› ›

The ROGER MOORE Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

1…34689…46

Comments

  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Moore himself said that The Spy Who Loved Me was his favorite to do, and if you look back, you can see why

    Not my favorite Moore Bond release, or Bond actor, but for sure did very well here and there and I have him above Lazenby and Brosnan in the actors rankings, but I think that's about as high as he'll ever go for me. Simply can't better the other names for James Bond and all it entails. He was James Bond, of course, in my favorite Bond release Live and Let Die @jfree92
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    I wanna chime in again b/c I get excited when others talk about how fun Moore was as Bond. Anyone that thinks different should re-watch them again. And again. He grows on you more and more. His easy charm and quick wit are so effortless and enjoyable how can anyone resist?

    Whenever I do a Bond-a-thon his films always go up in rankings for me, even AVTAK. What's funny is, Moore gets better and better as he goes along. He had so much fun in the role you can't help but enjoy watching him. He's the gentlemen Bond, the posh, smooth, UNFLAPPABLE British agent. Yes, he could do the humor better than anyone IMO but he could also be ruthless, more so than most casual fans give him credit. That ticks me.

    "Oh, Moore was the goofy Bond! His films sucked." Dude, wth? Have you even seen them or is that your cursory perception of what you think you heard? That makes me mad. If more people would revisit his films they would have a greater appreciation for his tenure. He was the best!
  • EllisEllis
    Posts: 224
    As others have said, Roger had fun in the role. He loved being Bond, and it showed. The scene in TMWTGG, in Maud Adams room, is a superb example. He was Fleming-like, in that scene. But, at the same time, he was being a loveable rogue.
  • senthilvelsenthilvel
    Posts: 48
    Moore clearly understood his stand as Bond that cannot be compared with the stellar performance of Connery from any angle. But Moore could make the role enjoyable with a comedy coating that was somewhat a relief at that time. He also could prove that in the absence of Connery the Bond franchise could continue to rake in collections. His Bond depiction in The Spy Who Loved Me was closer to that of Connery. But after that he just prolonged his stay as Bond with no much seriousness and one feels that Moore could have given up after For Your Eyes Only. Octopussy and A View to a Kill were not upto the mark. Any way we like Sir Roger Moore who helped sustain the Bond mania after Connery. His ambassador role in UN particularly for the welfare of worldwide children is always remembered. Long live Roger!
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Moore, without wishing to state what may be the obvious, was 1970s Bond. Ok, he was involved from 1980-85, but it's so easy to overlook those entries sometimes, and apart from Connery making an (ill advised) appearance at the start of the decade, it was Moore's platform all the way through, as with Connery in the 1960s, for the most part, and Brosnan in the 1990s

    I've berated him a few times, but that's only because I'm not one for humor in James Bond, and Moore simply gave it away in abundance all a little too often. Still provided a worldwide audience to some great and memorable moments, but as there's another opportunity to say it, really should of quit the part in 1981. Roger just embarrassed himself thereafter, where a younger name could, and should, of come in and taken over

    goodnight
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    The_Reaper wrote:
    I wanna chime in again b/c I get excited when others talk about how fun Moore was as Bond. Anyone that thinks different should re-watch them again. And again. He grows on you more and more. His easy charm and quick wit are so effortless and enjoyable how can anyone resist?

    Whenever I do a Bond-a-thon his films always go up in rankings for me, even AVTAK. What's funny is, Moore gets better and better as he goes along. He had so much fun in the role you can't help but enjoy watching him. He's the gentlemen Bond, the posh, smooth, UNFLAPPABLE British agent. Yes, he could do the humor better than anyone IMO but he could also be ruthless, more so than most casual fans give him credit. That ticks me.

    "Oh, Moore was the goofy Bond! His films sucked." Dude, wth? Have you even seen them or is that your cursory perception of what you think you heard? That makes me mad. If more people would revisit his films they would have a greater appreciation for his tenure. He was the best!


    You're thoughts mirror mine completley, fashionable / cliched critcisms of these films get very old.
  • samainsysamainsy Suspended
    Posts: 199
    He did too many,should have started TMWTGG and finished with OP.
  • CriticAndProudCriticAndProud
    Posts: 27
    Roger Moore is my favourite Bond by a slight margin ( All of the others are still brilliant though). He managed to be so many different things at once, and it worked. His films were also the best IMO. To me realism shouldn't get to much in the way of a good romp. That's not to say I want invisible cars driving around dodging laser beams, but have a happy medium between realism and escapism, like FYEO or LALD.

