Wow, this was shot only 9 years after Dr No, in the first Bond film Sean Connery looks like a 30 years old and in Diamonds are Forever like 55 or something.
He aged so badly and in the late 80s till early 2000s he didn't age at all.
Yeap, from you only live twice when he was 37 to diamonds 41 he changed a heck of a lot....
shareI wonder sometimes if they had the makeup department do a bad job on him on purpose as an *beep* you at him for walking away after YOLT and then coming back to DAF for an obscene amount of money (some of which he later gave to a Scottish charity).
shareIronically, Connery somehow looks healthier in Never Say Never Again, which was made 12 years later.
share"Connery somehow looks healthier in Never Say Never Again, which was made 12 years later".
Must have been those free radicals...
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan
I think at this point in his life (early 1970s) Connery just let himself go
He and his wife were getting divorced
He had a few films which flopped-- THE MOLLY MAGUIRES and THE RED TENT
However, in 1971 he made a comeback with THE ANDERSON TAPES and DAF, both big hits
And the two that were flops were much better than the two that were hits. Typical.
shareAnd the two that were flops were much better than the two that were hits. Typical.
---
The late, great Walter Matthau said, "There are two types of movies. Good movies..and movies that make money. Rarely are they one and the same."
Not really, I thought he looked decent in “Meteor” which was made in 79 even though he was bald in that one & he was presentable in “The Untouchables” so no it wasn’t a total wash.
shareConnery was bald since Dr No and wore a hairpiece throughout his entire run as Bond. I agree with the OP, he looked awful in DAF.
shareI think people are being overly critical....and perhaps they're just holding Connery to a higher standard, because he always looked fantastic. Granted, he looked a bit less fantastic in this one.....but far from bad. A LONG way from bad...
I mean....am I missing something??
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm3526437120/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm1505199360/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm2897708288/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm2713158912/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm3739944704/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm1521976576/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm2696381696/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm60721409/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm2183613184/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm3609473280/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066995/mediaviewer/rm1579430144/
Let ME look this "bad"......................at ANY age!
Am I missing something??
Here endeth the lesson.
He looked greying, and overweight with somewhat dishevelled hair. Compare that to the svelte and well-groomed Connery you see in Thunderball, the difference is night and day. You make a good point about being held to a higher standard. He is held to a higher standard because he was James Bond and that standard dropped significantly in DAF. To be fair, he did look a lot better than Moore did in AVTAK but thats not exactly saying much.
shareWell, he was 41 when DAF was filmed. He looks good in these photos you have linked sure... but he looks good for a 55-60 year old.... not for someone who just turned 40.
He was actually still 40 when DAF was filmed but 100% agree. I think the producers were so desperate to have him back they let him get away with murder so this was reflected in his appearance and performance.
share
Smoking and booze, it does that to ones features, it completely fucks up the skin over time.
He sure looked like he was aging. That struck me immediately.
share