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
Agreed. Moore showed more depth in the MR centrifuge trainer scene alone than Brosnan did in all 4 of his Bond films.
That's a tad harsh. What about the graveyard scene in GE?
Or even the subway scene with M in DAD?
I don't. I was watching the scene yesterday. While it does have a bit of a "Dalton feel" to it I thought Brosnan was fine. What does he do wrong performance wise? He looks confused and worried? Like you probably would in that situation.
I think its one of his better moments in GE.
Was there any need for that? Did you have to find some way of criticising Brosnans Bond (which me and other people like)? This thread has nothing to do with him. You could've just said that Moore shows alot of depth in that scene.
One film you've chosen I bet you can't come with much more outside of Bond, he not a block of wood but please don't make him out to be a talented actor because he's a film star and that is it, that film you mention is a rare example, he pretty much plays the same character in everything else.
<url>http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF1731E36EBC4151DFB0668382669EDE&partner=Rotten Tomatoes</url>
"Almost everyone connected with the movie is in top form, even Mr. Moore, who has a tendency to facetiousness when left to his own devices. Here he's as ageless, resourceful, and graceful as the character he inhabits. "
*grins*
should definitely be remade into a serious realistic script as the book intended, especially with today's cinematography effects and how were all living in a digital / technology age it would make great sense. In fact all the Moore films that used official Fleming book titles should be remade .Its a disgrace to keep TMWTG as it is, the film was a joke as well. Christopher Lee and Roger Moore against each other was like watching two old men with alzheimers play hide and go seek.
So I take it you are not a Roger Moore fan?
O:-)
8-X
'North Sea Hijack', 'The Wild Geese', 'A Princess for Christmas'.... plenty of films where Sir Rog displays great acting talent.
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0285462/
You are missing the point of Roger, which was neither to bring Fleming to the screen nor to offer a deep character deconstruction of Bond. Roger is an entertainer and a brilliant one. I feel sorry for any one who cannot appreciate his Bond. Roger's Bond is a delight.
I'm a fan of Ian Fleming's James Bond, not silly action, out of place villains ,ridiculous stunts or constant one liners coming from an old man trying to act like a cliched secret agent . Give me substance, serious acting, realistic plots and the way James Bond was intended to be, serious and to The point, no jumping over alligators or hanging off a jumbo blimp in San Francisco. Moore's tenure in my opinion isn't james bond, its in the same category as Austin Powers is for me, just a big spoof.
Eh ? James Bond was never meant to be realistic ! Fleming's Bond is much closer to Moore in TMWTGG, than to Craig's Bond ! The 2 Craig movies have nothing, nothing in common with Fleming's Bond apart from the name 'James Bond'. Even Brosnan in DAD is much, much closer to Fleming's Bond than Craig. I don't know if you read any of the Fleming novels, but the films DAF, LALD and TMWTGG are much closer to Fleming than Craig's CR and QOS. Whenever I read Fleming I picture Moore as Bond.
no not really.....
The 2 Craig films have nothing in common with Ian Fleming. Im assuming you never read or saw CR. If you did you would know Casino Royal is one of the few, if not only bond film that relied heavily on the original book. The 2 kills earned for double O status, vespers betrayal to bond, the torturing scene...I can go on and on, for you to say CR 2006 has no relevance to Fleming's Style of Bond is not only absurd, but just flat out bedazzling.
Everything you just said DaltonCraig007 is what applies to Moore. Daniel Craig is a blunt instrument, here's Yuri Zhukov's description of Ian Fleming's bond ",
Yuri Zhukov, Pravda, 30
September 1965
"James Bond lives in a
nightmarish world where laws
are written at the point of a
gun, where coercion and rape
are considered valour and
murder is a funny
trick….Bond's job is to guard
the interests of the property
class, and he is no better than
the youths Hitler boasted he
would bring up like wild
beasts to be able to kill
without thinking."
That doesnt sound too much like Roger Moore too me, but it does sound like Connery or Craigs style of Bond.
Point concluded.
@TouchmyButtons you are not the holder of truth on Fleming or Bond here, not everyone follows your opinion.... I think you are very much mistaken on Craig and Fleming, and my opinion is that Craig is nothing like Fleming, CR 2006 is nothing like Fleming. For me Sir Rog is far closer to Fleming than Craig, and TMWTGG '74 is one of the most Flemingesque Bond film.
The 2 kills he did to earn 00 status were different actually (in the book I think one was with a sniper rifle and the other a bedroom fight), Vespers betrayal was also different.
The alligator stunt was real, so were most of the other stunts. The villians in Moore's films were good and memorable, much better than the villians in the modern Bond films, and Moore wasn't looking old until OP.
Also, Moore isn't a "cliche secret agent" because Moore and Connery STARTED the cliche. Back in the 70s, none of that was cliche. Plus, you're unfairly stereotyping Moore. He had plenty of dark, serious moments.
So hate all you want about Moore and his movies. You can't erase them. What you fail to realise is the Bond series isn't set in stone. It doesn't HAVE to be Fleming Fleming Fleming, CRaig Craig Craig. It's a fluid system that can use and interchange different themes and ideas in different times. No one expects SF to have Moore-esque performance by Craig or have a similar plot to MR. But whose to say in 10, 20 years we won't have another Bond like Moore and films of that much?
MR rocks and so does Moore!
MR novel has a lot of similarities with DAD
The use of a weapon in space
but thank you for answering the question.
http://www.hmss.com/films/dad/p&w/