    People criticise him for not taking it completely seriously but honestly that is some of the appeal. It's funny I should say that since Dalton and Craig, the most gritty and serious Bonds are equal second place on my ranking of Bond Actors, but I love the eyebrow raising, drug dealer inflating, midget bashing fun of the Moore era.

    I was glad to see Skyfall bring back a bit of that fun and combine it with the grit of CR. It reminded me of the tone of FYEO in a way.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    Posts: 2,402
    We all know I'm not the biggest fan of how he turned the series into self-parody, but at the same time, I enjoy three of his films thoroughly and get a guilty pleasure out of another. I've always respected that, unlike Brosnan, he knew his limitations as an actor and didn't try to be better than he was. He actually did a fantastic job with TMWTGG, unfortunately it's a great Bond performance locked in a horrible movie. I appreciate that he had fun with the role, as well.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,848
    StirredNotShaken wrote:
    We all know I'm not the biggest fan of how he turned the series into self-parody
    I disagree. He lightened it up, but 'twas MR that brought it into Flint territory. His Bond was generally good IMO.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Definitley MR casts a big shadow because of it's ridiculousness, the rest of the films are great action/adventures with plenty of humour.
  • retrokittyretrokitty The Couv
    Posts: 380
    I have to say that the Americanisms in Moore's Bond films seem out of place or not Bondian to me. I love a good car chase as much as the next person but AVTAK and TMWTGG had car chases that were more American than Bondian. It's hard to explain. And adding Sheriff Pepper (and that was early remember) as such a large and recurring character made those movies ridiculous.

    That said... Having seen all Moore's Bond movies, but for LALD, in the cinema in the last week, my appreciation for him as Bond has increased. However, the films of that era were horribly written and directed much of the time. FYEO and TSWLM are very near the bottom of the pile - the whole pile - for me now.
  • Suivez_ce_parachuteSuivez_ce_parachute
    Posts: 2,015
    Roger has shot a cameo for a film school students' movie project in Monaco. He's playing himself, the movie is about a very rich and spoiled kid who copies James Bond's style of life.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,848
    Roger is awesome. Period.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    retrokitty wrote:
    I have to say that the Americanisms in Moore's Bond films seem out of place or not Bondian to me. I love a good car chase as much as the next person but AVTAK and TMWTGG had car chases that were more American than Bondian. It's hard to explain. And adding Sheriff Pepper (and that was early remember) as such a large and recurring character made those movies ridiculous.

    That said... Having seen all Moore's Bond movies, but for LALD, in the cinema in the last week, my appreciation for him as Bond has increased. However, the films of that era were horribly written and directed much of the time. FYEO and TSWLM are very near the bottom of the pile - the whole pile - for me now.


    It's interesting that you and I have pretty much exact opposite opinions of Bond films!
    I am heartily in favor the other way from you. But c'est la vie. I respect everybody's opinion as their own - we are all entitled, we all have our own tastes, likes and dislikes. So no problem; it is just a bit interesting to me, that's all.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited September 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I was talking to a mate at work today about Bond and it struck me just how brilliantly insane the Moore era sounds when you put it out on paper.

    LALD: A Blaxploitation flick involving Harlem gangsters and voodoo.

    TMWTGG: Moore takes on Christopher Lee and his midget sidekick.

    TSWLM: Fights an insane billionaire with an underwater base and a henchman with metal teeth.

    MR: Goes to space and saves the entire earth.

    OP: He dresses up as a clown, teams up with a master thief called Octopussy, tells a tiger to sit and saves the world from WW3.

    AVTAK: In what's a pretty fitting end to his era, Roger Moore fights an insane ex KGB agent/businessman who's the product of a Nazi experiment and is played by Christopher Walken, eventually Bond jumps onto his zeppelin and kills him on the golden gate bridge.

    Throughout all this he bangs girls that are half his age, cracks some brilliant one liners and runs into a fat southern sheriff twice. Insane.

    FYEO is the only exception and that might be why I don't like it as much. Lots of people think it's the best Moore film because it's toned down and played more seriously but that's not what I want from a Moore movie.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    "runs into a fat southern sheriff twice".

