SEAN CONNERY

The Original Bond

What more is there to say about Sean Connery at this point? He's an institution. An icon. A legend. For many he isn't just someone who played James Bond, but the only James Bond. Much like Desmond Lllewelyn as Q, many efforts to rank Bond actors default to "who's the best after Connery?"

While he isn't my favourite, I can certainly see his appeal. He had this "cat-like" coolness about him, even under pressure. Nothing fazed him. He somehow managed to get away with mistreating women in a way that his successors simply could not (Moore on that later). And unlike any other Bond since, he was suited to the action side of the character from the beginning, having come from a rough background. His infamous charm? That was coached into him by the director, yet he wielded it so well you could've fooled me.

So why isn't he my favourite like he is everyone else's? It's hard to say. A large part of anyone's opinion on a long-running character like this is going to be the incarnation they grew up with, much like Doctor Who. And unfortunately as only a casual Bond fan, Sean Connery will always at least partly be "that Bond from my parents' era" to me. Coupled with the tone of his films being rather whimsical and cheesy at times (volcano base in You Only Live Twice, a laser satellite powered by diamonds in Diamonds are Forever), I just find him hard to take seriously at times, especially in contrast to more recent films in the series.

Which is nothing against the guy or what he did. Just a consequence of the passage of time. That's unavoidable when a franchise has been going for 60 years and seen many shifts in global trends, similar to what happened with The Adventures of Tintin - another series I adore from start to finish. Things age. It happens.

Dr No (1962)

Connery, and the film series itself, got off to a strong start with 1962's Dr No. It had the important task of kicking off most of the series' usual staples: the gunbarrel sequence at the beginning (which for audiences at the time must have been equal parts baffling and terrifying), Bond's signature car the Aston Martin DB5, the legendary catchphrase, cool suits, nifty guns, a suave leading presence, beautiful women Bond girls, enigmatic villains, the stuffy mission control M and his flirtatious secretary Moneypenny, and... sadly, no gadgets. No Q branch either. For the most part it does these things well, and with a tight budget at that.

That's the key word there. It does these things well. Not necessarily superbly. As with old film-making in general I find its pacing a little stilted, most notoriously the dialogue while No and his staff power up the radio beam; probably realistic and well-researched, but nonetheless tedious. These old films tend to be shy on music, which stands out to someone like me who grew up with modern (circa the 90s) cinema. I also wish Dr No himself had been introduced sooner and given more screentime. Overall this film is very... baseline. Textbook. Vanilla, even.

That's the thing, though. As icecream goes, I love vanilla. So what do I like about this film? Sean Connery is a natural. You'd almost believe he was born to wear the suit as opposed to the tough as nails yet unsophisticated guy he actually was. He was a keen footballer, labourer, bodybuilder, lorry driver, coffin polisher, had the guts to take a gang of six men alone and arguably win, etc. He even turned up to audition looking like he'd just rolled out of bed, with attitude to match. Producers Saltzman and Broccoli knew then they had their man. As a bonus, he already had real life experience disarming men with guns. Never overlook transferable skills.

Where this film knocks it out of the park is with the introduction of Felix Leiter. Unlike some other portrayals of the character, Felix easily feels like the "hero of another story" type. He gets the drop on Bond, matches him wit for wit, and if hearsay is to be trusted, posed a genuine threat of stealing the show from Bond himself (one of several reasons he's been recast so often). That's what they get for casting Jack Lord I suppose, though in a weird case of coming full circle, Lord apparently saw the potential for this and demanded equal billing with Connery if he were to return to the series. We can only imagine a world where Bond went the buddy cop route.

Now to get controversial. Honey Ryder. Iconic Bond girl that she is, it's been pointed out over the years that she doesn't really DO much. She appears late in the film, and while hardly the only Bond girl to do so (Pussy Galore?), doesn't bring much to the table besides backstory. Mind you, it's a decent backstory; who else can claim they educated themselves by reading an encyclopaedia? It's just that half of it was lost in the transition from book to film. Most significantly in the book she actually saves herself, no Bond required. In 2025 that doesn't seem like a big deal, but in 1962 that would have been huge. It's a shame that after making a good first impression, threatening Bond with a knife and even getting in a witty comeback, and of course, her famous exit from the water (don't pretend you don't know the scene), she doesn't follow through. Still, a good start to the franchise's most famous element, and one who enjoys immense popularity to this day.

