This is the great thing about Bond, there's a film to suit most moods. Some days I want a serious spy thriller, other days I want Roger Moore in space with "lasers".
A James Bond Fan Reviews the Franchise
- Thread starter Admiral Shran
- Start date
This is the great thing about Bond, there's a film to suit most moods. Some days I want a serious spy thriller, other days I want Roger Moore in space with "lasers".
He could also be thinking of Rosa Klebb... (though I'd rather he didn't)
I've never been a big fan of Diamonds are Forever - it just sucks too much scrotey. And Bond in a white suit and pink tie?! Yeah, that's butch, init...? Funnily enough, I've always thought the best part of the film was Wint and Kidd. The rest of it is just arse...
^ Pretty much. You would think Blofeld would use some guards who carry things like - I don't know, maybe guns.
This is the greatest shame of the Bond movies, that YOLT was not done properly. The novel version is an awesome read, perhaps Fleming's best Bond book ever. The movie version can't help but seem like a pointless story in comparison. Why on earth did they even attempt to film YOLT before OHMSS?
You're just saying that to get a rise out of people, aren't you? Moonraker was the absolute nadir of the Bond franchise. It sucked giant goat balls.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
The most unbelievable thing about that scene is that overweight, out-of-shape Sean Connery could get the best of those girls. Working as a team, they could probably have wiped the floor with him.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
It's actually my joint favourite. I just can't decide between Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me. It is really the pinnacle and in many ways the end of the series - very few of the subsequent films even seem like proper Bond films. There's a certain unique style and class that the series lost somewhere.
If I remember correctly, it was because the location scouting for OHMSS took longer than expected since they needed to find a lot of high, snowy, alpine locations.
i suppose the scene would have been more interesting if they were wearing skimpy bathrobes lol.
I think the trouble is is that it's very hard to define what constitutes a good Bond film. Too many people want Bond to be a gritty realistic spy, when the reality is that there's maybe a handful of the 22 films where this is the case. FRWL definitely, OHMSS , LALD, FYEO, LTK Casino Royale and QoS (and even then you could argue against how realistic certain elements of those films are). Bond is, and should be IMO a fantasy hero, now that doesn't mean every film should be like Moonraker or Die Another Day (vastly underated in my opinion) but neither should every film be like FYEO (one of the most boring Bond films ever, and I say that as a fan of Roger).
As I said earlier, I like that I have a choice as to what kind of Bond film I watch, and as much as people may love or hate the Craig films, only a fool would imagine we've seen the end of the Moore/Brosnan excesses when it comes to Bond, in fact assuming Craig still does Bond 23 (and I really hope he does) I fully expect it to be more like a 'classic' Bond film.
Live and Let Die (****)
And so the Roger Moore era begins with....
James Bond meets blaxploitation. Ummmm..... okay.
Well, actually it's not as bad as it might sound. This is a very good Bond film, but you have to be willing to accept a radically different take on the character if you're going to enjoy it. Moore plays a more refined Bond who is much more willing to be self-deprecating than Connery's version. Now that's not to say that Connery's Bond wasn't cultured; he certainly was. However, Moore here brings that element of the character much more to the forefront while additionally playing up the humorous/comedic aspects of the character. If you can accept that, you'll enjoy this movie (and most of Moore's films). If not, then this movie is simply not for you.
For me, I can accept that. Moore is being very Lazenby-esque in his performance - focusing heavily on one aspect of Bond. However, unlike with Lazenby, Moore still retains that cold, brutal edge of Bond's. We only see it directly in flashes, but unlike with Lazenby it's always there, right under the surface. Maybe this was done to play more to Moore's strengths as an actor, I don't know. But whatever the reason is, I like it.
Aside from Moore, this movie has a lot going for it. While I'm certainly no fan of Paul McCartney, I have to admit that this title song is the catchiest of them all thus far. The movie strikes just the right balance between seriousness and campy fun. The action is very pulse-pounding - the boat chase through the bayou is definitely a stand-out. The performances from all the black characters are superb. Given that this movie was released at the height of the blaxploitation era, when black characters were finally allowed to be heros, it says a lot that so many wonderful actors were willing to play characters that everyone in the audience knew were going to lose in the end.
However, there are some major exceptions to the the goodness of Live and Let Die. The first is J. W. Pepper. Taken on his own, this is a very funny character. In just about any other movie, he would have worked wonderfully. However, in a Bond movie, he just seems so woefully out of place - especially since he's intercut with the biggest action piece of the film. This character is the one area where the movie stepped over the line into too much comedy. The second is the supernatual element. It's very odd to see someone with supernatural powers like Solitaire in a spy movie, especially in a series that has been relatively grounded in reality like Bond has up until now. However, thanks to the wonderful screenplay and a very convincing performance by Jane Seymour, it's not as bad as it could have been. Finally, while Quarrel Jr. is a passable sidekick for Bond, he doesn't hold a candle next to his father.
So, Roger Moore is off to a good start. Let's see if he can keep it up.
That's Amore: 20
Bond slept with Miss Caruso, Rosie Carver, and Solitaire.
Body Count: 88 (+8)
And so the Roger Moore era begins with....