    Don't you just hate it when that happens.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,848
    identigraph wrote:
    "runs into a fat southern sheriff twice".

    Don't you just hate it when that happens.

    More often than you might think.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote:
    Roger is awesome. Period.

    Yes ,of course he is. I grew up with him as Bond. And I already loved him as Simon Templar. And Brett Sinclair. Plus he is a wonderful human being.
  • CrabKeyCrabKey
    Posts: 2,034
    If you began the series with Connery, he's probably your Bond. I accepted the fact that Connery couldn't do it forever, and so I came to accept other Bonds, but never Moore.
    Moore is last on my list and right above him is Brosnan. Both fine actors and I'm sure wonderful people, but the lightweight approach has always wrankled. It took the series into parody. There was already enough of that in the imitators. Sure, I saw all of Moore's films (many times), but I'm always aware of him as an actor.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Dear @CrabKey this is an appreciation thread; you can easily make negative comments on other threads, but please not here.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I will have to go through the Moore era again sometime soon. My last go through I completely did a 90 degree shift in my feelings towards the era, no longer being a Connery loving hater of the films, but more a respectful admirer of the great spectacle and veritable pieces of art those films are. Throw in the amazing stunts, some great lines and scenes (some of which are extremely memorable), brilliant title songs I could listen to all day, and all the great locales we got to see, and the era can offer a good time.

    I appreciate just how much we get to see in the Moore films. The locations that were filmed play like visual travelogues to the viewer, where Bond really becomes immersed in the pleasures of the place time and time again, and everything feels so alive onscreen.

    I also love just how well they portrayed Bond's smarts. Roger's Bond is probably the most well presented Bond in regards to the man's knowledge. From him we get obscure facts, sharp insights to mission-crucial targets or objectives, and receive deliveries of a plethora of different languages, making him the most bilingual Bond I've ever seen. With his Bond you truly got the idea that he had not only seen it all, but took away many things from the places he has traveled, from the languages and customs of the locations to some facts regarding the area in question that are foreign to uninitiated ears.

    And to this day, one of my all time favorite moments in the series is at the start of TSWLM when the woman in the cabin says "But James, I need you!" whereupon 007 replies "So does England!" While the film and much of the era was tongue in cheek, this moment sheds light on just how dutiful and committed Bond is, even while making love to the many women who cross paths with him.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Toronto
    edited October 2013 Posts: 2,402
    Bond in the books always struck me as a man of very high intelligence and a broad interest in numerous fields. Despite Moore being the least Flemingesque Bond, I always appreciated how his era showed off this side of the character more than any of the other five.

    I appreciate Moore for what he was as Bond. He did a fantastic job portraying Bond in the way he portrayed him. Absolutely wonderfuly. My problem with Moore is that I don't like Bond being portrayed that way. However, Moore's performances in TMWTGG and OP rank equal with Connery in Goldfinger for me.
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    Posts: 825
    Happy Birthday on the 13th October 2013.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    CrabKey wrote:
    If you began the series with Connery, he's probably your Bond. I accepted the fact that Connery couldn't do it forever, and so I came to accept other Bonds, but never Moore.
    Moore is last on my list and right above him is Brosnan. Both fine actors and I'm sure wonderful people, but the lightweight approach has always wrankled. It took the series into parody. There was already enough of that in the imitators. Sure, I saw all of Moore's films (many times), but I'm always aware of him as an actor.


    Hold on. I don't want to start an argument but you have seen DAF, right? You realize that was Connery's film and happened before Moore took over. If anything, it's Sean's fault.
  • WillyGaloreWillyGalore
    Posts: 6,396
    The_Reaper wrote:
    CrabKey wrote:
    If you began the series with Connery, he's probably your Bond. I accepted the fact that Connery couldn't do it forever, and so I came to accept other Bonds, but never Moore.
    Moore is last on my list and right above him is Brosnan. Both fine actors and I'm sure wonderful people, but the lightweight approach has always wrankled. It took the series into parody. There was already enough of that in the imitators. Sure, I saw all of Moore's films (many times), but I'm always aware of him as an actor.


    Hold on. I don't want to start an argument but you have seen DAF, right? You realize that was Connery's film and happened before Moore took over. If anything, it's Sean's fault.

