112 replies to this topic

[iBond]

Mine would have to be Diamonds Are Forever and I hate to say it. It was just too much slapstick and not enough story. Some scenes are great: the elevator fight; when Bond climbs up the Whyte House; the car chase. But others took the majority of the movie.

[Double Naught spy]

I'm probably going to be burned at the stake (or painted gold) for this one, but I have to pick Dr. No.  As much as I have overall problems with the likes of NSNA, DAF, and (the very lazy and sloppy) YOLT, Connery's 'delivery' in Dr. No is horrific.  It's likely due to the fact that it was the first film, and as such the powers-that-be had no base-line as to what worked vs. didn't work for the film-version of 007, but Connery comes across as an unlikable, charmless, terse, bossy jerk in most of the scenes.  This is especially evident in the his interactions with his co-stars in the Jamaican scenes.  Again, I don't blame Sir Sean, Terence Young, etc. - I'm guessing that since this is the first 007 film, they had to rely heavily upon the characterization in the pages of Fleming's novels (which is a far-cry from the cinematic version of 007 that Connery would later perfect.)   None-the-less, as much as I enjoy the other aspects of Dr. No (the basic faithfulness to the novel, the scenery, the proto-type "villain's lair", and even the Disney-esque music  when Quarrel sneaks a sip of rum while on Crab Key), the boorishness that Connery brings to the character makes Dr. No very hard to watch.

[Colossus]

From someone whose Dr. no is my favorite that makes sense.

[Double Naught spy]

Thanks for the support Colossus. I have to admit some trepidation at broaching the subject of "bashing" such a beloved film, but I stand firm in my assessment of Connery/007 in Dr. No.  To be clear, I don't think it's a bad film per se (After all, ALL 007 films are better than most others!), but I just think I've gotten spoiled over the years watching Connery's further (awesome!) portrayals of Bond, so that, in comparison, his "no-nonsense/boorish" version in Dr. No is jarring, to say the least. 

[JSDude1]

Diamonds are Forever.

 

 

[Leon]

NSNA excluded, it's got to be Diamonds Are Forever for me. The song is actually my favourite bond title song ever, it must be noted. But I just can't watch that film without just cringing. It's not without it's comic charm, and I don't hate it, but ranking the Connery films for me goes something along the lines of:

1. FRWL
2. Dr No
3. Thunderball
4. Goldfinger
5. YOLT
6. DAF

[7] NSNA...

[elizabeth]

NSNA, I think.  I need to rewatch it again, but older Sean just doesn't appeal to me.

[seawolfnyy]

NSNA, I think.  I need to rewatch it again, but older Sean just doesn't appeal to me.

I don't really mind the older Sean. After all, he was still younger than Moore was in Octopussy released in the same year. NSNA was just a train wreck. Thunderball's story worked in the 1960s, but had become tiresome by the 80s. God, just imagine if Warhead 2000 AD had in fact been made. That said, if we exclude NSNA, then I also must go with Diamonds Are Forever. While I certainly liked aspects of it (the theme song, the elevator fight, Wint and Kidd, Jill St. John) the film was just too comedic and formulaic. Broccoli and Saltzman should have stuck much closer to the source material. The book is one of my favorite Bond novels.

[glidrose]

I'm probably going to be burned at the stake (or painted gold) for this one, but I have to pick Dr. No.  As much as I have overall problems with the likes of NSNA, DAF, and (the very lazy and sloppy) YOLT, Connery's 'delivery' in Dr. No is horrific.  It's likely due to the fact that it was the first film, and as such the powers-that-be had no base-line as to what worked vs. didn't work for the film-version of 007, but Connery comes across as an unlikable, charmless, terse, bossy jerk in most of the scenes.  This is especially evident in the his interactions with his co-stars in the Jamaican scenes.  Again, I don't blame Sir Sean, Terence Young, etc. - I'm guessing that since this is the first 007 film, they had to rely heavily upon the characterization in the pages of Fleming's novels (which is a far-cry from the cinematic version of 007 that Connery would later perfect.)   None-the-less, as much as I enjoy the other aspects of Dr. No (the basic faithfulness to the novel, the scenery, the proto-type "villain's lair", and even the Disney-esque music  when Quarrel sneaks a sip of rum while on Crab Key), the boorishness that Connery brings to the character makes Dr. No very hard to watch.

Can't agree with you. I think it's Connery's second best Bond performance. This film has a fantastic outdoors feel and a toughness none of the other films come close to. Now if it had only been twenty minutes shorter...

[AirJordanFan93]

Keeping this based on the EON films DAF is the weakest of his outings. It has good spots mainly the car chase but its just too campy for my liking. Connery looking old is a big issue with it. He was looking old in YOLT but he still looks like Connery in DAF he doesn't even look the same.

Edited by AirJordanFan93, 18 January 2014 - 12:30 PM.

[JSDude1]

Diamonds Are Forever;

 

It doesn't have that classic era JB feel that the rest of the Connery movies do. 

[Shamelord]

1. Diamonds Are Forever - By far: Connery looking old, Villain getting silly, Bond girl going from serious to inane, one of the worst finales in the franchise

2. Dr. No - Alas it has not aged well: Connery stiff at the airport, at the bar and a few other scenes, the pace of the film, the 1950's tone, and, er, well -- the small budget doesn't help sometimes i.e. the car chase.

 

The rest is much better and flaws are not beaking the movies. Yes, endings for FRWL, YOLT and NSNA could have been stronger. Yes all three Bond girls could have been stronger in YOLT. Yes, Thunderball is a much too stuffed pudding (and yes, the Fort Knox aerial special special effects take me out of the scene each time I watch Goldfinger) but all these movies have so many more positive elements that they are more or less Bond classics to me.

