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
FYEO is not without its humor, the light heartiness was Roger's strong suit and it would continue to be a common thread in his films.
My favorite Moore film is 1983's OP. I really enjoyed the romp, the villains, the locations, the pacing, the plot. Moore is at the top of his game as usual. He was 55 years old by this time but he did just fine. He and Maud Adams had great chemistry.
AVTAK gets so much hate but I always liked the film. It has a great villain in Walken, his henchmen/women are very good and the movie has that great finale atop the Golden Gate Bridge.
It was Moore's swan song and would close a 12 year chapter on the Bond films. Moore was 57 and he was upset to learn that he was older than Tanya Roberts' mother. Moore had been trying to quit since after MR. In a Good Morning America interview in 1981, he had explained how he was too old for the part.
Despite this Moore did manage to endear himself to audiences. I had several friends (about ten years younger than me) and told me how much they preferred Roger Moore to Sean. as Lee Pfeifer said in his book, "To younger fans Roger Moore was James Bond".
It may have been a stretch to try and squeeze one more film out of him, but I was a little sad to hear that he was finally stepping down.
Thanks for giving us an overview of the Moore films. I like much of OP, and the parts that are played more seriously are very fine indeed. Maud and Roger were great together; I think they genuinely liked each other and that showed. The man looked amazing for his age for years and years. I do not think he looked too old in OP; he was just fine and in good form, yes.
AVTAK - well, as I put it, Roger reported for duty when called, even though he did think himself too old for the role at that point. He gave it his all and it is a pretty darn good performance. I was sad when I heard he was leaving the role, too, even though I knew it was past time for that change.
Roger Moore's Bond gives us a lot to choose from, and I do like that. Depending upon my mood, I can always find one of Moore's films to watch and enjoy. For most of my friends, Roger Moore is their favorite Bond. :)
For what I've seen of the series there's something about him I just don't like in The Saint. People talk about Brosnan being phoney - Moore's pretty phoney too sometimes.
There was some humor that was awful at times (not all the time) in Moore's Bond films, and that felt phony - but not Roger as Bond, for me. (I also never felt Brosnan was phony, either, but that is for later). But thanks for commenting. I do want to hear from members, their impressions about Roger Moore as Bond.
Sometimes people just can see the same thing and feel quite strongly and differently about it. This actually is not a Moore appreciation thread (though my posts will read like that), so I welcome all comments about the Roger Moore Era as long as we keep the same standard of decent, thoughtful posts like this thread has always had and deserves. Thanks!
And I do want to hear from more of our older, Originals, fans, hopefully sometime this week, as well as those who grew up with Roger Moore as Bond. :-c
My rankings would actually be quite similar to yours, except I would place AVTAK below moonraker, which I quite like. As you said "its glorious spectacle, beautiful locations, and fun" If you take it for what it is, it's a perfectly entertaining ride. AVTAK on the other hand feels short of breath, lifeless and dare I say even boring at times. It also doesn't help the entire cast looks like they are made out of leather. I don't think it's bad, just decidely average. I can say that about Moonraker and MWTGG as well, as much as I can aknowledge all of their bad parts, I still think they ARE good...Just in their own way (and alcohol never hurt).
My list of personal rankings do change around at times. And maybe I'll go put a dash of Bailey's in my coffee and see if that changes my perspective a bit this a.m. ;)
Today, seen as an alternate reality Bond, I enjoy Moore's movies immensely for the most part.
But he's always been The Saint to me, not Bond. And that's not altogether a bad thing!
My first Bond film was DAF and followed by LALD, like you. :)
FYEO was really necessary, coming after Moonraker, and I am glad you enjoyed it all right. I really did not have any merging, or problem with, Moore as The Saint and also as Bond. I had read all the novels, too, which were serious. But I still was able to accept Roger as Bond.
So you must have been completely enthralled when Dalton arrived. I was very happy with him, too; but that is coming up a bit later ... ;)
I figured that this is what the Bond movies had become and I had no problem with it. I never had a problem with the clown suit in OP either (something that many fans find cringe worthy)
I have not watched TSWLM since I saw it in the theaters (I saw it twice that summer in 1977). It is Moore's masterpiece and classic adventure. I liked it but I rank FYEO and OP higher.
