69 replies to this topic

[James Bond Jr]

I say he is not.

I grew up seeing only three of his films in heavy rotation, Goldfinger, Never Say Never Again and Diamonds Are Forever. But I have watched all of his films recently and find him to be the best Bond actor yet.

Sean Connery is such an incredible actor. He has a lot of vulnerability and nuance for such a rugged and visually striking alpha-male. His acting is full of so many touches: eye-rolling, the dead eyed stare, puckering of his lips, change of voice inflection and impeccable comic timing. I think he's actually a better actor than Daniel Craig. Daniel has proven himself as a great "character actor", but Sean is a great "personality actor".

I credit Sean Connery (with the help of Terence Young) as creating the immortal characterization of James Bond, a version that is superior to Ian Fleming's. Its the rare instance of a film character actually outshining his original literary source. The novel Bond is sort of a one note character, while Sean's ranges from a much more charming man to a much more daring and cold-hearted individual.

[THX-007]

I say he is not.

I grew up seeing only three of his films in heavy rotation, Goldfinger, Never Say Never Again and Diamonds Are Forever. But I have watched all of his films recently and find him to be the best Bond actor yet.

Sean Connery is such an incredible actor. He has a lot of vulnerability and nuance for such a rugged and visually striking alpha-male. His acting is full of so many touches: eye-rolling, the dead eyed stare, puckering of his lips, change of voice inflection and impeccable comic timing. I think he's actually a better actor than Daniel Craig. Daniel has proven himself as a great "character actor", but Sean is a great "personality actor".

I credit Sean Connery (with the help of Terence Young) as creating the immortal characterization of James Bond, a version that is superior to Ian Fleming's. Its the rare instance of a film character actually outshining his original literary source. The novel Bond is sort of a one note character, while Sean's ranges from a much more charming man to a much more daring and cold-hearted individual.

I think Sean is a little. It doesn't help that critics compare ever Bond actor following Connery to him which is really unfair. An example would be the Siskel & Ebert reviews. While Roger is a little easier on the Bond actors like Moore and Dalton, Siskel was pretty vicious about the others.
"Lazenby is non-entity by comparison, he doesn't cut through the camera. All he is now is an answer to a trivia question."
"As for Roger Moore, he's too prissy, too smug for my taste. He's just not rugged enough to convince me he's a secret agent. Sean Connery is a guy who can kill and make love in an afternoon. He's James Bond, Roger Moore is not."
"Dalton looks mousey. That's right I called James Bond a mouse."
On Pierce Bronsan: "I don't think he's an interesting Bond. I like Connery and everyone else has been nothing compared to Connery."
This is surprising since in the Living Daylights review he said the producers should have gone with Bronsan instead of Dalton.

I think it can be evidenced by their absolute praise over Never Say Never Again, which I think a lot had to do with just seeing Connery in Bond role and not about the quality of the film.
Ebert even gave thumps up to Zardoz.

I love Connery in first three Bond films but I even will admit that he's doesn't so well in letter films (DAF, NSNA) and other movies.

Edited by THX-007, 17 January 2011 - 04:00 AM.

[Matt_13]

Nah he was good until 1967 when he was clearly bogged down and irritated by the whole thing. He set the bar though, and in my opinion Craig is the only guy to top it.

[Chief of SIS]

Like any other actor that plays a part over and over again and possibly solely becomes identified as that part, Bond for Connery early in his career, fatigue sets in. In this case I think Connery lost love for the part in '67 and '71. To say he was the same caliber in Dr. No and DAF is just not right. DAF Connery wouldn't be able to meet Dr No's expectations. In that sense, yeah, maybe a little overrated.

[James Bond Jr]

I really do not like YOLT, mostly because Sean is so joy-less throughout. His performance in DAF is a highlight for me, even though his age is showing. NSNA is just sort of ranks with any lesser Moore Bond performance for me.

I sort of agree with Siskel and Ebert's assessment of George, Roger and Timothy, even though I would have to champion some of elements of their performances. They are my bottom 3 Bond actors.

I can't say Daniel has topped Sean. Yet. He's the closest, for sure. And he's brought so much to the role. Brosnan was terrific but he was sort of a combination of Dalton, Moore and Lazenby, to me. Just better than than 3 separately.

But I think on-screen Bond is at its best in Dr. No and Thunderball. Just INGENIUS casting having Sean in the role.
P.S. As a fan of strange cinema/fantasy fiction, I also enjoy Zardoz

Edited by James Bond Jr, 17 January 2011 - 04:54 AM.