Edited by Shamelord, 18 January 2014 - 09:32 AM.

[Zen Razor]

Um I don't think Never Say Never Again should be counted as a Bond film. I personally think my least favorite has Thunderball... Don't have big hate towards to but I just think the underwater scenes are too long but it was still good. Possibly my favorite has to be Diamonds Are Forever because something about that film gives me a good feeling of comfort the the settings change quite it makes it entertaining from Casino to Desert and Las Vegas at night is great,Either that or Goldfinger there's just all good.

[RedsBaron]

Diamonds Are Forever is not only my least favorite Sean Connery Bond film; it is one of my least favorite Bond films, period.

My least favorite Bond films are, in no particular order: Diamonds Are Forever, You Only Live Twice, The Man With The Golden Gun, A View To A Kill and Die Another Day.

[AMC Hornet]

Diamonds Are Forever is not only my least favorite Sean Connery Bond film; it is one of my least favorite Bond films, period.

My least favorite Bond films are, in no particular order: Diamonds Are Forever, You Only Live Twice, The Man With The Golden Gun, A View To A Kill and Die Another Day.

I agree about AVTAK, but the rest you name are among my favorites, as is Thunderball (sorry, Zen Razor).

 

The best thing about the variety of actors/writers/directors/styles present in the films is that it gives lots of potential viewers something to like ("you like Star Trek? Then you'll like Moonraker. You like Bourne? Then you'll like QoS. Indiana Jones? Octopussy!" etc.).

 

Unfortunately it means they can't please everyone all the time, and DAF - my first, the one that got me started - seems to be getting little love here.

 

It's alright, DAF, GG and DAD - don't listen to them. I still love you, and if that means I have you all to myself, so much the better.

[RedsBaron]

Thunderball is my favorite Connery Bond film.

I generally am not too crazy about Bond films that are just too over the top, which is part of my problem with DAF and DAD. Although Roger Moore often is blamed for Bond films becoming too silly, that trend started with DAF.

For some reason, I do like Moonraker, which is maybe the silliest of all the Bond films. I just find it to be a fun ride and go along.

Edited by RedsBaron, 24 January 2014 - 12:36 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

I too enjoy MR for its parts, but cannot take it seriously overall as a legitimate James Bond film. To me it's more like a toned-down Casino Royale '67 - a satire based on an actual Fleming title.

 

I'll still defend DAF, as it is nowhere OTT as MR. Neither is DAD.

 

I guess I don't have a least favorite Connery entry. Even NSNA seems more legit than MR.

[Turn]

How does one not count NSNA as a James Bond film with Sean Connery playing Bond, with characters named M, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, Petacchi and Largo in it, characters right out of Fleming's novel? Because Eon Productions didn't make it?

 

Dislike it if you want, hate it and consider it the antichrist of James Bond films, just don't tell me it's not a James Bond film.

[sharpshooter]

How does one not count NSNA as a James Bond film with Sean Connery playing Bond, with characters named M, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, Petacchi and Largo in it, characters right out of Fleming's novel? Because Eon Productions didn't make it?

 

Dislike it if you want, hate it and consider it the antichrist of James Bond films, just don't tell me it's not a James Bond film.

Can't argue with any of that. 

[tdalton]

How does one not count NSNA as a James Bond film with Sean Connery playing Bond, with characters named M, Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, Petacchi and Largo in it, characters right out of Fleming's novel? Because Eon Productions didn't make it?

 

Dislike it if you want, hate it and consider it the antichrist of James Bond films, just don't tell me it's not a James Bond film.

 

That seems to be the prevailing wisdom.  For something to be a Bond film, it has to be made by EON, and include all of the inconsequential trappings like the gunbarrel sequence, the Bond theme, etc.  (for the record, I disagree with that sentiment 100%)

 

Of course Never Say Never Again is a Bond film.  It features the James Bond character, which is the only requirement to make a film a "Bond film".  That said, NSNA is a terrible Bond film, but still a Bond film nevertheless.

[AMC Hornet]

 NSNA is a terrible Bond film, but still a Bond film nevertheless.

That depends on which feature you double it up with:

Paired with Thunderball or Octopussy, it obviously comes in second. Paired with AVTAK it's orders of magnitude better.

[RedsBaron]

I thought NSNA was fine up through the death of Fatima Blush. After that the movie really seemed to run out of steam.

For that matter I thought the first half of DAD was okay up until the invisible car was brought forth. Sometimes Bond movies start out fine and then midway through they just falter. 

AVTAK however started to falter in its pre-credit sequence when "California Girls" started playing and it never recovered.

[Turn]

I've often said I appreciate NSNA more than genuinely like it. I don't feel much different about it 30 years after its release than I did then. I enjoyed OP tremendously that summer of '83, saw it 4 times, and had another Bond film in the fall. NSNA was a letdown in overall quality, but it was still a worthwhile experience having Connery back and getting another creative team's take on the world of Bond.

 

A lot of Eon offerings were somewhat on autopilot at the time when you think about it and no amount of ticking the boxes with gunbarrels, Bond themes, visits with Q and Moneypenny helped it feel any fresher, which NSNA was somewhat, despite its constraints.

 

I'll leave this thought: had Connery and his collaborators gotten the chance to do their original story, Warhead or James Bond of the Secret Service, with its ambitious plot and scope, we may be talking about that film with a much higher regard.