I mentioned the way the films started following trends in the Seventies (and with Moore).
Like I mentioned how LALD and TMWTGG followed respective trends, MR was made to cash in on the success of Star Wars. During the filming of TSWLM Cubby had mentioned that OP would be the next film. At the end of THE SPY, the credits announce that FYEO would be the next film, however EON decided to go with the "trend" of space and choose MR. I remember feeling put off when I saw that MR had been done instead of FYEO as promised. I know Cubby was free to choose whatever film he bloody well felt like doing, but I just found it strange that EON had switched films on us. Maybe its just me.....
We are also introduced to our first taste of "stunt casting" with AVTAK. Both Grace Jones and Tanya Roberts were well known at the time and this led to their casting. Cubby wanted David Bowie to play Zorin (another attempt at stunt casting) but luckily he refused treating us to Walken's superb performance.
Stunt casting would really come in during the Brosnan days, but more on that later.
That said, today most any Moore Bond will put a big ole' smile on my face!
"Bond films can be enjoyed on different levels, for different reasons, don't you agree?" I agree wholeheartedly, I think the reason I love Bond so much has a lot to do with the fact that they ARE all so different. I love FRWL, but if all 23 movies were exactly like it, I don't if I would enjoy the series as much. Same goes for any other entry, it's the fact they are all vastly different in tone that makes me love the series more. Theres a Bond movie out there for any mood I might be in (except for DAD, I've yet to find the right mood to enjoy that, but you never know, senility could knock on my doorstep eventually ;) )
So, following @4EverBonded's great idea, I will rank the Moore films.
1) The Spy Who Loved Me. The quintessential Roger Moore Bond film. The ski jump! Jaws! The Lotus! Atlantis! Egypt! Barbara Bach... oh wait. So Barbara was a little wooden but I still enjoyed her. Especially when she was in that black dress. No comment on how many times I might have paused my VCR during that shower scene ;). What a thrilling ride it was and still is to this day. The only thing lacking is a Barry score. Still, Hamlisch provided some entertaining output all the same. Indeed, nobody does it better than Mr. Bond.
2) For Your Eyes Only. Sir Henry's favorite Moore film and it's easy to understand why. Sir Rog provided us with his most serious take on the role in a back to basics spy thriller. The balance of suspense and action with a touch of humor was very effective. Bond's relationship with Milena is quite touching. Topol gives a masterful performance as Milos Columbo, which is arguably the best of any Bond ally. The scenes in Italy just might be my favorite of any Bond film. I love how Moore gave us a more reflective Bond this time out. I wish he could have hung up his holster after this film.
3) Live And Let Die. Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce Roger Moore. I love how he comfortably stepped into the role while still molding the character into his own unique vision. Jane Seymour is breathtaking. The cast of villains just might be the best of the entire series. At the very least they are severely underrated. Even though some of the humor is over the top this is more of a low key adventure than many of Moore's outings and I really dig that about this film. It was definitely the perfect starting point for our longest serving 007. From the very beginning he made the role his own.
4) Moonraker. I know that this won't be a popular choice but what can I say? While there are some frustrating moments within, I don't think that it's reputation as terrible is deserved at all. There is a wonderful sense grandeur and imagination to this film (for better or worse) that is unparalleled by any other Bond film. I'm a sucker for the bizarre and Moonraker delivers it in spades. The score is magnificent. The cinematography and locations are dazzling. For every head scratching moment there is another moment of unexpected elegance. Moore owned this film and was the only one who could have made it work at all.
5) Octopussy. I understand that it was a necessary evil for Sir Rog to star in this film. Mr. Spock once pondered on how only Nixon could go to China. In a similar vein (or maybe not) only Roger Moore could have successfully battled Sean Connery in the "Battle of the Bonds" in 1983. He may have been past his prime but there was no way that Cubby was going to let anyone other than Moore be Bond in Octopussy. And what a performance he gave. The film itself is quite schizophrenic. A bemusing assortment of over the top antics mixed with some very tense and suspenseful moments that sometimes intertwine all in the same scene. Overall I always find it to be entertaining though.
