Comments on: Sean Connery As Bond Bad Guy

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:01:52 +0000

I think this is a good move and a bad move. This is good because it is Sean Connery in the Bond Franchise again. Bad because people will see him as a bad Bond not a disillusioned bad guy like most villains in the Bond universe.

I have to say if he came out retirement for anything it would be Bond but he said that for Indiana Jones as well and that isn’t going to happen.

Leave Connery in retirement.

By: JAck

JAck — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:33:12 +0000

If they are going to bring Sean Connery out of retirement how about this……James Bond, brought out of retirement to help train a new 007 who later on it is learned is his son from one of his many flings!!!!!

By: takata

takata — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:50:21 +0000

I would like to see sir Connery in one last role.
Nothing better then make it possible in the movie who made him world famous.
If not like a villan,why not someone on british govern or even in the MI6?
about John coment, i desagree Connery use the same style a lot of monster legends of the past use .
You believe him as character but is always Connery taking a diferent “persona”all the Connery “ism” are there always.
The same for Niro,Pacino,Nicholson.
And you love then because of it.(well some people hate then because of it)
Thats why actors like Crowe and Bale are on my best list.
They desapear in the role.

By: Matt S.

Matt S. — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:00:17 +0000

I think people need to lay off of bashing the name of Bond 22. It is the name of short story from Fleming himself. He came up with the name.

By: Ezell

Ezell — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 07:23:18 +0000

That would kick ass so much if Connery was the villain wow. Who cares about how much it cost to pay Connery the Bond Films are the highest grossing film series world wide take that Harry Potter you piece of shit movies.

By: kryptonite

kryptonite — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:37:02 +0000

Actually, the worst possible title for a movie, EVER, would be any combination of the words “War”, “Prince”, “God”, and “Peace”. Throw in a couple of “of”s, and you have title of disastrous, nay, APOCALYPTIC proportions.

Glad no one’s actually ever been fool enough to use such an insanely ludicrous title before!

JK John!

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:18:38 +0000

Connery or no Connery, I agree with John. Casino Royale was the best Bond movie so far, and Craig makes a kickass Bond. As far as Connery’s age? 60 year old Harrison Ford is playing Indy again, so I think age is irrelavant.

By: alfie

alfie — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:04:07 +0000

connery is an old ham and the acting world is better for having him retire. he was great as bond but that is where his career begins and ends. everything outside of that is awful.

and casting him as a villain would totally undo all the good work they did in casino royale. It would be horrible.

By: thegoodfella

thegoodfella — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:35:57 +0000

Sorry John, I think it would be an awful move. The last time the producers succumbed to that brand of self-referential near-parody resulted in Die Another Day – one of the weakest films in the series. For Connery to return would be one big step back after the breath of fresh air that was Casino Royale; they might as well bring back the infamous Roger Moore safari suit!

Take these rumours with a pinch of salt though; there’s been countless speculation over the years of Connery making a return to the series either as Bond’s father or as a villain, but it’s all been completely without substance.

By: Mozzerino

Mozzerino — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:32:38 +0000

Bullshit.
Connery is retired and if he wouldn’t return for Spielberg and INDY 4, he sure as hell won’t return to work for the Brocollis, who are still producing Bond.
The Brocollis probably still hate his guts and they kind of have good reason for it. You guys need to catch up with Bond history.
Keep dreaming, this will never ever ever happen.
There is no truth whatsoever to this.