier in NSNA.

In contrast, Rodger seemed to really enjoy being Bond, despite his advanced age.

#2 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:39 PM

He shouldn't have done the '83 remake. He looked like a cardboard cutout; completely out of place in the arms of Kim Bassinger & Barbara Carrera. It's rumored that Howard Cossell had halted up production for a bit because he'd demanded the return of his toupee.

#3 Hector Pelon

Hector Pelon

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 17 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:33 PM




This! It's hilarious how much Connery couldn't give a flying [censored] during this scene. "And Blofeld's got it... oh well never mind".

#4 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:06 PM

I had no problems with Connery in THUNDERBALL. But YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE and DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER are different stories.

#5 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1414 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 10 June 2012 - 08:32 PM

I was just going to make a topic about Thunderball Connery. But anywho, i think my least favorite Connery performance is Thunderball. Sorry but it is this one which he does have a problem. He is overly smug, to the point of it being obnoxious. "Thunder Thighs" is not my cup of tea. FIrst half he's super smug, second half he's bored. I do even like his second bored half more. I love his YOLT performance oddly because he achieves a strange equilibrium in between Thunderball's Thunder Thighs routine and Diamonds are Forever's Why-Me-Phphpthtpht routine. He is not smug there yet retains some life in him.

#6 iBond

iBond

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 575 posts
  • Location:Santa Monica, Ca

Posted 10 June 2012 - 09:28 PM

Much has been made of his boredom in his last 3 Bond movies. I wonder if he was actually fed up of Bond or whether it was his personal problems. It seemed to me that the boredom started at the end of Thunderball. After reaching his peak, the only way to go was downward.

In YOLT, he seems to be universally bored with the proceedings and just phoning it in. As if he can't wait to call it quits. And the weight gain is also noticeable.


Very much so. He is really slouching more and just seems to be done with Bond. But the later two films he did, he does infact seem happier. In DAF, probably due to the fact that he was able to support his Scottish Educational Trust Fund and NSNA, mainly due to the fact that he had more control over who was to direct, act and work on the film.

Edited by iBond, 10 June 2012 - 09:29 PM.


#7 Vanish

Vanish

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 236 posts

Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:31 AM

Even though I dislike DAF, I do have to say that Connery seems to be having a lot of fun in the movie. Compared to YOLT, it's night and day. Which is too bad, because I absolutely love YOLT but I think it's clearly Connery's weakest take on the character, to the point where it's distracting how "off" he is.

In Diamonds, he at least recovers some of the sparkle that made the lighter moments work well, even if he never remotely delves back into the "dangerous" part of the character.

#8 Colossus

Colossus

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1414 posts
  • Location:SPECTRE Island

Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:57 AM

I dont think YOLT is his weakest, he is still believable as an agent who's been through the weeds of the past movies and doesn't have to "show off" anymore to anyone. I like that over , say , where he's clearly in parody mode of DAF.

#9 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2176 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:43 AM

Just was watching YOLT the other day, got about halfway through then... bored. But not with Connery, I thought he was just fine in the first half, it's when Dahl/Gilbert started giving him boring things to do that I lost interest, about when Little Nellie showed up, and the spectacle began to take over. There was a decent spy story in there somewhere (even if it wasn't Fleming's), Harry and Cubby went off the deep end ala the last half of TB (more, More, MORE!). Sigh.

Agree with others about DAF, not the best Bond film but Connery's wink-wink performance may be the best thing in it. And at least in DAF, the real sillyness doesn't begin until the film's almost over.

#10 MarkA

MarkA

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 690 posts
  • Location:South East, England

Posted 14 June 2012 - 08:23 AM

Just was watching YOLT the other day, got about halfway through then... bored. But not with Connery, I thought he was just fine in the first half, it's when Dahl/Gilbert started giving him boring things to do that I lost interest, about when Little Nellie showed up, and the spectacle began to take over. There was a decent spy story in there somewhere (even if it wasn't Fleming's), Harry and Cubby went off the deep end ala the last half of TB (more, More, MORE!). Sigh.


It is interesting listening to these views, but I do think they are written in hindsight with the passage of years and many more Bond's and the slew of action movies that have come since. As a boy in the 60's when these films came out the climaxes of THUNDERBALL and YOLT were quite stunning unlike anything that had been done in cinema full stop. I remember as a kid seeing THUNDERBALL and being absolutely blown away by all the underwater stuff and the final battle. Also as a kid I was obsessed with the ongoing space race my first view of that amazing Volcano and rocket in YOLT was just incredible. Looking back and having read Fleming I can clearly see the faults in those movies but as sheer spectacle they are unsurpassed and there is a little bit of that boy in me that wishes we could have that in a new Bond. Time can blunt the impact of so much.

#11 blueman

blueman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2176 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:35 AM

Absolutely! As a boy, YOLT was hands down my fav Bond film, because of the spectacle. However as i'm a wee bit older now and prefer more character-driven genre stories, I very much like the emphasis on Bond's psyche of late (and yeah, just can't make it through spectacle Bonds like YOLT anymore, oh well, times change and I guess I do with them, is what it is).