6) A View To A Kill. There was no excuse this time. What is Roger Moore still doing here? If you're going to go with an older Bond then why do you not even try to hide his stunt doubles? Why are you making him sleep with more women here than any of his other outings? Was it contempt for your audience Cubby? Oh well. Moore still gives it his all like the true professional that he was. Christopher Walken delivers one of the very best Bond villain performances. The Golden Gate fight is quite entertaining. The Barry score is great. There are worse Bond films to watch.
7) The Man With The Golden Gun. What a disappointing effort. Every aspect of this film was rushed and it shows. Even Barry is not quite right here! Guy Hamilton did a wonderful job with Goldfinger and even a commendable job with live And Let Die but he just needs to stop now. Christopher Lee is the star of the show and sadly it's kind of wasted in this film. Why did we need the Solex sub plot? I understand that it might be difficult to make a two hour film consisting of just Bond vs. Scaramanga but was this really the best you could come up with? Don't even get me started on Sheriff Pepper or Hip's nieces.
I would also like to ask a question to all of the Originals. I know that it's been brought up in this thread before but since we are discussing the Moore era I would really like to hear your input. My father had a difficult time accepting Roger Moore as James Bond because he had known him as The Saint for many years prior. Did any of you feel the same way?
1. OP
2.FYEO
3.LALD
4. AVTAK
5. TSWLM
6.TMWTGG
7.MR
@Pachazo : in regards to feeling Moore was always the Saint, I had a friend who refused to see any of the films because in his words "Roger Moore is okay, but I always thought of him as the Saint." I had watched a few episodes of the Saint and had even seen Roger in Maverick a few times, but this never held me back from seeing his first Bond movie.
After YOLT, I had promised myself that I was never going to miss another Bond film and I stuck with this. so they could have shaved an ape and taught it to speak and casted him as James Bond and I would have still gone to see the films.
Roger Moore as James Bond had these strengths:
a) Elegant, charming, and smooth
b) Confident but in a quiet, far more subtle way than Connery and without arrogance
c) Intelligent and sharp; good memory and spoke a few languages
d) Chivalrous and a gentleman
e) Unflappable, he kept his cool beyond what most people ever could
f) Unhesitatingly did his job, whatever it took – but he was not a cold blooded killer, nor was he by nature brutal
When Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman came to casting the next 007, they wanted an established actor, and British. They chose an actor with which they'd become familiar, and friendly with, in London's gaming circles, and had found international fame playing "The Saint"; Moore. Roger Moore.
Born the son of a policeman, on the 14th October, 1927, Moore grew up in Stockwell, London, where he was soon evacuated due to World War II. After the war, and in search of money, Moore worked as an extra, during in which time, he was spotted by Brian Desmond Hurst, who offered to bankroll Moore through RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts). During his training to become an actor, Moore met his future Miss Moneypenny, Lois Maxwell.
With subsequent stints with RADA and the Army, Moore took up modelling, to complement his earnings as an actor, before moving to America, in the 1950's, with his then wife, Dorothy Squires. Here MGM took a fancy to Moore, in one of the studios last contract offers. Moore was cast opposite glamorous leading ladies.
Feeling typecast in America, Moore returned to Europe, where he was approached by Lew Grade, to star as the famous Simon Templar, in the "The Saint", which lasted between 1962 and 1969.
Moore starred in two movies, after that, and one, "The Man Who Haunted Himself" garnered rave reviews, before appearing in the big budget T.V series "The Persuaders"; a concept that Moore himself had come up with. Alas it didn't find the breakthrough American audience.
America's loss was Harry's and Cubby's gain, so in 1972, they announced that Roger Moore would play James Bond, 007. Not before time; Ian Fleming and Harry mooted Moore as Bond for Dr No; he was approached by Charles K. Feldman for the spoof "Casino Royale"; in 1968 Moore had tentatively agreed to play Bond in The Man With The Golden Gun, set in Cambodia, before civil war erupted there, and finally, his commitment to "The Persuaders" precluded him from accepting the role in Diamonds Are Forever.
Ironically, Cubby had to convince Harry on the merits of Moore becoming Bond; ten years earlier Harry was enthusiastic about Moore, more so than Cubby.