Overall, I like this film. Its job was to kick off the series and it did so just fine. Again, fine. Around the middle of the pack.

From Russia With Love (1963)

If the classic Bond franchise proves anything, it's that you can bang out a feature film annually if you put your mind to it.

Considered a fan favourite of the series, From Russia With Love really dives into the world of espionage with a smaller scale plot that serves as a piece of a larger story, with the Cold War as a backdrop. It runs more on tension than action, and spends a lot of time commenting on the politics of the era. It's even right there in the dialogue: "They follow us, we follow them. It's a sort of understanding we have." Nothing has changed in this regard since 1963 besides the technology we use to do it, so in that sense the film has aged incredibly well.

One of three key precedents this film sets is that the Russians are rarely the bad guys - an important forward-thinking deviation from Ian Fleming's vision made by the producers. The undercover Soviet organization SMERSH from the book is changed to the politically-neutral criminal syndicate SPECTRE, of which the late Dr No was a member. Their evil plan? Steal a cryptography device from the Soviets and sell it back to them right under MI6's nose, so as to embarass them (and Bond) as punishment for the death of Dr No. Again, smaller scale plot, and also a rare example of a Bond film directly referencing its predecessor.

Precedent number two, and possibly the most important of all? Desmond Llewelyn as Q. While not actually referred to as such, instead being introduced as Boothroyd (his real name), and unfortunately lacking any of the character quirks we would later come to know him by, he nonetheless provides Bond with the first of many legendary gadgets - the attache case. Definitely a product of its time that wouldn't work too well nowadays (who carries a briefcase?), this gadget nonetheless hits the most important point of a Bond gadget in my opinion - it doubles as a practical accessory and could easily be standard issue equipment. The laser watch from GoldenEye would epitomize this idea, but one step at a time.

And now the big man himself... Blofeld. I personally love the "overarching villain", the "bigger bad" that ties stories together - even if they aren't always done well, as we'll see later in the Craig era. The debatable part here is, of course, who works better - the unseen Blofeld, or the legendary Donald Pleasance? The unseen Blofeld here is physically portrayed by Anthony Dawson (who also played Professor Dent in the previous film) while his voice is provided by Eric Pohlmann. It's made clear that this man is incredibly dangerous, as anyone who looks at him is visibly nervous, even if they're otherwise unflappable. It's definitely a good effect. But I'm on the fence about this, to be honest. I can appreciate the idea of letting the viewer fill in the blanks - "whatever we can show you will not be as scary as you imagine." But that's not for everyone. I just wonder what their plan for this character was at the time. Did they intend to keep him hidden until the fifth movie? Or did they improvise when the right script came along?

Further down the totem pole, let's talk about Rosa Klebb. I'm impressed they managed to sneak a female (main) villain into the series by only the second entry, and all the way back in the 60s at that. Bonus points for the hint that she's lesbian, which while obviously not a bad thing on its own, manages to add to her creepiness in context (it looks like she has other plans for Tanya before sending her into the field). It's also welcome to have a woman who is most likely immune to Bond's charms, though this is never put to the test.

But the heavy of this film is neither Klebb nor Kronsteen. That honour instead goes to Red Grant (Robert Shaw), the first in a line of "huge, silent types who pose a serious physical threat to Bond." Except he's hardly silent. By his own admission he's happy to have a chat, and is pretty good with the accents and maintaining cover (mostly). I appreciate this kind of character. Being large and imposing doesn't mean you can't also be well educated and refined - especially in the world of espionage where the ability to act is often more important than how many necks you can break. He's also the first "dark side of Bond" archetype we see, in that he could easily have been Bond himself, or vice versa, had they been born into different circumstances. Sadly his downfall is one crucial misstep followed by that of the classic Bond villain - too much talking, not enough shooting.

The weakest part of this film in my eyes is the Bond girl, I'm ashamed to say. Unlike Honey Ryder who was tough and independent, Tanya's character is weakened by how madly she falls in love with Bond after their encounter, having already swooned over him before, especially since his brutal treatment of her doesn't dissuade her in any way. It feels like she's written to be "nothing without Bond [a man] in her life." Normally I'd call that a sign of the times, but most of the other films don't do this. I could be missing something here (a lot, really), but I just didn't connect with this character.