#12 mrevans

mrevans

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 131 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:16 AM

Its always good to appreciate Bond movies in their cultural context. This allows me to appreciate movies like YOLT. However, I still fall short of thinking making Sean Connery Japanese makes any sense no matter the context. Still, it is funny in a cheesy way. But I still enjoy the movie and appreciate the spectacle. At the end of the day its really cool. I really like the new, serious approach to Bond and I prefer it but I still get a kick out of specticle Bonds and probably watch them just as often maybe even moreso. It all depends on the mood I am in. I love every Bond movie. They all have something to offer. And while I have major issues with a few, they are still fun and they are all watchable for me. But I get why some may be put off by some.

Edited by mrevans, 15 June 2012 - 03:17 AM.


#13 freemo

freemo

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPip
  • 2937 posts
  • Location:Here, There, Everywhere

Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:13 AM

Perhaps Connery "looks bored" in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, but then, I imagine that playing Bond in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE would have been boring. Not to say that YOU ONLY LVIE TWICE, with it's hollowed-out volcanoes and ninja armies and spacecrafts swallowing up other spacecrafts is boring (and as the last few posters have remarked, no doubt it was the bomb back in the day. Still impressive now, mind you, though I think I admire it more than I enjoy it), rather I mean that "acting" in it would have been boring. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE moved even beyond THUNDERBALL's zenith of spectacle and "bigness" to reach a point where the sets and the set pieces and everything else just got so big that the Bond character got small by comparison. There really not much for Bond (and therefore Connery, obviously) to do here, he just sort of pushes a few buttons and goes where wind takes him. His escapes are absurdly easy: judo-chopping through a paper thin piece of wood on the plane, getting out of a car chase not through skill or cunning, but with a helicopter and giant magnet coming to the rescue, etc. He doesn't have great character "moments" or much interesting to say or do. We've come a long way from DR. NO, where Bond drives the investigation, and does something cool and character defining pretty much every 40 seconds.

I really like the film, I just don't think there was a whole lot for Connery to do / work with.

#14 Scottlee

Scottlee

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2592 posts
  • Location:Leeds, England

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:25 AM

I've never noticed him looking bored in TB.

In YOLT the boredom is obvious, but then the film doesn't really help him.

Personally I love the refreshed Connery in DAF. He looks like he's having a great time and he probably was. I don't know whether he was just towing the line of promoting the film when it came out, but he did say this was his favourite Bond script.

#15 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1128 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:37 AM

Much has been made of his boredom in his last 3 Bond movies. I wonder if he was actually fed up of Bond or whether it was his personal problems. It seemed to me that the boredom started at the end of Thunderball. After reaching his peak, the only way to go was downward. In YOLT, he seems to be universally bored with the proceedings and just phoning it in. As if he can't wait to call it quits. And the weight gain is also noticeable. In DAF, he looks a little less bored than in YOLT. Maybe it was monetary motivation. But his laid-back performance seems to be on auto-pilot. It doesn't help that he looks older and pudgier than he actually was. The 12-year break seems to have helped, because he looks much healthier and happier in NSNA. In contrast, Rodger seemed to really enjoy being Bond, despite his advanced age.


Funny thought occured to me recently: I rewatched Thunderball, and it seems that, at times, Sean looks bored already. Maybe it's just me over-analysing his performance with elements we now know, but it does seem, in some scenes, that he's mereley standing there and not really performing. In any case, it clearly is not the Sean we got in Goldfinger.

Time can blunt the impact of so much.

Very true. We're re-watching the Bonds with today's eyes. In that sense, unconsciously maybe, we're expecting to see things we're currently used to seeing.
I admit that when I rewatched TB I thought some action scenes were awkward (the Bond/Bouvard fight for instance), and that it's most probably due to the fact that there's been 50 years of action movies between TB and now and we've grown accustomed to other ways of shooting action scenes (even in Bond movies).

#16 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3021 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:45 PM

I guess I never really grew up, because when I put on a Bond film from the 60s or 70s I can slip quite easily back into my old mindset and enjoy the film again as much as I did the first (make that second) time I saw it. I try to ignore the modern, experienced perspective that tells me that Connery looks bored, that Moore is getting too old, etc, and concentrate on how the film played when it was new.

I appreciate that this is harder for younger people who saw Craig or Brosnan first to do, but you still have to keep in mind that nobody in the day slid down in their seats thinking "God, I can't wait until Martin Campbell/Sam Mendes directs one."

Underwater photography was still new in 1965, so sure it was exciting to watch two squads of frogmen duke it out, hampered by having to thrash through a heavier element. I remember how exciting it was for me to see 007 do this, after having just seen 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Captain Nemo and the Underwater City (which still excite me too).

I feel sorry for any Star Wars fans who first see the six films in their new numerical order. It must be awful to see the scripts keep getting better, while the lightsabre duels get slower and the space battles less and less complicated.

I can't go back in time, and all the friends I knew then are older and have scattered in the wind, but I can still relive high old times with my retro music and my film collection. I escape into the past, and while I'm there I never think "Roger Spottiswood did/will do this better."

#17 Messervy

Messervy

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1128 posts
  • Location:ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Posted 27 June 2012 - 10:22 AM

I can still relive high old times with my retro music and my film collection. I escape into the past, and while I'm there I never think "Roger Spottiswood did/will do this better."

That's the point of it all eventually, isn't it: escapism. The sheer enjoyment of a high quality entertainment. And boy, is Bond pure escapism wonder!

#18 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:36 PM

Connery's performance in DAF totally sucks. Among other reasons, he's forced to "make out" with himself in order to stay hidden from Peter Franks. I mean PULLEASE !!!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users