Moore, in his usual self-deprecating way, insisted Cubby was getting revenge on him, due to the fact that Moore used to beat Cubby in their games of backgammon.
Roger Moore is a completely different type of personality and character to Sean Connery. Moore has an air of haughty indifference to playing 007. Urbane and laconic, Moore was a gifted light comedian, and through his lightness of touch, Moore differentiated himself, not only from Connery, but also the other actors to subsequently inhabit the role of 007.
Moore skimmed through the books, but found little in the way of how he was meant to play Bond. Nevertheless, Moore found in Ian Fleming's Goldfinger, a useful tip; Bond hated killing, but he took pride in doing the job well. That was Moore's mantra – he abhorred killing.
Both the literary Bond and Moore's Bond loathed cold blooded killing, and both would take great pains to avoid it, unless it was absolutely necessary, in which case they took pride in doing the job well.
That is not the only similarity between Fleming's Bond and Moore's Bond. In Fleming's novels, Bond used to play the "ineffectual, blustering Englishman", to disarm his opponents. After all, what does one have to fear from this Limey, grinning chap, the P.G Wodehouse type of Englishman; pleasant, yet naive and blunderous, and that seems to be in over his head?
Both Fleming's Bond and Moore's Bond used this gambit to devastating effect. Take the scene in Moore's début, Live and Let Die. Early on in the movie, Bond gets captured by Mr Big, in Harlem. Mr Big tells his cronies to "waste him" ("waste him", is that good? asks Moore surreptitiously; the Englishman out of his depth in Harlem, is quite amusing). They take Bond outside, in order to shoot him; Bond even has his hands up. The goons think that Bond is playing by the "Queensbury Rules".
But they'd be wrong; Bond, seeing his chance, leaps up onto a fire escape, and in one swift kick, knocks the two goons to the floor. By seemingly being a "good sport", as befitting an English gentleman, Bond has undermined his threat to his opponents, and then when Bond reveals what his true intentions are, a wolf in Englishman's clothing if you will, it is too late. Moore is the only actor to get this particular facet of playing Bond.
Both the literary Bond and Moore's Bond have the sophistication and the suaveness, but underneath that veneer, one finds a particularly cold, professional man, even un-likeable.
As Tom Mankiewicz succinctly said, Moore was the "old Etonian drop-out that Fleming had imagined."
If there is one thing to reproach Moore with, is that he does not move with the same grace and elegance, that his two predecessors had, and it would only get worse as Moore aged in the role. Moore was 45 when he started work on Live and Let Die, but his fresh face belied that fact.
Thus Moore played 007 as Moore, with a flavouring of Ian Fleming's 007, cool, decisive and very charming, with a dash of "white knight". Moore, for example, would go out of his way to save a "damsel in distress", when arguably, Fleming's Bond may not have. The mission always came first in the literary Bond.
Although Bond wasn't always an English gentleman, which Moore stereotypically played. This Bond, like Sean Connery's Bond, thought of nothing to spend time making love to a villainess, or using his charm to deflower the virginal Solitaire, in order to get close to Mr Big, although the "cards" were slightly stacked in favour of Bond, in that last example. This, then, was a Bond, cynical and callous as it may be, who would use every trick up his finely tailored sleeve, in order to get the job done.
In Roger Moore's début outing, he smoothly takes over the mantle, being understated, in an understated film, all told, considering what came after it, Voodoo elements notwithstanding, in his performance, featuring his trademark style and charisma, all though it was an evolving portrayal by Moore, fleshing out his take on the role, which improves from here, in subsequent Bond adventures.
Although Moore doesn't get off to the best of starts. He is introduced in bed, early in the morning, with Miss Caruso, an Italian operative, when they are interrupted by M and Miss Moneypenny. The ensuing farce as Bond tries to hide Caruso from M, is something one would expect to find in a "Carry On" film. Compare this to Connery's immortal introduction eleven years previously, in Dr No, and Live and Let Die's sequence pales in comparison.
The film-makers were trying to not have Moore's 007 in the same situations as Connery's 007, hence why M shows up in Bond's Chelsea flat, as opposed to the obligatory office set, but Mankiewicz's overly humorous screenplay falls flat.
