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
DAF can be blamed squarely on Guy Hamilton, Tom Mankiewicz , Cubby and Harry and Sean Connery.
The Bond of DAF(t) is not the same Bond we encountered in DN,FRWL, GF and TB. After his hissy fit with YOLT it all went pear shaped for Connery Bond. DAF is not James Bond. It's Sean Connery playing a man called James Bond in a parody of his former self.
Don't be silly, we all accept it. DAF was a dream. A big, daft, silly old dream.
Imagine when I get in from work, and this "discussion" has 72 new posts. Excellent! I should have released what the vast majority of it was. The same old comments about Sir Roger, who, as I'm aware, didn't even star in DAF. And the same old comments about DAF it being all a dream. Grow up the pair of you.
And we can rest a little more reassured, we may have actual decent discussions on all the Moore films coming up. Thank you, dear mods.
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.
Yet Moore still had the smoothness to deliver a one-liner after he killed Kananga...and AGAIN after Teehe.
Moore was probably the smoothest of all the Bond's but he plays it a little straighter here than he would later on.
Watched a bit of LALD earlier on ITV, Moore's decent enough. Confident, commanding and amusing with the one-liners.
His third, I think they knew his strengths and steered the films more
To his light comic touch.
For me his best performance was in FYEO, once again a more serious
take on Bond, even in OP, and AVTAK. I think he plays an ageing 007
Very well. ( and I don't say that to knock him).
Unlike any other actor Moore played Bond totally in his own style, and
What style he had. :)
And I think Roger's innate charm and self confidence, both well honed by the time he took over as Bond, stood him well, gave him that specifically unique touch, that enabled him to break free from the Connery mold. There was no real Lazenby mold to worry about. The franchise continued on truly because of Roger Moore as Bond.
Nobody can ever do this quite the way Moore did because he rather "patented" this take on Bond. Nobody did it better indeed, when it comes to the best Moore moments as Bond and in particular having a light touch of humor, sardonic, elegant, fun, and underneath quite serious about the job.
Moore had ups and downs during his tenure, but he was a memorable Bond - and one who was exactly what was needed when he took over the role.
As Tee Hee tells him about the pen idea, Moore's hand goes up to check if he has a pen in his inside jacket pocket. Brilliant little bit of physical humour. :)
What can we say about Rog? Ruined a perfectly good franchise with the buffoonery.
I'm more convinced now than ever that MartonAstin and Doubleohdad were the same person. It's sad when someone is unable to fit in and is reduced to creating a friend for himself.
Split personality?
I wonder if maybe Roger Moore slept with his wife/girlfriend or something. Or maybe he started out as a huge Roger Moore fan but Moore never returned his fan mail. Either way he has some sort of unhealthy fixation on Sir Rog.
Hates ? I have a couple of actors ,I don't rate very highly. So I don't go out
Of my way to watch their films, I certainly wouldn't spend ages on a fan
Site to attack them. Really can't see the point ! :)
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. 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.
Moreover, at the dinner, 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. There is a subtle quality in Golden Gun's script, regrading the character of Bond.
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, who portrays 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 Scaramanga, but only after Andrea has got the Solex Agitator. Before, inevitably, making love, with Goodnight still in the closet.
This is the most chauvinistic act, in the series, 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.
Still, I think Moore gives a decent enough performance even if he is rather rigid at times.
Back to the point, TMWTGG features one of Moore's worst performances in the role.