[DR76]

Is Sean Connery overrated as James Bond? Of course not. He made a great Bond. And the other five actors that followed him - George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig - were all great Bond. And not one of them was overrated them. EON Productions should consider itself lucky that it had six wonderful actors who managed to put their own spin on the role.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

The answer is an easy 'yes' from me.

I think Connery was absolutely crucial to 60s Bond, but most critics act like he is the beginning and the end. He is not.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Sean Connery is not overrated if we regard these aspects:

- he is a very good actor
- without his incarnation of Bond we would possibly not be having all these forums where to discuss dear old James, which means the series would not have lasted this long and would not have survived all these years.
- thus: he made, undoubtedly, a great 007
- as a cultural icon he had lots of influence
- did work on other great projects besides Bond

Sean Connery can be considered overrated if we regard these aspects:

- did make some stinkers as well (even did a Michael Bay movie would you believe)
- even his Bond career isn't entirely flawless, the quality of his last two EON's and NSNA is doubted by many
- Lazenby and Dalton were closer to literary Bond (sorry about that Sean, I still think you were great )
- Moore on the other hand did also have lots of cultural influence, so he was the first but not the only one

In the end of course, there is no denying Connery was a great actor and made a fantastic Bond and everybody has to deal with his legacy first. But let's not forget others who followed him did a more then respectable job filling his shoes.

[Gothamite]

Sadly, yes he is. He's a truly excellent screen presence in his films and he was given some wonderful scripts, but it's relentlessly irritating listening to people trying to sound cool by saying that none of the Bond films have been any good since Connery's. I defy anyone to go and watch them all and then repeat that claim. I once heard a guy at a party say that Diamonds are Forever is the greatest Bond film ever only to go on and say that he'd never seen either of the Dalton movies or the better Moore ones (TSWLM and FYEO).

[sharpshooter]

I’d be the first to say other Bond actors deserve attention. But no, Connery is not overrated. I think he’s the best. The praise is given for good reason, and not to mention the important historical reasons behind him.

But I imagine people just tire of hearing that view often. Which is understandable, given how old those movies are, and how long we’ve had to talk about them. A good song can become tiresome once you listen to it repeatedly as well.

He set the bar though, and in my opinion Craig is the only guy to top it.

Agreed. Without stating the obvious, these two are men. They’re similar, but both manage to have their own aura. Craig manages to take aspects of Connery and redefine them for a new generation without playing second fiddle.

[plankattack]

Only overrated in the sense that, as THX said earlier in the thread, every other actor is compared to him. Which is natural, but a tad unfair in that the best anyone who gets the part can seem to hope for is "as good as SC" or "best since SC". It seems to be conventional wisdom that no scribe is ever going to be brave enough to write "better than SC ever was." Natural though - he was the first and set the standard, but it's a little unfair that for a character that's survived on-screen for fifty years, and a series that has evolved in multiple and varied diretions, that all the others still have to be compared to SC.

Sir Rog's films were different in tone to SC's - so the comparison is harsh. I don't particularly like MR, but SC would have been terrible in that film whereas Sir Rog is at home. Could TD have done CR as it exists? Who delivered the best throwaway line - Brozz or Sir Rog. To me those are fairer comparisons rather than comparing everyone to SC.

I do agree that SC gets a free pass on his weaker performances (compared to say Brozza, who we all critique till the end of time) - I do think his YOLT is the the worst performance by the lead in the history of the franchise. But being the first does get you leeway I suppose......

[mttvolcano]

As most people have said, it's firstly, unfair to compare everyone who has played Bond to Sean. They are all different and brought things to the table (even george and pierce to a lesser extent).
But is Sean overrated? I don't really think so, he set the precedent and was the first bond. He had his own direction, and if anything, even though it kind of contradicts my point, set up something future fans and what not to compare and contrast to.
I personally say, just because he is the first, you can't compare other actors to him. Dalton and Moore are my favorites (I don't really hate or even dislike any bonds) but I can't compare, I can only contrast because they are totally different. I think the same should be said of Connery.

[BoogieBond]

In my view not overrated when you look at FRWL, GF and TB. They are as good performances as Bond as any IMO. Maybe not 100% novel Bond, but Sean's persona permeates the films, and his strong presence and the Bond he and Terence Young created are nigh on the cinematic definition of Bond. Probably not too disapproved of by Fleming either since Bond's sudden Scottishness in the last few books. One thing he lacked in his toolbox was a bit of vulnerability, and his Bond never fell for the girl. But his better performances for me comine a lot of what Cinema Bond is about, Charm, danger, sophistication, menace, toughness, authority, coolness under pressure etc. He combines them all.
Now, YOLT and DAF are a different matter, perhaps this would put an argument for his era(including these 2 films) to be overrated, as others have said, do you give him a free pass on these, or do you compare it with say Daniel Craig's CR performance.
Other Bonds gave excellent performances : Rog in TSWLM and FYEO, Dalton in TLD, Craig in CR and QOS. But Connery had 3-4 in a row, for sheer output alone, it probably means he sits where he should be, as the original and definitive, and is not overrated.

