If he had done so just think how effective it would have been. Connery played Bond as a cold man, but I doubt he would have played her death without extreme sorrow.
My Journey Through Bond
- Thread starter jcoffman99
- Start date
- Status
If he had done so just think how effective it would have been. Connery played Bond as a cold man, but I doubt he would have played her death without extreme sorrow.
Certainly sorrow. I just can't see the crying happening though.
It would have been an interesting one for sure! By that point however Connery was just phoning it in with Bond. I doubt we would have gotten a Goldfinger level performance out of him.
Diamond are Forever
This movie had everything. Connery. An elephant playing a slot machine. A car on two wheels. Two sets of weird couples. A moon vehicle in the desert.
Good grief that was bad.
This movie had everything. Connery. An elephant playing a slot machine. A car on two wheels. Two sets of weird couples. A moon vehicle in the desert.
Good grief that was bad.
lol:lolA taste of what's to come I'm afraid. :cry the 70's were a rough decade for Bond but there are certainly better ones than DAF.
Oh I forgot. A bad guy in drag is always awesome.
My thoughts on what I call the "Camp Era" starting with DAF and ending with AVTAK:
The Camp Era marks a distinct departure from Classic Bond as we've known him. Whereas Bond used to be a killer with fine tastes he now makes a three film transition into a somewhat reckless playboy always armed with a cheesy joke for every scenario. Don't get me wrong, Bond still gets the job done. He just no longer seems to be a "real" character and the scenarios he's in are pushed to the outer reaches of outlandish.
The Camp Era also suffers simply because of when it took place, the 1970's & early 1980's. Whereas the Bond from the 60's had a very classic look to him which helps to limit how dated the films feel this Bond seems to fall more prey to the current trends around him. This unfortunately does not help the films age well.
It pains me to say it but this era began with Sean Connery's triumphant return to the role. After a great classic Bond film like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "Diamonds are Forever" set a very strong contrast in tone. Much like in "You Only Live Twice" Connery didn't seem dedicated to the role and it was taken much lighter. That tone would be followed up and expanded upon by his second successor Roger Moore.
Roger Moore can be given credit in one regard, he made the roll his own. Where George Lazenby did his best Connery impression Roger departed from the Connery influence and played the role more similar to his character from the hit TV series "The Saint". To be fair if Moore had tried to copy the style of Connery it would have been a disaster. They are two VERY different people in every regard. Moore's Bond is the one that I've already talked about here. His strengths are the one liners and lighter parts of the roll so they tend to dominate the films of this era.
The Camp Era marks a distinct departure from Classic Bond as we've known him. Whereas Bond used to be a killer with fine tastes he now makes a three film transition into a somewhat reckless playboy always armed with a cheesy joke for every scenario. Don't get me wrong, Bond still gets the job done. He just no longer seems to be a "real" character and the scenarios he's in are pushed to the outer reaches of outlandish.
The Camp Era also suffers simply because of when it took place, the 1970's & early 1980's. Whereas the Bond from the 60's had a very classic look to him which helps to limit how dated the films feel this Bond seems to fall more prey to the current trends around him. This unfortunately does not help the films age well.
It pains me to say it but this era began with Sean Connery's triumphant return to the role. After a great classic Bond film like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "Diamonds are Forever" set a very strong contrast in tone. Much like in "You Only Live Twice" Connery didn't seem dedicated to the role and it was taken much lighter. That tone would be followed up and expanded upon by his second successor Roger Moore.
Roger Moore can be given credit in one regard, he made the roll his own. Where George Lazenby did his best Connery impression Roger departed from the Connery influence and played the role more similar to his character from the hit TV series "The Saint". To be fair if Moore had tried to copy the style of Connery it would have been a disaster. They are two VERY different people in every regard. Moore's Bond is the one that I've already talked about here. His strengths are the one liners and lighter parts of the roll so they tend to dominate the films of this era.
