Bored Connery
#1
Posted 06 June 2012 - 03:02 PM
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
Posted 06 June 2012 - 06:39 PM
#3
Posted 06 June 2012 - 08:33 PM
This! It's hilarious how much Connery couldn't give a flying during this scene. "And Blofeld's got it... oh well never mind".
#4
Posted 06 June 2012 - 11:06 PM
#5
Posted 10 June 2012 - 08:32 PM
#6
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
Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:31 AM
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
Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:57 AM
#9
Posted 14 June 2012 - 07:43 AM
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
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
Posted 15 June 2012 - 01:35 AM
#12
Posted 15 June 2012 - 03:16 AM
Edited by mrevans, 15 June 2012 - 03:17 AM.
#13
Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:13 AM
I really like the film, I just don't think there was a whole lot for Connery to do / work with.
#14
Posted 26 June 2012 - 07:25 AM
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
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.
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.Time can blunt the impact of so much.
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
Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:45 PM
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
Posted 27 June 2012 - 10:22 AM
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!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."
#18
Posted 27 June 2012 - 02:36 PM