    That's a bit harsh laying the blame of DAF at Sean's door. If anyone's responsible then surely Harry, Cubby, Hamilton, Maibaum and Mankiewicz should be in the firing line for that mess.
  • steven88steven88
    Posts: 21
    The man who got me into Bond! I was born in the 80's, but he was my parents Bond, so consequently their influence rubbed off on me. I even flew over to see him in Kingston last year in what was a very entertaining evening (An Evening With Sir Roger Moore.)

    Whilst Sir Roger's interpretation is quite different, it's also in my opinion very entertaining. I quite like seeing different interpretations of Bond, and for me Sir Roger Moore perfectly captured the light hearted, gentleman approach (even if he could also do a darker Bond when required.)

    Here's to my joint favourite Bond!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    The_Reaper wrote:
    CrabKey wrote:
    If you began the series with Connery, he's probably your Bond. I accepted the fact that Connery couldn't do it forever, and so I came to accept other Bonds, but never Moore.
    Moore is last on my list and right above him is Brosnan. Both fine actors and I'm sure wonderful people, but the lightweight approach has always wrankled. It took the series into parody. There was already enough of that in the imitators. Sure, I saw all of Moore's films (many times), but I'm always aware of him as an actor.


    Hold on. I don't want to start an argument but you have seen DAF, right? You realize that was Connery's film and happened before Moore took over. If anything, it's Sean's fault.

    What sense does it make to blame Sean for that film? He wasn't the one who turned away from the depth established in OHMSS or wrote the utterly painful scripts, where from that point in the series onwards Bond became less a secret agent, and more a world wide celebrity figure where everywhere he goes people know he is a secret agent. Pathetic, to say the least. Sean got his money, helped Scotland, and got out. The best decision, really. I think that he saw way back when YOLT was being filmed that Bond was going a bit too far out there, and much farther away from the more grounded espionage centered films he had been in previously.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited October 2013 Posts: 3,494
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    The_Reaper wrote:
    CrabKey wrote:
    If you began the series with Connery, he's probably your Bond. I accepted the fact that Connery couldn't do it forever, and so I came to accept other Bonds, but never Moore.
    Moore is last on my list and right above him is Brosnan. Both fine actors and I'm sure wonderful people, but the lightweight approach has always wrankled. It took the series into parody. There was already enough of that in the imitators. Sure, I saw all of Moore's films (many times), but I'm always aware of him as an actor.


    Hold on. I don't want to start an argument but you have seen DAF, right? You realize that was Connery's film and happened before Moore took over. If anything, it's Sean's fault.

    What sense does it make to blame Sean for that film? He wasn't the one who turned away from the depth established in OHMSS or wrote the utterly painful scripts, where from that point in the series onwards Bond became less a secret agent, and more a world wide celebrity figure where everywhere he goes people know he is a secret agent. Pathetic, to say the least. Sean got his money, helped Scotland, and got out. The best decision, really. I think that he saw way back when YOLT was being filmed that Bond was going a bit too far out there, and much farther away from the more grounded espionage centered films he had been in previously.

    Well said Brady, I concur. DAF's humorous focus away from a more serious tone was the direction that they wanted to go in after OHMSS. I didn't like the decision, but it was apparent that Lazenby was done and Ilse Steppat had passed. It would have been almost exactly the same film that didn't focus on proper revenge for Tracy even with Moore in it. As much as I also love Sir Rog and mostly respect his Bondian style and wicked sense of humor, even if it wasn't my cup of old school Connery tea, I shudder to think how bad the classic elevator fight would have been without Sean's physicality. I don't think Rog would have much cared for half drowning Bambi and Thumper either. Hardly Sean's fault as far as the finished product. Just a bad film altogether.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I love Roger's romantic side, wry side, and unflappable side.
    He is a many sided Bond. ;)

    Just getting back to, you know, appreciation of the longest serving Bond.

    I find something to enjoy with every Bond actor except Lazenby. Roger brought his own suave style to Bond and yes, most of his films were fun not serious. And the series flourished. And we are here today discussing Bond because it is an ongoing franchise.

    Thanks for a lovely time, Sir Roger. Two of your films still shine bright for me: TSWLM and FYEO.
Sign In or Register to comment.