From Russia With Love. Better than Dr No? You decide. But I can't move on without acknowledging the sheer awesome that was Pedro Armendariz in this film. He was dying of cancer at the time, and in fact took his own life shortly after, but you'd never guess. That's a man dedicated to his craft.

Goldfinger (1964)

Goldfinger could be considered the codifier for the standard Bond formula. It gave us the first gadget-laden car, the first enigmatic villain with a hidden agenda (after the understated Dr No and... whoever From Russia With Love's villain was), the first true appearance of Q, the first Bond girl with an outrageously suggestive name... and best of all, a glimpse into Bond's (and Fleming's) less-than-progressive ideas about women. Apparently in the world of Bond you can turn a (possibly lesbian) woman to your side by forcing yourself on her.

Don't try this at home.

Let's start with Auric Goldfinger himself. He's what every villain should be. You love to hate this guy. He's jovial, he's witty, he's even affable at times, but the key to his character is that none of it is sincere. He's a petty cheat who doesn't handle loss well. You could be his most loyal follower and he'll sacrifice you without remorse. He's pragmatic and a master of social engineering. What's the best way to smuggle something? Build something legitimate out of it.

And that's where this guy shines. He's always one step ahead of Bond. Heck, Bond spends half this film in his custody. As far as villainous credentials go that puts him near the top of the list. Bond only beats him because he convinces a key subordinate to betray him in a scene that hasn't aged particularly well. Just kiss the girl until she likes it! She'll give in eventually.

Don't try this at home.

But my favourite aspect of this villain is his plan. Long before the Craig era, Goldfinger was already gunning for a more realistic and down-to-Earth plot. To quote Hans Gruber, "If you steal $600 you can just disappear; if you steal $600 million they WILL find you." Thus, unlike in the book (where Goldfinger's plan is indeed to just raid Fort Knox), his plan here is to simply irradiate it and render it useless. I find this sort of evil plan refreshing compared to the usual fanfare of stealing nukes or an orbital laser or whatever, because surely the short- and long-damage to the US economy by nulling the entire trade value of Fort Knox would far exceed simply popping a city or two.

Not to mention Goldfinger's own personal security in that case. Steal the gold? Run for the rest of your life. Irradiate it? Damage done. No point even spending resources tracking the guy down when you've got so many other things to worry about now your country's a financial mess.

Q. What's not to love about Desmond Llewelyn's Q? No character, arguably even any given Bond, is more iconic to this franchise than Q the Quartermaster. While we did see him briefly in the previous film, it was only here that he obtained both his codename and his loveable goofball personality. He's the one guy who isn't in awe of 007. As far as he's concerned, Bond is just a guy who takes his gadgets for granted and never returns them in one piece. The character starts off strongly with one of his most famous exchanges ("Ejector seat? You're joking!" "... I never joke about my work, 007.") before giving James Bond his first fancy car, the Aston Martin DB5 - not only outfitted with... an ejector seat, but also destined to become the flagship vehicle of the entire franchise.

And... that's it for Q. Yep, the character would often be a one-and-done affair for much of the series, just like M and Moneypenny. Still, a much appreciated start.

Yet another recurring element of the franchise this film started was the quirky henchman. Again, the previous two movies had henchmen, but neither of them hit the notes that Oddjob did, and that few of his successors would go on to recapture. He's also the first henchman Bond is genuinely outclassed by, forcing him to rely on his environment (in this case an electrified fence) to score the win. Super strong, insanely durable, doesn't speak, unfailingly loyal to his master and above all sporting an interesting gimmick in his razor-brimmed hat - Oddjob has it all, and is thoroughly deserving of his fan favourite status. You're also an evil person if you play as him in GoldenEye 007.

The most contentious part of this film in the modern era is, of course, the main Bond girl - or rather, the way she's treated. Pussy Galore was implied to be lesbian in the novel, but this element seems to have been excised in the film. Whether that's for the better or worse is up to the individual, but what's decidedly less subjective is that Bond still turns her to his side by forcing himself on her (though she seems to consent before they get into serious territory - again, whether that's for the better or worse is debatable). Especially since the film actually tones down the homophobic elements from the source material!Putting that controversy aside, Galore is otherwise a decently strong and competent character who is once again let down by a late introduction.

