True. Yes, and once you see Pleasance holding a gun like its some alien object, one is forced to think, "Wait...THIS guy is head of international terrorism/crime organization?" Gray was the worst part of Diamonds Are Forever because he lacked the confidence and menace of Savalas' take. Gray's performance seemed like parody of the kind of "snobbish English villain" cutouts seen on too many spy and/or adventure TV series from the 60s. Agreed.
DAF Blofeld only works if OHMSS never existed, which I know some of the production team wanted people to start believing. I can buy that the Gray Blofeld is a slightly less psychotic version of the Pleasance Blofeld, just with a toupee or hair transplant. British, smug and a sinister look in his eyes. But yeah, even then he doesn't work the way he should.
In defence of Gray and Pleasance here. I mean first off Donald Pleasance is a legend, and there's no reason to imagine one becomes head of a any kind of huge organisation purely on your ability with a handgun (see M in Skyfall!) Plus the guy was an actual war hero, bomber crew shot down and captured by the Germans, an actual POW who then played a POW in The Great Escape! I wouldn't disagree that Michael Myers has tainted Pleasance's Blofeld somewhat! As for Gray, there are moments, where the campness slips and you can envisage that Blofeld is a nasty piece of work. Plus he never said "Cuckoo" so there's that! Savalas has gone up in my estimation as Blofeld though. How would I rank them? 1. Savalas/Pleasance 2. Gray 3. Waltz I still maintain that a universe where Waltz played Le Chriffre and Mikkeslen played Blofeld would have been soo much better.
Yeah, Gray is definitely better than Waltz. Christoph Waltz as Ernst Stavro Blofeld is one of the biggest wasted opportunities in modern movie history. I'll take campy and silly over ineffective and boring.
Can't agree even a little. I think Dalton had charisma to burn. To me, he combined the dash and flair of an old-school matinee idol with smoldering intensity and serious acting chops. I will go to my grave not understanding why his Bond wasn't celebrated with ticker-tape parades, and why he didn't become a major movie star. (Can you tell I've had a huge man-crush on Dalton since 1987?) So much this. In The Living Daylights, more than any other film in the canon, Bond comes off as a romantic hero in the classic sense. And that's down to Dalton's performance, as well as his wonderful chemistry with d'Abo. I actually think their romance is more organic and believable than the more self-conscious efforts of OHMSS and CR. Both of these are laugh-out-loud funny. The first is perfectly capped by Koskov's terrified scream that is abruptly cut off when Bond slams the capsule shut. Something interesting about that second bit, which I only realized consciously after multiple viewings: The music when we cut to Bond waiting in the car is not a comedic cue, some kind of "wah-wah-wah" note to reinforce the joke. Instead, it's a romantic cue, letting the joke speak for itself while subtly emphasizing the moment's significance to Bond and Kara's growing relationship.
This is glowing tribute to Charles Gray and his wonderful Mankiewicz line and delivery. https://www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/15-shades-of-gray
The introduction failed to mention George Lazenby but at least he was shown in the retrospective along with OHMSS.
They showed him, and Dalton, a fair bit which pleased me. A lot of Connery and Craig (which I guess makes sense as they bookend the 60 years) but not enough Rog and I didn't notice too much Brosnan.
I know I'm in a distinct minority here, but I can't stand Waltz as an actor in anything I've seen, including the Tarantino films.
Not OHMSS-related but an interesting study of how the film that in many ways was the polar opposite of that movie changed things for not only the James Bond film franchise but the wider entertainment world.
Moonraker is goofier than a weed party at Clown College but damn, is it a lot of fun to watch and never grows old. And John Barry's score is one of his best in the entire series.
I think the video really tries to over sell it, though. I mean the argument that the film masterfully balances the silly with the serious I think just conveniently ignores that it was likely the result of two radically different scripts being mashed together that resulted in some odd tonal juxtapositions. I also don't think it's Moore's best performance. I think his first was his best -- a trend that I think continued with all the subsequent Bonds. (Save for maybe Dalton, but his was a unique situation.) I think once each found his voice and own take, they just stamped out the performances. This is especially true for Moore and Brosnan with their TV backgrounds. And while I agree with what he said about Dr. Goodhead, even that is countermanded somewhat because Chiles ranks near the very bottom of the list of Bond ladies' acting ability. I also think he missed the point on Drax. Who really wasn't supposed to be a would-be do-gooder gone bad so much as a Bondian-blown-to-exponential-proportions take on the rise of 'out there' cults over the previous decade. Not to mention the huge rise in popularity of the books by that L. Ron Whateverguy's books But the video does nothing to address the many flaws of the film. Or even that, despite its setting, its visual scope is really toned down, especially for a Bond film. There are many shots in the film that aren't nearly as cinematic as they should be. So while I will always adore it and will forever been the Bond film I've watched the most, it is, on its very best day, a C+ film and not some long-lost diamond waiting to be unearthed.