Edited by BoogieBond, 19 January 2011 - 01:17 AM.

[OmarB]

Sean over-rated? Yes in my opinion, but that's just one man's opinion.

[elizabeth]

This is a stupid question unless you're talking about NSNA or DAF. Of course not.

[Doctor Whom]

Overrated? No. But his contribution to to series can't be overestimated. The producers really lucked out. As many of us know, Connery wasn't the first choice for the part. Both Richard Johnson and Patrick McGoohan turned it down. And neither of them exhibited any of the sheer sexual charisma Connery brought to the part, which fit in perfectly with the pop culture scene in the mid to late sixities. I dare say, had either of them taken the job, the series would have petered out by the end of the sixties.

[THX-007]

I'd like to imagine what would happen if Cary Grant starred in Dr. No and From Russia With Love with Sean being the 2nd Bond actor. I would like to see how fans and critics would react to the other actors if that was the case

[the doctor]

I gotta say "yes" to this one. For me connery did very little. I always liked his bond films but not because of his performance. while I know this is different for everyone, I just really fail to see what is so mind blowingly good about Sean that pop culture puts him so high.

[James Bond Jr]

I respect the criticism that Sean isn't exactly the literary Bond, but that isn't a negative to this fan. The books have always been source material, sometimes better, sometimes just blander.

I find the Bond of the books very annoying at times. He's joyless, flat and morbid. He's too snobby and dry to ever carry a film. He really doesn't transcend his era like the cinematic Bond does IMO. And his personal style and humor is too conservative compared to, say, Sean or Roger's. Sean and Brosnan's Bonds seem more credible to me because they have more dimension, turning on and off the playboy act when need be.

Dalton and Craig play Bond closer to the books, but they exist in stories that are very un-Fleming (Dalton's big action and sexless women and Craig's athletic, savage action and reckless, amateur spy demeanor), so it works. The two are throwbacks, but are still different from the literary Bond, especially Craig. Literary Bond was never this hard-bodied, big gun carrying stud who would laugh during a torture. Which makes me like Craig more

Anyway, I agree YOLT is maybe the most uninterested performance of Bond of all time. But I think DAF's performance is a gem. Better than half of Moore and Brosnan roles. My opinion is that Sean is the best long-standing Bond yet. Dalton and Lazenby never really had time to bloom IMO. I hope Craig gets at least another 2 roles to prove his capacity as James Bond.

[David_M]

I'm going to assume the unspoken end to your question is, "...as James Bond" (since his overall record as an actor is spotty, IMHO, and I'm not qualified to rate him as, say, a golfer). And even then, it's a tricky question.

I certainly think Connery is great as Bond and for the most part I felt like he gave it his all. So in that sense, no he's not overrated.

However, the question of whether he's ideal as Bond, or unequaled as Bond is something else again. None of the Bonds has been a literal embodiment of Fleming's Bond for me, Sean included. I like Moore and Craig just as much -- for very different reasons -- and Dalton nearly so. And it's absolutely true that small-minded critics have built him up to be some kind of god in the role, which ironically works against him in the long run. It makes it almost impossible to relax and enjoy what he does if you go in thinking, "Okay, Sean. Prove you're really so all-fired better than insert name here."

So if you're asking whether Connery is really as great in the role as he's made out to be, yes he pretty much is. But if you're asking whether he's so great that no one else even comes close, no I don't think so. It's possible to greatly enjoy Sean's take on Bond without putting down the other actors. The real problem, as far as being "over-rated," comes from fans and critics who insist on praising him in terms that involve putting down everyone else.

Indeed, saying "he's better than so-and-so" is what I'd call "faint praise." I mean when you want to praise a great meal you've enjoyed in a restaurant, do you say, "This meal was exquisite" or do you say, "Well, it's better than the meal I had at the place across the street"?

[Doctor Whom]

I'd like to imagine what would happen if Cary Grant starred in Dr. No and From Russia With Love with Sean being the 2nd Bond actor. I would like to see how fans and critics would react to the other actors if that was the case

Cary Grant could have been a decent Bond, although he would have been far too old (58) by the time DN was filmed.

[jaguar007]

I'd like to imagine what would happen if Cary Grant starred in Dr. No and From Russia With Love with Sean being the 2nd Bond actor. I would like to see how fans and critics would react to the other actors if that was the case

Interesting question and one hard to answer. I think a better question would have been "what if Patrick McGoohan or Roger Moore had been the first Bond and Sean the second?"