Diamonds are Forever (1971) - Sean Connery
As I've already mentioned a half hearted effort from Connery is apparent in this film. It also takes a plunge head first into the 1970's on every level. This isn't the first "bad" Bond film but it is the first that I don't like. It sets things up well, Bond is on a revenge mission after the murder of his wife, but then it doesn't deliver on the goods. Bond should be seething with hatred for this new, not bald, Blofeld but instead he seems his usual calm self. I would have liked to see Bond unravel a bit in this movie and it didn't happen.
The Good: Sean Connery IS James Bond
The Bad: Just about everything else. Jill St. John is annoying, Mr. Quint & Mr. Kidd are comical instead of intimidating, Blofeld has hair which should never happen.
As I've already mentioned a half hearted effort from Connery is apparent in this film. It also takes a plunge head first into the 1970's on every level. This isn't the first "bad" Bond film but it is the first that I don't like. It sets things up well, Bond is on a revenge mission after the murder of his wife, but then it doesn't deliver on the goods. Bond should be seething with hatred for this new, not bald, Blofeld but instead he seems his usual calm self. I would have liked to see Bond unravel a bit in this movie and it didn't happen.
The Good: Sean Connery IS James Bond
The Bad: Just about everything else. Jill St. John is annoying, Mr. Quint & Mr. Kidd are comical instead of intimidating, Blofeld has hair which should never happen.
Oh I forgot. A bad guy in drag is always awesome.
The best!
lolI guess after being pretty forgettable in YOLT he wanted to really make an impression...
Master Dahark
Well-Known Member
If Connery still looked like this:
I'd agree-- but unfortunately around 1969 he looked like THIS:
If we had young fit Connery in his prime, then yes he'd have been great in OHMSS. But unfortunately by the time that movie came out (and You Only Live Twice) Connery had pretty much stopped caring.
Even though he's a great Bond, I honestly wish he never did You Only Live Twice & Diamonds are Forever, because they tarnish his otherwise perfect running.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
OB covered about everything I'd say.
But since when has THAT stopped me from writing?
YOLT:
I don't mind Connery in this, but I think that's more because so much of the action and concepts are cool in a way that strongly resonated to my 11-year-old self (which was how old I was when I first saw this one). The whole thing is incredibly over the top. Actually, it continues and expands upon a formula established with Thunderball (although you can see its origins in even Dr. No). Secret lairs, implausible gadgets, big commando raids, threats to WORLD PEACE ZOMG!!!!!!11!!one!
It does lack the punch of some of the earlier films, though, and Connery doesn't seem QUITE as...I dunno...energetic? Determined? It's not quite that he's phoning it in to me (that's more in DAF). I think part of it's that he's getting bored with the role, but part of it's the writing too. The films are, by now, becoming increasingly outlandish, and Connery no doubt recognized this.
OHMSS:
GREAT film. One of the closest to "literary Bond" and therefore one of my favs. Lazenby, I think, could have done a great job and gradually transitioned into his own Bond. The forced Connery aspect is unfortunate, but the rest is gold. And let's not forget Diana "Mrs. Peel" Rigg who seems a worthy mate for Bond, for once.
DAF:
Bleh. Jill St. John's hot, though. I'll give her that. For what it's worth, the book isn't that much better. It's campy in its own way, involving a goofy Anglicized version of American organized crime. Kinda like the "gangsters" you see in the film version of Goldfinger.
This film also heralds "The Dark Times" for Bond.
The Moore era on the whole is a VERY mixed bag. Far too much slapstick comedy and bad one-liners and sight gags. At the same time, it's set against some otherwise fairly dark moments or material. In a weird way, it's kind of like the imbalance in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. One moment Willie's comically shrieking, another moment Mola Ram is ripping someone's still-beating heart from their chest. It's not quite as stark as all that, but there are aspects of it which can be. More on that later in the journey, though.
But since when has THAT stopped me from writing?
YOLT:
I don't mind Connery in this, but I think that's more because so much of the action and concepts are cool in a way that strongly resonated to my 11-year-old self (which was how old I was when I first saw this one). The whole thing is incredibly over the top. Actually, it continues and expands upon a formula established with Thunderball (although you can see its origins in even Dr. No). Secret lairs, implausible gadgets, big commando raids, threats to WORLD PEACE ZOMG!!!!!!11!!one!