As James Bond, 007, Roger Moore improves on his début in Live And Let Die, with The Man With The Golden Gun, showing more confidence in the role. This time, however, Moore presents a terser interpretation, as if he's being haunted by the spectre of Scaramanga.
This edgier undercurrent counterpoints well with Moore's urbane charm, and is used to great effect in the film, for example, there is a surprisingly nasty encounter between Bond and some goons in Beirut, in which Moore acquits himself rather well. Indeed we get to see Moore's Bond not playing by the rules. Moore's Bond, like Fleming's Bond, used the gambit of the unassuming Englishman to deceive their enemies, as was discussed previously. Further evidence of this, is in an enjoyable kung fu showdown. That is before the sequence was ruined by having the entire kung fu dojo, being defeated by two schoolgirls, one of the low-points in the Bondian cannon.
There is a subtle quality in Golden Gun's script, regarding the character of Bond, two such examples are at the dinner scene, Scaramanga goads Bond into admitting that he enjoys killing just as much as him. "Killing you would be a pleasure" Bond coolly replies. Lastly Bond gets overly physical with Andrea, over the whereabouts of Scaramanga.
This last scene is uncomfortable to watch, Bond slapping a woman, but it is meant to be. We are meant to question Bond's actions, this moral quandary is an excellent piece of drama, and remember drama doesn't have to be nice, to be drama, and is inspired by the novels of Fleming, in which Fleming encapsulates this "moral quandary" so well. Andrea could be the key to finding out where Scaramanga is, and lest not forget that Scaramanga is reportedly trying to kill Bond. The means justified the end. This scene, uncomfortable as it may be to watch, is played well by Moore and Maud Adams.
However, Adams' also has the unwitting part to play in one of Golden Gun's most unsavoury scenes. Bond is entertaining Mary Goodnight in his hotel room, when they are interrupted by Andrea.
Bond shoves Goodnight into a closet, in a scene not to dissimilar to the farcical scene that introduced Moore as 007, where by he attempts to hide Ms Caruso from M. Bond and Andrea discuss their arrangement – Bond would kill Scaramagna, but only after Andrea has got the Solex Agitator. Before, inevitably, making love, with Goodnight still on the closet.
This is the most chauvinistic act perpetrated by Bond, especially when Bond has "finished" with Andrea, he promises Goodnight that "her time will come soon". This odd mix between callous and camp that makes Golden Gun so disconcerting.
This dichotomy between Bond's callous actions, slapping Andrea and locking Goodnight in a closet, while he and Andrea gets intimate, for example, and the high camp and overt humour, is quite unsettling, and is one of the myriad problems facing Golden Gun.
By the time of the quite superb The Spy Who Loved Me, Moore establishes his legend in this film; not just in terms of his Bondian performance but also his stature as a leading man. He seems at ease with himself.
From the excellent book, Martinis, Girls and Guns by Martin Stirling and Gary Morecambe;
"Moore commands The Spy Who Loved Me without dominating it; his performance is perfectly judged and he clearly relishes Lewis Gilbert's direction."
Indeed Gilbert and Moore worked on the character of Bond, much like Connery and Young before them. It helps that Gilbert and Moore shared the same sense of humour. Without Gilbert's subtle direction of the persona of Moore's Bond, one fears that we may not have gotten Moore's superior performance in not only Spy, but each of his remaining Bond films.
Two scenes, that demonstrate the new found confidence of Moore's Bond, are the Cairo night club scene and the scene in the Sardinian hotel, during which Anya confronts Bond over her dead lover. The latter scene is key to defusing the more fantastical plot of Spy, by having the script quite cleverly introspect the work that Bond does.
The former of the two scenes, is when Bond and Anya are enjoyably one-upmanship each other, proving each of them know a little more about the other, until Anya mentions Tracey. The subtle look on Moore's face belies that he is not a good actor.
