Jan Van Quirm wrote:I think this is another 'character you grew up with' situation, except that I bust that theory wide open because I chose Sean and in fact Roger Moore was the first Bond I saw. Typical me.
Jan Van Quirm wrote:I liked the Moore Bond, I really did, but then I've read some the books as well and well, it's the eyebrow thing for one - it's played too much for cheap laughs at times. I love Timothy Dalton - he looks good and he's the best actor in there by far (Mr. Rochester! ), but no, it's Connery who's closest to Fleming's 'literary' model.
Jan Van Quirm wrote:Sean's Bond has that underlying bite - you really could imagine him killing someone without too much compunction and let's face it, if you have a licence to kill then you have to have a well developed mean (as in moody) streak and the 1960s was the time when that was still PC and acceptable in a way that the later 'realistic' Bonds (really all of them except Moore) weren't and were moulded to their era. The Brosnan Bond was virtually neutered in the 1st half hour of Goldeneye by Judi Dench as the new M for instance
Jan Van Quirm wrote:I have to admit to being a Titles groupie (Maurice Binder was an utter graphics god) too - now those really are synonymous with canon, even if the films aren't! My favourite title isn't actually a Binder one though - The World Is Not Enough. The film itself is pants despite having the excellent Robert Carlyle but those lovely oily titles are just gorgeous!
Quatermass wrote:As for your assertion of him being neutered by M, I'd say he was keeping the gelding knife away with both hands.
Quatermass wrote:Connery was a more thuggish Bond, I felt, not at all self-reflective (which the Bond of the books was).
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 3 guests