It does lack the punch of some of the earlier films, though, and Connery doesn't seem QUITE as...I dunno...energetic? Determined? It's not quite that he's phoning it in to me (that's more in DAF). I think part of it's that he's getting bored with the role, but part of it's the writing too. The films are, by now, becoming increasingly outlandish, and Connery no doubt recognized this.
OHMSS:
GREAT film. One of the closest to "literary Bond" and therefore one of my favs. Lazenby, I think, could have done a great job and gradually transitioned into his own Bond. The forced Connery aspect is unfortunate, but the rest is gold. And let's not forget Diana "Mrs. Peel" Rigg who seems a worthy mate for Bond, for once.
DAF:
Bleh. Jill St. John's hot, though. I'll give her that. For what it's worth, the book isn't that much better. It's campy in its own way, involving a goofy Anglicized version of American organized crime. Kinda like the "gangsters" you see in the film version of Goldfinger.
This film also heralds "The Dark Times" for Bond.
The Moore era on the whole is a VERY mixed bag. Far too much slapstick comedy and bad one-liners and sight gags. At the same time, it's set against some otherwise fairly dark moments or material. In a weird way, it's kind of like the imbalance in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. One moment Willie's comically shrieking, another moment Mola Ram is ripping someone's still-beating heart from their chest. It's not quite as stark as all that, but there are aspects of it which can be. More on that later in the journey, though.
Solo4114
Master Member
Necro'ing this post here to say that, so far, the blu-rays look AMAZING.
Dr. No looked fantastic, and From Russia With Love looks terrific as well. It doesn't look like they used DNR on the transfer, so you can make out details like the texture of Connery's dark suit material. Really impressive stuff.
Dr. No looked fantastic, and From Russia With Love looks terrific as well. It doesn't look like they used DNR on the transfer, so you can make out details like the texture of Connery's dark suit material. Really impressive stuff.
I'm going to try and get back to these this week. Little man had his first birthday so the planning for that took up my evenings. Then the father in law had a heart attack. Hopefully tomorrow night I'll get back to it.
Got to see DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, and FYEO on the big screen this weekend. By the time we reached FYEO (my favourite Moore film) it was clearly a comedy...
Got to see DN, FRWL, TB, YOLT, OHMSS, DAF, and FYEO on the big screen this weekend. By the time we reached FYEO (my favourite Moore film) it was clearly a comedy...
I liked FYEO, but my favorite Moore film was Live and Let Die. I think it had the best blend of all of good things that should be in a Bond film and they didn't get too campy like they did in the later Moore films. It also didn't hurt to have Paul McCartney do the title song and George Martin, the Beatles producer, do the score.
LALD was a little too "blacksploitation" for me but it did have a better tone than most Moore films. Soundtrack was great too. It was definitely a step up from Diamonds. :thumbsup
How the villain dies though? Laughable.
(back to not talking about films not passed by the OP now, sorry!)
TheProhammer
New Member
Daniel Craig is refreshing as the NEW Bond. If you are interested in learning some of the early Bond casting and behind-the-scenes stories about 60's London, agents, friendship between Connery (Bodybuilder casted in stage South Pacific), Moore (An established catalogue sweater model), and others.....I just read Michael Cain's autobio book called, 'What's it all about." I shows you that entertainment is really small world of close friends and people you worked with through the years. Good reading, storytelling and facts.
Live and Let Die
Well not too much to say about this one. I enjoyed Moore. I enjoyed the bad guys. However, I didn't enjoy much else. Seems a little racist in this day and age. Like all the others, it seems they could cut twenty to thirty minutes out.
Well not too much to say about this one. I enjoyed Moore. I enjoyed the bad guys. However, I didn't enjoy much else. Seems a little racist in this day and age. Like all the others, it seems they could cut twenty to thirty minutes out.
Moore is pretty good in this one. There's a touch of the old Bond here that won't return again for a while...
Not a bad entry but the way the villain dies? Give me a break. :lol
- Status
Similar threads