After the drab trio of films directed by Guy Hamilton, Spy is a breath of fresh air, that embraced being a Bond movie, instead of playing it safe with overt, predictable humour, and latching on to whatever current cinematic trends that were in this year. It recalls such classics as Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, the definitive Bond films, the ones that has seeped into the public consciousness. Sure, superficially, it has some resemblance to Twice, but the dynamics of the film, especially the Bond/Anya are completely different, and is a keen reminder of how Cubby used to go for broke; instead of pulling his horns in, by making a smaller film, Cubby gambled on making Spy the most lavish Bond adventure yet.
And so started Moore's run; from Spy to Octopussy he was absolutely top notch. Granted the movies themselves weren't always restrained, the humour in Moonraker and parts of Octopussy were rather too OTT, but one can not blame Moore for the lapses on the film-makers part.
It seemed as if Moore was saying, "Don't worry about the film, just relax, and let me guide you through".
With For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy John Glen brought out a more flinty, tougher Bond out of Moore, but at the same time, kept the urbane gentleman spy we came to love, his performance now undercut with a steely determination.
Indeed after the spectacle of the seventies, Glen's films, mark a refreshing change of pace, where emphasis is placed on characters, and on having Bond rely on his wits. For me this makes the film eminently more satisfying. Bond becomes key to the plot, rather than being the catalyst around which action rotates; Bond is proactive in propelling the story along.
In Octopussy, the one film that could possibly rival Spy in terms of Moore's performance, Moore is on great form here, full off his trademark charm and humour, tempered by some genuine acting - think Bond and Orlov on the train, and when Bond discovers Vijay, subtle and sombre. In these moments Sir Rog, really knocks it out of the park.
In Spy Moore-Bond was at the height of his powers. By Octopussy, there's a certain world-weariness to Moore's Bond, a slight air of cynicism, that I find diverting, that off-sets his age beautifully.
The film-makers helped by casting a more mature Bond girl, in the form of Maud Adams, and the chemistry between Moore and Adams is enjoyable, effective and understated. And isn't it great that Adams was cast in Octopussy - a far more deserving film to showcase her talents than Golden Gun.
Moore should have give up the role of Bond after Octopussy, but as he and the inventive Octopussy triumphed over the drab Never Say Never Again, Cubby would not let him go out gracefully, and Moore's Bond was pressed into action one more time.
A View To A Kill is a schizophrenic film; youthful, dynamic pairing of Zorin and Mayday vs. the aged forces of MI6; inventive action scenes (steeplechase, City Hall) vs. seventies spectacle (Paris chase, Fire truck escape); forward thinking plot vs. 70’s overt humour; well written characters, unfortunately portrayed by weak actors; Moore’s easy going charm vs. cut- throat 80’s business ethos. It’s like the producers wanted to give Roger Moore a spectacular send off, but the film can't make up its mind whether go with seventies excess vs. eighties characters/conservative style.
Still Moore gave it his all, full of his trademark charisma, elegance and humour, although the performance was blunted by age.
I always get quite emotional watching the end credits of A View To A Kill. It really is an end of an era. From 1973 to 1985, Moore steadied the franchise, even if it was at it's most inconsistent. He proved that there was life after Connery, and done it in his most inimitable way.
So here's to Sir Rog, and all the great adventures you've lead me on. I don't think we would have a Bond series if it wasn't for this great man.
If you made it this far, I salute you! Thank you for reading all of this.
=D> :-bd ^:)^
I value everyone's input, short or at length, especially when it adds depth or value to this thread. I appreciate you taking the time to give us your honest opinions and impressions. I know that sometimes takes a bit of time and effort.
To answer your question, pachazo, I had no trouble at all accepting Roger Moore as Bond even though I loved him in The Saint. I kept the characters separate in my mind fairly easily. I have enjoyed both series of books.
I think Moore was exactly the Bond we needed in the 70's, picking up the mantle and being inevitably compared with Sean at the beginning. He was a different James Bond, right from the beginning; and that was important. Love him or not care for him, the biggest mistake he or any actor could have done would be to try to copy much of Connery. Roger Moore did make Bond his own, and over such a long tenure, I think the subtle changes and growth of Moore's Bond served the films very well. And Moore did have his own style with a very personal charm that came through. I, for one, enjoyed that aspect of Roger Moore's Bond. ;;)
And royale65, I especially appreciate your detailed writing that took us through the entire Roger Moore era as it developed. I could see with fresh eyes what you were saying, and it was great to read your thoughts in that particular sequence - it felt like a journey with Moore's Bond. Simply splendid. B-)
There are some books I need to buy. Roger's autobiography is one, and now I am putting Martinis, Girls, and Guns on that list, too. (I wanted to copy a picture of the book, but I cannot seem to copy/ paste insert that today...)
