Because I hate Sean Connery….

Image of Sean Connery in Zardoz (1974)

….I really want to see Zardoz (1974). I mean what kind of loser runs around in a red loincloth with a hippie ponytail for 90 minutes? So, for all you Connery Bond fans, this is the single best argument for why Roger Moore is by far the great Bond—he never stooped to such levels of utter debasement. Get more of Connery’s flesh from the trailer (which I might add is quite trippy and appealing).

Hat tip for video: Tim Hauser

This entry was posted in movies and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Because I hate Sean Connery….

  1. Brad K says:

    I own this on DVD. One of the greatest cinematic WTF of all time,IMHO. The trailer really sells it, I think.

  2. Alan Levine says:

    I’ve lost all respect for ya, Rev- “Roger Moore” as best Bond? He was so freaking plastic, so I bet you like Pierce Bronson even more.

    No thoughts on Zardoz, but for those acting fees, I would do the loincloth gig… Most actors have a few bad agent days at the movie selection process…

  3. I own this too. It is one of the most (unintentionally) hilarious movies ever. Really.

  4. Reverend says:

    @Brad & Claudia,

    You have mde my desire to see this, against all reason, that much greater 🙂

    @CogDog,
    This Connery is pimp, money doesn’t make the man As for Roger Moore, he and Brosnan are by far my favorite Bonds. The world has been working under the false idea that Sean Connery can actually act, and the fact that Roger Moore was a camp Bond suggests that he is by far the better actor, how easy is it to take this role seriously, to play it tongue and cheek is the real challenge. Daniel Craig is a perfect example of this, I mean this guy is a dead fish as Bond, it’s depressing to watch him go through the motions—what a nightmare Bond has become since the Halcyon days of Moonraker. But, this argument is the fodder for a much bigger post, and that post will be written at some point (although I’m not sure soon, for I have a lot of re-watching to do before I can tackle this appropriately 🙂 )

  5. this make me want to collect this movie. haaa

  6. Alan Levine says:

    Yikes, I knew I was on shaky ground to step in the ring with the Rev on movies. The thing about movies is there are so many levels to take them in at; and seeing the way you describe the deadpan (what I call plastic) Moore as more of being Bond as a tongue in cheek mockery of such a hero figure, versus more at taking it in less critically as just an action flick, make sense. I guess I always took the Bond flicks more as straight up action movies w/o the subtext I am likely missing.

    I’d be curious to read your future take on this phrase “can / can’t act” which to me is really super subjective, and again, depends on that lens in which we watch movies from our own reference.

    Ultimately, I find it fascinating that a piece of media like a movie can generate such varied responses among us, and that’s what makes the bantering fun.

    Yeah, bring it on, Rev. But can I get “Q” on my side? That guy was always a highlight for me.

    PS- As a kid I had a James Bond plastic toy briefcase, that would open to reveal gadgets (er, weapons), the most favorite being a button on top of the latch that could fire a dart from the side of the case.

  7. Reverend says:

    Alan,

    I think arguing for Moore as the best Bond may very well be sacrilege, and that’s why it’s fun. I agree with you entirely about the subjective nature of what draws you to a film or actor or not. It has so much to do with so many factors beyond the film, you’re first exposure, your age, your memory of the film, your attachment to the poster, the people you saw it with, the popcorn you ate, the Drops you insisted on your brother buying. It is potentially endless, and like so many things moves far beyond the actual work, yet I guess the idea of returning to the work is what many would argue is key, but it is also not true to my experience, and that’s what I am interested in here, and that’s what is fun for me.

    I grew up with Moore as the one and only Bond, and didn’t even see the Connery Bonds until the late 80s early 90s. Moore defined Bond, and the gadgets during his reign were the best the had ever been (your briefcase is a perfect example). In many ways this is one of the reasons the new Bond is so unappealing to me, not only is Craig uninspired, but there are no gadgets, some affected purists might argue this is somehow good, but how can it be when it is purely supplemented with more nonsensical action that leaves the plot line flat.

    As for talking with me about film, well I’m really just a philistine when it comes to film, but I truly do love to have fun in the discussion. I think there is nothing I like to talk about more, and while my education has huge gaps, it is a space I yearn to fill with just banter and play—which despite your feigned hesitation, we both know you excel at, so I’ll have to restart my formative 10 with Moonraker, as a way to frame this conversation about Moore and Connery more specifically and get at all those subjective factors you bring in here so nicely.

    Thanks for playing, Alan.

  8. Luke says:

    I’ll confess: I liked Dalton, though I’m the only one who did that I ever met. License to Kill is underrated. Want camp? Try a young Benicio Del Toro doing a Sal Mineo impression:

  9. Chris L says:

    You’ve lost it man. Until Craig, Connery was the best Bond. Reinventing was just what was needed and they did a remarkable job (with the first one… the second was so-so). I personally had plenty enough of the gadgets and lack of emotion… I thought the limited gadgetry in the new Bonds (it goes to show how overdone it’s been in the past that you position it as if there weren’t any gadgets at all) and the actual engagement with some emotional depth (particularly in the first new one) was a great improvement on a franchise that had seen much better days. the only dead fish around here was the flopping corpse of the last entries with Brosnan.

    I mean Brosnan? Really? He seems like a nice enough guy in real life, but he has the depth (and emotion) of a saucer of milk.

  10. Chris L says:

    On top of all this I am starting to think the Reverend doth protest too much– what do you *really* think about Connery in the loin cloth?

  11. Reverend says:

    Chris,

    I love him, as Faulkner said of the corncob, “I am the loincloth!” 🙂

  12. The weird red diaper/loincloth outfit thing was extremely disturbing – but hilarious at the same time. To anyone who hasn’t seen this, that picture up there is NOT photoshop. I have no idea why anyone thought that looked good. I gotta say, the boots really make that outfit though.

  13. Daashill Vench says:

    Roger Moore is a hairdresser. Sean Connery is the real deal on every level. You my friend, are confused.

  14. Reverend says:

    Hey Daashill,
    Get your head outta your ass, did you see the picture above of your boy Connery? The man has no dignity.

  15. CPB says:

    @Reverend – Couldn’t agree more! You are so right!

    @Alan – If by “plastic” you meant ‘attractive’, then yes, Brosnan was the most plastic Bond. God forbid a guy women are supposed to be attracted to is, ya’know, ATTRACTIVE. Sean Connery and his affected accent irritate me to no end. Good riddance to him, and here’s hoping they replace Craig asap.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.