keep the films serious and realistic.

chrisisall

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

I'm a Fleming fan but you have to lead a pretty miserable existence not to be able to enjoy MR.

Colour me miserable then. :))

TheWizardOfIce

chrisisall wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

I'm a Fleming fan but you have to lead a pretty miserable existence not to be able to enjoy MR.

Colour me miserable then. :))

Fair enough.

One of my maxims in life is 'never get stuck in a lift with a bloke who doesnt enjoy a bit of Roger Moore.'

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

I'm a Fleming fan but you have to lead a pretty miserable existence not to be able to enjoy MR.

Colour me miserable then. :))

Fair enough.

One of my maxims in life is 'never get stuck in a lift with a bloke who doesnt enjoy a bit of Roger Moore.'

That's why I always take the stairs. My maxim is 'Never ride in an elevator with a Roger Moore Bond fan. Anyone that insane is dangerous to be in such close proximity to and needs institutionalization.'

Joking of course, folks. I like you all, no matter your tastes.
>:D<

chrisisall

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

One of my maxims in life is 'never get stuck in a lift with a bloke who doesn't enjoy a bit of Roger Moore.'

Oh, I love TMWTGG, OP, and even TSWLM. Isn't that a bit?
:-?

Jones_The_Bond

The biggest surprise for me is that @chrisisall has condemned both Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only as 'unwatchable.' They are usually considered the polar-opposites of the Moore years in terms of tone and pacing, so I found that an interesting verdict.

I'm in the Getafix and TheWizardOfIce school on this one. Moonraker is surely the most beautiful Bond film to look at (and those Ken Adam sets look jaw-dropping on BluRay) and can certainly be enjoyed if approached lightly. John Barry and Rog are on form, and Lewis Gilbert is at his most audacious.

The real enemy it seems here is Disco. @chrisisall, you must stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood, and defeat this allergic reaction you appear to have to that jaunty musical genre. If it is stopping you enjoying MR and FYEO, then I class it as a serious medical affliction that is restricting your Bond viewing pleasure.

Take 3 Bee Gees, 5 Jacksons, a dose of Donna Summers, all washed down by KC & The Sunshine Band, and you'll feel right as rain in the morning.

Bassey's disco version of the Moonraker theme \:D/

002

No...i like my bond films to be like The Moore/Dalton 80s films and The Brosnan 90's Films...Realistic but fun and have a sense of Joie de vivre...Skyfall did it like that especially with the humour which made it extra special (wait...it actually saved the film its like the horrible humourless Bourneism feel from 2008-2011- speaking of course of QOS film and the spin-off media: Blood Stone and The Goldeneye Reloaded games was gone and we had proper "James Bond" back

Sandy

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

I'm a Fleming fan but you have to lead a pretty miserable existence not to be able to enjoy MR.

Colour me miserable then. :))

Fair enough.

One of my maxims in life is 'never get stuck in a lift with a bloke who doesnt enjoy a bit of Roger Moore.'

That's a nice one, I'll keep that in mind. I can watch MR without any problems, although it's my least favourite Moore outing and one of my two least favourite Bond films. There are some very fun bits in between the really bad stuff. DAD, on the other hand, causes me physical pain for the most part :-S

thelivingroyale

I like Die Another Day up until Iceland. Up until then it's a film some dodgy moments, a terrible Bond girl and some shoved in references, but it's still fun and enjoyable with a good performance by Brosnan. When it gets to Iceland the film takes a major nose dive in quality.

Anyway, I think every Moore film is watchable. I rank MR and AVTAK towards the bottom but in terms of entertainment value they still beat lots of Bond films. Moore is just brilliant and he makes anything watchable.

actonsteve

Getafix wrote:

Edit- was refering to previous email before Jwestbrook.

That's what I'm saying - that the Connery Bonds seem to me to be very close in spirit to the books. I wouldn't personally describe the Connery era as particularly 'dark' but that's your view. What I don't understand is why some see Craig as closer to Fleming. Obviously I need to read more but for me MR just 'felt' like the Connery era films. I guess the period feel is a large part of that though.

Well, the early Connery Bonds had the luxury of Flemings original stories.

I feel Craig is closer to Fleming as he is more three dimensional and a damn good actor. The foibles and neurosis of Flemings character seem to be played better by him. The actor has a whiff of a loner in him (as has Dalts) which fits the literary character.

actonsteve

Getafix wrote:

I added to my previous post, but yes I enjoyed MR, particularly the opening section at MI6 and Blades. It made me a little more sympathetic to those who argue M is justified in having a larger role. Having said that, I am looking forward to a male M again. Although not sure Fiennes is old enough.

Very pleased you are enjoying Fleming. MR£ is a good one but I feel doesnt seem to rocket along until the car chase on the way back to Deal/Andover.Sir Hugo von der Drache explaining his background and plan is extraordinary.

Describing his panzer division attacking the British lines

"Cutting through like a knife through butter. Intoxicating."

chrisisall

actonsteve wrote:

I feel Craig is closer to Fleming as he is more three dimensional and a damn good actor. The foibles and neurosis of Flemings character seem to be played better by him. The actor has a whiff of a loner in him (as has Dalts) which fits the literary character.

L-) I agree. I like Connery & Brosnan but really Dalton & Craig own the role at this point IMO.