Goldfinger definitely set the standard for all Bond films moving forward. Can they keep up that momentum with Thunderball?

Thunderball (1965)

The one that's 25% underwater. The highest grossing Bond film (whyen adjusted for inflation) until Skyfall a whopping 47 years later. The one with the jetpack. The one with the shark abuse. Thunderball is many things to many people. It grossed as high as it did because it was genuinely amazing... or because everyone loved Goldfinger and assumed the next film would match it. Having only seen this film once myself, and a few years ago at that, my opinion of it was... eh? The regulars all play their parts well, even if this was clearly the point where Connery started to become disillusioned with the franchise, and his scene with Llewelyn is definitely a step back from Goldfinger (the fun banter instead feeling a little too harsh) but otherwise this one was a little forgettable to me.

It's impossible to talk about this film without placing heavy emphasis on the underwater sections. I know I'm not alone when I say I don't much care for underwater combat, be it hand to hand or with vehicles (and it pains me to say that, since submarines are awesome). Does hand to hand even work underwater? Can you actually punch someone and have it hurt? Spearguns, though, ouch. The underwater scenes of this film just drag the pacing down, especially when such scenes would be done a lot better later on in For Your Eyes Only.

I admit bias toward the main villain, Emilio Largo, and it's not because of anything he does wrong. His character is well written and acted. Unfortunately that can't undo the fact I saw Austin Powers before this movie. Tragically, the moment I see that iconic eyepatch, all I can see is Number 2. Coupled with the fact his method of execution is one of the most parodied of all time (thrown in the shark pool), this is an unfortunate case of seeing the parody first. Not that this always happens, of course. I've seen plenty of parodies of such characters as Michael Myers (and since I just mentioned Austin Powers, I should clarify no, not that Michael Myers) and even Bond's own Blofeld (see: next movie) and I can still take those guys seriously. Even without these issues, Largo just didn't seem as fun a villain as Goldfinger.

Thankfully I do not have the same diminished view of the big bad's hench(wo)man Fione Volpe this time around. Occasionally the "femme fatale" character pops up in the Bond franchise, and Fiona sets the standard perfectly when she taunts Bond post-coitus: "... and she starts to hear heavenly choirs sing; she repents, and turns to the side of right and virtue... but not this one!" If Red Grant was the first villainous equivalent to Bond, then Fiona is the first female villainous equivalent. She is charming, independent, uses her charms to further her goals, and even has a motorcycle that fires rockets!

Speaking of fancy combustion-based gadgets, I'd be remiss not to mention the jetpack stunt from the opening scene. Bond has always been about practical effects, using CGI only sparingly (to... mixed results), and in 1965 this meant no substitutes - a real jetpack would have to be, and was, used. Piloted by Bill Suitor, one of very few people in the world qualified to pilot it (and also very safety-conscious, given he refused to do so without a helmet), the stunt seems very understated by is actually one of the greatest in Bond history. The concern wasn't that other stunt doubles could control the machine convincingly; the concern was that no one else could control it and survive. Stunt doubles are the real heroes, people.

How about the Bond girl, Domino (Claudine Auger)? She's.. eh. Another swimmer, another shell collector, another girl out to avenge a loved one deceased at the hands of the villain. Honey Ryder did it first, Honey Ryder did it better. If it sounds like I'm copping out with such a short description of Domino that's because I really don't have much else to work with. Though she is notable in so far being the only Bond girl to actually kill the villain. That's definitely a standout point for her resume. I just wish she was otherwise more interesting.

The elephant in the room regarding this film is, of course, the controversy surrounding its script and the conflict between Eon and Kevin McClory. To this day I'm not sure it's ever been made public exactly what Kevin McClory independently owned, but it's safe to say a large part of SPECTRE and the character of Blofeld are (were) among them. This led to a well-known lengthy legal dispute that culminated in the ejection of Blofeld from the main series timeline (until the Craig era) and the eventual creation of Never Say Never Again, which I will not be dedicating a section to on this site as it's not an official entry.

So, Thunderball. Loved at the time, subject to somewhat more scrutiny nowadays. Love it or hate it, it cannot be denied that its success was a boon to the future of the franchise. However, Sean Connery was tiring of the role...

You Only Live Twice (1967)

Coming soon!

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Coming soon!