I will write more later today, but for now again just a big thanks for all of your fine contributions.
:-bd
Yes, I rather like how you put that. It certainly does seem that way when watching his films. The only downside being that perhaps they became a little too comfortable with him, especially at the end.
Well, most of you know I'm not an old f-eh, original. Nor was I around when Moore stepped up to take the part, so what I'll try to do is bring you my own view of Roger Moore's era as it feels for me, not in chronological film-order but in film-moments that made or broke him, for me, as Bond. Intertwined with some personal history.
When I was around, well , I don't know, ten or something, Bond films now and then aired on television. After seeing a few I got interested mildly, so, whenever there was one on TV I wanted to see it. Obviously, most of those were Moore's films. Perhaps because of my age (born in '80) AVTAK is one of the few I remember seeing the most. It still is one of my favorite films. In this, the Bond-moments outweigh the non-bondmoments for me whilst the latter are nowhere near completely off-putting. Walken was scary and convincing as hell, his playfullnes in his killing and trying to kill almost catlike, and thus a very, very good Bond-villain. The absolute highlight for me is the fight ontop of the Golden Gate Bridge. That's one scene that gave so much tension I still find it one of the best Bondian scenes ever.
At the same time Jaws was too much for me. Even my young mind found him ridiculous, and his vulnerabilities were inconsequent, which made any film with him unbelievable.
Same goes with a film like Moonraker, in which there were too many technical impossibilities for me to get 'into' the film itself. There's no way you can get a spaceshuttle off of a 747. It doesn't carry fuel, etc etc. I won't bore you with the details, but for a technically minded kid these are absolute killing factors.
And another killer moment is Bond's race to stop the bomb in OP. There's no way an international spy and assassin's going to wait for a German fat lady to stop sing-er phoning when an atom bomb is going to go off just a couple of miles down the road. It broke all the tension in the scene for me in such a way that it took away many of the joys of the whole movie.
Still, there's plenty, well, not her, but a lot of Bondian moments to compensate in this era.
As I said before, AVTAK may be some sort of guilty pleasure for me as it is probably the first one I saw, it also keeps it's footing in reality and has quite the bizarre in it as well, making it very Bondian for me (the music helps!). The same goes for Live and Let Die. As @Royale65 showed, Moore plays the Fleming Bond here when he seems out of his depths in Harlem. I just love the whole movie as it has that feeling from beginning to end. Moreover it has the balance between the occult and Bond's obvious contempt for it in such a balance that again I get that Flemingesque-feeling. I just love that film, of which I'm quite certain I saw later then AVTAK or OP.
When I saw For Your Eyes Only I can't remember, but it was later then one of the Jaws' Bonds. I was expecting OTT, I got a jaw dropping, heart-clinching climb to St. Cyrils, one of the coolest allies Bond's ever gotten and the oh so lovely Melina. That, combined with that Mediterranean feel and those evil killers of Kristatos, not to mention himself, made it one of the best Bond's I'd ever seen! Sure there's Bibi (whom I liked, as she was supposed to be just a couple of years older then me), but she fits her purpose in the film.
So, odly enough Spy doesn't work well with me, neither does The Man With The Golden Gun, even though Scaramanga's played so well, but it's the nieces that ruin the day, and the slide whistle as well. It's AVTAK, FEYO and most of all LALD that I enjoyed so much that Moore also won me as Bond.
