It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
My heart. :)
True, the Moore movies had been piggybacking off soft, romantic themes ever since TSWLM, and by OP it was getting tiring.
As for something controversial, I know LALD is widely revered on this forum, so I'll have to say that I'm one of those people who have it squarely in the middle. Completely average - which is funny, because there's very little that's downright average about it (other than the forgettable bits). The stuff you do remember is always either definitely good or downright bad, but the reason it's mediocre in my view is that for every good I can think for the film, I can think of something bad.
I would agree that LALD is one of, if not the most average film in the series. It's supposed to be the most bizarre but I'd say most of it is quite tame. Feels like some scenes go on too long as well and like TMWTGG and OP it could be trimmed a little.
(Although when I use the term 'average' I usually mean below-average in my rankings. Which defeats the purpose of using the word 'average' but whatever.)
It's somewhere in the middle for me as well, but that is mainly because it's up there with DN as my favorite Bond novel and I wish the screenwriters wouldn't have changed things to the extent they did.
If Bond was a little more like Sin City, that would be a good thing.
Personally, though, I'm not seeing how Lazenby could ever be regarded to be above Craig. Craig has literally everything Lazenby has and more (actual charisma and acting experience, more class, etc.)
I prefer Lazenby's portrayal of Bond. More chipper and carefree; a bachelor's taste for freedom. But serious and tough when called for. It may well be the era that Lazenby was in, but he just seemed to have more class than Craig. I do think our preference for eras (old or modern) will affect our judgements.
I recently lent a friend OHMSS and one of his comments was how like an Oxbridge type Bond was. They've lost something of Bond's class in recent years. I feel like Craig's Bond doesn't really come across too much like he's from an upper class background.
absolutely.
I see LALD as above average until that boat chase drags on forever.
Wow, you're right. That never occurred to me before. They say Connery was the same way, before TY took him under his wing for Dr No.
Definitely agree with you here. Connery and Dalton are my top choices with Lazenby coming in third. Brosnan had the elegance but got stuck with terrible puns, Moore's goofy take was fun but not 100% my cup of tea and Craig is a good actor but he's a bit too thuggish for Bond.
Isn't it very difficult to judge Lazenby as Bond since he has only made one film? Lazemby has never become an established actor. I think most people defend Lazenby because OHMSS is their favourite Bond film. If he had starred a worse Bond film he would have been criticized much more.
That being said, Lazenby brought a vulnerability to the character that was quite new not only for Bond but for the action hero prototype in general. Also, the man had class. When he walked around the room he wasn't some sort of jumped-up bodybuilding thug, he looked like an intelligent and refined gentleman.
I agree on the first but disagree on the latter. I think that Lazenby is great in the romatic scenes and also in the sad ending, as well as in the fight sequences. However I think that the other Bond actors have been able to express more class and to deliver the lines better. Maybe I am unfair, but to me Lazemby has always been a bit wooden in many of the dialouge scenes.
It is as good as TSWLM, they are so similar that it is illogical not to have them near each other in rankings.
=D>
They made a shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. They're virtually identical, except the original is a masterpiece and the remake is a PoS. Just because films are similar, does not make them similar quality.
MR is not a shot-for-shot remake of TSWLM so the comparison is invalid.
Agree here. Probably not a shot-for-shot remake but a very similar film. Just compare the PTS. One big advantage of TSWLM is that Jaws was a scary and very memorable henchman where as he was only overly silly and cartoonish in Moonraker. They also ruined part of the film by the high amount of campy scenes. Hence unlike TSWLM you probably find 3 or 4 Moonraker scenes in a top10 worst Bond film moments list.
Moonraker also has one of the most forgetable theme songs, but the score is great. One of the few categories where MR indeed beats TSWLM.
Unlike most people I find the Space sequence (Third Act) much better than the first two acts on earth. Maybe just because of the great set and the great score.
I would have liked to see more Bond in space in that film. Most of the rest of the film, however, is very boring and silly. I also don't care much for any of the characters, all that country hopping and the silly action sequneces.
One line that's always bugged me is the "Intensive care but she'll pull through" line. I know I'm nit-picking but I always ask myself: How did she end up in intensive care? Are we meant to think Mrs Bell suffering a heart attack or something similar as a result of Bond's actions was meant to be funny? ~X(
It just feels like a poor, slightly unpleasant attempt at silly humour to me.