Had Cary Grant done 2 Bond films, the series probably would have ceased after that. When Dr. No was made, Grant (being too old aside) was one of the biggest movie stars in the world. People would not have been going to see a "James Bond movie", people would have been going to see "the latest Cary Grant movie".

To answer the question I suggested, I'm not sure the series would have become the huge hit it became with Moore or McGoohan in the role. They probably would have been popular, especially in the UK, but I don't see either one of them making a huge impact in other parts of the world, especially the US. As Dr. Whom said, Connery had this overt sexuality that clicked with the public at the right time. He was cool, suave yet rugged, macho and sexy right at the start of the sexual revolution. It was lightning in a bottle.

[Guy Haines]

He certainly is not overrated as Bond, and many of the posts which preceded mine have made the points I might have made. What does annoy me though is not the attitude of some critics that he is the best Bond, as that he is the only James Bond. This is nonsense. Just as there is more than one interpretation of Hamlet, so Connery's successors have offered more than one way of playing Bond. Its up to us, the cinema going public, as to which we prefer. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[DR76]

Only overrated in the sense that, as THX said earlier in the thread, every other actor is compared to him.

That is because he was the first actor to be successful at portraying Bond. And he did so at a time when Bond was the rage. If Moore or another actor had been the first Bond actor for EON Productions, I suspect that everyone would be comparing each actor that followed to him.

To answer the question I suggested, I'm not sure the series would have become the huge hit it became with Moore or McGoohan in the role. They probably would have been popular, especially in the UK, but I don't see either one of them making a huge impact in other parts of the world, especially the US.

I believe that it is quite possible. Moore was making a name for himself as Simon Templar around the time. Even to this day, many compare his Templar to some of the other actors who have portrayed the role. I'm not saying that Moore was the only right actor to portray Simon Templar, but the guy obviously had what it took to be a success in the role. I could say the same about his tenure as Bond. The Bond franchise managed to continue for another 12 years, with Moore in the role. I don't think that the memory of Connery's Bond could have kept moviegoers returning to the theaters for a Bond movie during the 70s and early 80s on that basis alone. Not for an actor who was no longer playing the part.


My introduction to Bond occurred when Moore was playing Bond on the screen and ABC was airing Connery's movies. Frankly, I never considered either of them or any other Bond actor to be the best. They were all great to me.

[Publius]

As always when this question is asked (about anyone or anything), the answer is "depends on whose ratings you're going by".

Yes, I think most people overrate Connery, but that doesn't mean he wasn't the best or most important. I just find young people overrating without having seen much of him as Bond, if at all, and older generations letting nostalgia factor so heavily that they can't even acknowledge how not timeless Connery's Bond is.

Ultimately, my biggest criticism of his Bond, even before it got to "I'm bored, get me out of here" levels in YOLT or "I don't care, I'm just here for some fun, a paycheck, and the all-you-can-eat buffet" levels in DAF, is that it was often too cartoonish how much of a superhuman "alpha-male" he was -- the genius Bond who could run calculations in his head about the half-life of gold, but also slap women on the and practically get a "thank you" each time.

Part of the fun in Bond is living through him vicariously, but personally I have a tough time doing that when I can't at least somewhat relate to the character. I just end up chuckling at how stupidly over-the-top he can be, whereas when Bond is being a little more grounded I can follow the thrills along without being jarred out of the moment.

I understand Connery's Bond made more sense in his time, but even then it was a fantasy.

[jaguar007]

but also slap women on the and practically get a "thank you" each time.

I do know many younger women who would say "thank you" if even an 80 year old Sean Connery slapped them on the butt.

[DR76]

but also slap women on the and practically get a "thank you" each time.

I do know many younger women who would say "thank you" if even an 80 year old Sean Connery slapped them on the butt.

I'm not one of them. I would be more inclined to slap him back. Or punch him.

[James Bond Jr]

Just watched NSNA and Connery was incredible in it. He really comes off completely different in it than in his EON films. Total gentleman to women and very physical fighter and very smart, witty field agent. Seeing the true diversity of his roles from YOLT to Dr. No to DAF to NSNA to FRWL to TB to GF... he's different and brilliant each time. He's tied with Roger for most appearances as Bond and I think the others play Bond the same in each film.

He hasn't been beaten yet.

[Sir James Moloney]

Is Sean Connery Overrated?
No...

[elizabeth]

but also slap women on the and practically get a "thank you" each time.

I do know many younger women who would say "thank you" if even an 80 year old Sean Connery slapped them on the butt.

I probably would.