It was finally Golden Eye that made it possible for me to see a Bond-film in the cinemas. Obviously I became a Brosnan-Bond fan up until I got on the old KTBEU. By that time (we're talking DAD here) I had come to appreciate Moore's time in a different light. I got to know the Connery films better, and moreover, got to know the books as well. First, that made me dislike Moore's films, as they were too often to much OTT. But as blue-screen-parasailing and invisible Aston Martins became the top-over-the-top, even Moonraker didn't seem that bad anymore. Even with Daniel Craig entering the arena I've grown more fond of the Moore era. His era stands out on it's own, and shows us the time they were made in. As politics got grittier, so did the films. As time's relaxed more, so did the films.
And then there's the Moore factor. Roger has shown us what a true gentleman looks like. His class and style, determination as an actor and self deprecation which he sometimes takes too far, his willingness to help those in need and finally his self mockery and jest for life made me look at his films in a different light. Moore was a Bond of his ages and I think they couldn't have had a better actor to fulfill this role at that time. Yes, he stayed on a film too long, but I love that film nonetheless, I still do.
I hope this all makes sense, and indeed, kudo's for those who finish this rather inconsistent story that is my view of Moore's tenure.
^:)^
LALD The fight aboard the train with Tee Hee is violent, well staged and acted. This is probably the best fight Moore ever had as Bond and it ranks up there with the train fight in FRWL
TMWTGG The duel with Scaramanga is full of tension and great scenes.
TSWLM The realization that he killed Anya's lover. "When someone is trying to put a bullet in your back at high speed you don't remember faces." Love that scene.
MR The PTS
FYEO The climb up St Cyril, great tension and jaw dropping moments.
OP The fight outside the plane with knife wielding Gobinda, Magda's exit from Bond's hotel room always gets me. The tiger hunt is full of tension and some might say that the Tarzan yell hurt the scene but notice how we are brought back to reality with him landing in the river and getting out with leeches stuck to his chest.
AVTAK The Golden Gate Bridge fight. I even liked the chase with the San Francisco's finest. Moore dangling off that ladder was interesting even though it was played for laughs. Especially when he kicked the cowboy hats off those two guys. That always makes me laugh.
Moore had his moments, some suspenseful, some OTT but it was all fun.
Of all the Bonds, Moore is the only one who always looked back on his Bond days with fondness and he keeps a positive attitude about it. Connery and Dalton, the silence is deafening, Laz kicked himself for years but he seems to have finally made peace with his mistakes, Brosnan seemed bitter about being the only Bond to be shit canned but now he seems to have come to terms with it.
Lets raise our glasses to Sir Roger Moore, a real gentleman and beloved Bond actor.
@CommanderRoss, I enjoyed your personal history with Bond - thanks for sharing that. And I agree, "the Moore factor" is a force, one that is stronger than a script. I'm glad you enjoyed FYEO, even if Spy was not your cup of tea. By the way, you can say "old fan." No problem. ;)
@OHMSS69, I like what you did there - and I will list my favorite Moore scenes later today. And yes, it is nice to hear Sir Roger over the years to still be looking back on his Bond days fondly. I think perhaps he has a good perspective in life, overall, and that helps.
I may have mentioned this quite a ways back somewhere on this forum, but I always remember something Michael Caine wrote in his great autobiography, What's It All About? He said (paraphrasing a bit) that he had some great, close friends over the years, ones he could count on - but that Roger was one friend who would offer help before ever being asked. He was also one of the first to tell Michael that he had what it takes and to keep at it. That was in the early 60's when Michael was still slogging away for years, Alfie being still on the horizon.
I'll join you, OHMSS69 ~ For me, I am raising a glass every night this week to the one and only, Sir Roger Moore, a true gentleman and a fine James Bond.
Clowns ... reminds me also how really great the PTS is for Ocotopussy!
Anybody else want to weigh in about this part of Octopussy? I'd like to hear from others, too.
For me that was the moment the movie came full circle.
The story starts with a 00 dying in clown outfit while doing his job and ends with a 00 in the same outfit doing the same job and finishing it.
I just loved that little touch.
I really like the way Roger acted throughout OP but especially that whole section.
Yes! In the movie that clown outfit means death. And Bond uses it to protect life.
It's almost like they threw in the Tarzan yell because they'd made a better Bond film than they meant to! :))
The tiger situation and the Weismuller yell did take some tenseness out of what could have been an exciting chase, I would have edited both moments out, expecially RM telling the tiger: "sit".