James Bond meets blaxploitation. Ummmm..... okay.
Well, actually it's not as bad as it might sound. This is a very good Bond film, but you have to be willing to accept a radically different take on the character if you're going to enjoy it. Moore plays a more refined Bond who is much more willing to be self-deprecating than Connery's version. Now that's not to say that Connery's Bond wasn't cultured; he certainly was. However, Moore here brings that element of the character much more to the forefront while additionally playing up the humorous/comedic aspects of the character. If you can accept that, you'll enjoy this movie (and most of Moore's films). If not, then this movie is simply not for you.
For me, I can accept that. Moore is being very Lazenby-esque in his performance - focusing heavily on one aspect of Bond. However, unlike with Lazenby, Moore still retains that cold, brutal edge of Bond's. We only see it directly in flashes, but unlike with Lazenby it's always there, right under the surface. Maybe this was done to play more to Moore's strengths as an actor, I don't know. But whatever the reason is, I like it.
Aside from Moore, this movie has a lot going for it. While I'm certainly no fan of Paul McCartney, I have to admit that this title song is the catchiest of them all thus far. The movie strikes just the right balance between seriousness and campy fun. The action is very pulse-pounding - the boat chase through the bayou is definitely a stand-out. The performances from all the black characters are superb. Given that this movie was released at the height of the blaxploitation era, when black characters were finally allowed to be heros, it says a lot that so many wonderful actors were willing to play characters that everyone in the audience knew were going to lose in the end.
However, there are some major exceptions to the the goodness of Live and Let Die. The first is J. W. Pepper. Taken on his own, this is a very funny character. In just about any other movie, he would have worked wonderfully. However, in a Bond movie, he just seems so woefully out of place - especially since he's intercut with the biggest action piece of the film. This character is the one area where the movie stepped over the line into too much comedy. The second is the supernatual element. It's very odd to see someone with supernatural powers like Solitaire in a spy movie, especially in a series that has been relatively grounded in reality like Bond has up until now. However, thanks to the wonderful screenplay and a very convincing performance by Jane Seymour, it's not as bad as it could have been. Finally, while Quarrel Jr. is a passable sidekick for Bond, he doesn't hold a candle next to his father.
So, Roger Moore is off to a good start. Let's see if he can keep it up.
That's Amore: 20
Bond slept with Miss Caruso, Rosie Carver, and Solitaire.
Body Count: 88 (+8)
Well, I'd agree with that. I think though that even some of the films you name fall into the fantasy camp - OHMSS for instance has the most insane plot, and like "From Russia With Love" it has the same colourful, exotic look to it and just a sheen of sheer class that doesn't often seem to be present in the later films.
Oh I'd agree, hence the bit about how most of them have elements that are less than believable--even Casino Royale.
I like Live and Let Die, in a funny sort of a way it's probably quite progressive in that the black characters, whilst villains, are at least masters of their own destiny and not just disposable henchmen. As for the supernatural element...well for all we know solitaire is just very, very lucky!
Even the survival of Baron Samdei is plausible...ish!I'm glad you noted that Moore can be cold and calculating, people too often write him off as purely a comic actor and it just isn't strictly speaking true (take his comment to Rosie about the fact he certainly wouldn't have killed her before sex
) I once wrote a mini article extoling the virtues of Moore and claiming that the fact that he was so amenable most of the time makes his acts of brutality all the more brutal...because you expect it from Connery!
^ Remember the bit in The Wild Geese where Moore forces a drug dealer to ingest his own polluted product? He stands by coldly and watches him die. Plays the whole scene quite convincingly. Rog's 007 tenure could have used a little more of that, IMHO.
Having said that, I suppose all the Bonds have had the character written to play to their strength and there was no point in trying to out-Connery Connery with Moore, whose forte was light comedy.
I sometimes think that the Connery-Moore contrast is matched by looking at the most bankable American actors of the 1960s and of the 1960s. In the 60s it was Steve McQueen - surly, curt, brooding. In the 1970s, Burt Reynolds - smirking, wise-cracking and winking. Obviously Connery is nothing like McQueen nor Moore like Reynolds but it just showed that audiences wanted more of a wise-cracking lead in the 1970s than in the 1960s, when they wanted the tough laconic type.
Having said that, I suppose all the Bonds have had the character written to play to their strength and there was no point in trying to out-Connery Connery with Moore, whose forte was light comedy.
I sometimes think that the Connery-Moore contrast is matched by looking at the most bankable American actors of the 1960s and of the 1960s. In the 60s it was Steve McQueen - surly, curt, brooding. In the 1970s, Burt Reynolds - smirking, wise-cracking and winking. Obviously Connery is nothing like McQueen nor Moore like Reynolds but it just showed that audiences wanted more of a wise-cracking lead in the 1970s than in the 1960s, when they wanted the tough laconic type.
Oh, HELL no. The boat chase is probably the worst part of the movie. Awful, awful, awful pacing, it practically brings the movie to a screeching halt. Live and Let Die is one of the most overrated Bond films out there. It just boggles me why some people praise it like they do. Not the bottom of the barrel, but definitely on the lower end of the spectrum.
