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
I just watched some of LTK on TV. Not bad but my god it looks cheap. People say GE looks cheap and drab but at least that had more detailed sets.
The facility set in GE looks like it cost more than the whole of LTK.
This is a fun, turn off the lights, crank the volume up, have a drink and kick back Bond film. It is a bit hoakey in places, particularly when Bond is in New York, but that's ok. You have to just go with it. I kept thinking, "Wow, this is a farcry from the James Bond of today." But it's not bad, and can be a lot of fun in the right frame of mind.
The PTS is intriguing with the New Orleans funeral dirge/dance, set-up with a great line, "Who's Funeral is it?". The Title Sequence is one of the best in the series. The voodoo and fire elements make for an exciting introduction. The Macca and Wings tune is a classic.
It was neat to see what presumably is the inside of Bond's Pad. Though, I thought they could have done a little more with this scene, telling us more about Bond other than the fact that he has an espresso machine. Nonetheless, it was actually a refreshing break from the usual M's office setting.
As I mentioned above, the New York scenes seem a bit too goofy for me, with the pimp-mobiles, Bond in Harlem, cue-ball remark, etc. I know that "Bond in Harlem" was played for comedic effect, but it just didn't work. It made Bond look akwardly out of place. Bond comes across as the 'fool' the Tarot cards describe. In my mind Bond should not be the fool, it diminishes his intelligence, his savvy, and his power. Daniel Craig in that Harlem scene wouldn't have messed around with British pleasantries: he would have cracked some skulls and got to business...But alas this is Roger Moore, and while I didn't like the bar scene, I liked some of his other Bondian moments like having a cigar while para-sailing, or the amusing air pilot scene "Sorry Mrs. Bell"...scenes like these make me long for these kinds of humorous moments in the Craig films.
The highlight of the film for me was the impressive boat chase--actually the whole series of events from the alligator scene through to airplane scene was really exciting and drew me in (and this is coming from some one who grows tired of pointless extended chase scenes). But when done well, I like a good action scene. It's interesting, that these chase scenes seem miles ahead of the action from DAF, also directed by Guy Hamilton--another example perhaps of the Connery salary cutting deeply into the DAF budget?
The ending of LALD though, is incredibly underwhelming. The whole scene seems like a tired rehash: the villain's laire that looks a lot like what we've seen before and the sharks--couldn't they come up with a new killer animal? Also, the fight with Kananga is too brief: it's over before you even knew it began.
I underestimated LALD a bit. What surprised me on this last viewing is that it IS a Bond film through and through, with only touches of blaxploitation on the surface. I used to be turned off by the blaxploitation element, but like MR and using the Star Wars craze as inspiration, EON does a good job of weaving popular elements, while still maintaining the feel of a Bond film, without overly co-opting said elements.
Special Mention needs to go to George Martin, who did an excellent job with the score. Although some of the score is dated when it goes into "Shaft" territory, all in all, Martin really creates that Bond feel throughout many scenes. It should be noted too, that he produced the Live and Let Die track--without Sir George Martin, the Wings track wouldn't have half the excitement it does...
I had fun with Live and Let Die. It's not one of the better Bond's in my book, and I prefer other Moore Bond films. But it did move up my rankings to about 12 or 13.
6.5/10
(Up from a score of 5/10)
For all of MR's criticism about it being too focused on fantasy, gadgets, and over-the-top elements, I will say that those criticisms are beside the point. Up to 1979, Bond had gone underwater and to the mountains as his big adventures with movies such as Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and a combination of the two with The Spy Who Loved Me. In order to keep the series alive and popular, the producers needed to go somewhere even bigger and better than the last ten Bond movies. After all, Bond movies always try and build off their predeccesors and out-sale the others. With the success and craze of Star Wars (A New Hope), why not go into outer space and catch the eyes of an audience who has a new-found interest in science fiction?
Obviously, this trick worked in 1979, considering how much money Moonraker brought in from the box office, matching the successes of Goldfinger and Thunderball before it. Even though most fans dislike it now, I'll say that my opinion has changed a little bit. I used to hate Moonraker, but now I can say that it is a very entertaining Bond movie. Even though there are very cheesy and silly moments that are exceptionally cringe-worthy, they don't last too long, so you can enjoy the finer moments of the movie.
The pre-title sequence and the scenes at Drax's mansion in California give us a perfect introduction to the movie. There is action in the PTS, suspense in the centrifuge trainer, actual spying in Drax's mansion, and a cold-blooded murder. One thing that I enjoyed about these scenes was how we get to meet all the characters right off the bat. Corrine, Hugo Drax, Chang, and Holly Goodhead are all given to us in these beginning scenes, which make for a better movie overall now that we can know who is in the movie and what we can expect later on. The scenes in Venice are just as good as the ones in California, but with a slight drop, especially during the goofy stuff such as the gondola chase. It was a wasted scene with no purpose except to pull laughs, which failed miserably in my opinion. The good scenes in Venice are the spying in Drax's lab, the fight with Chang in the glass factory, and the apology to Drax with M and Frederick Grey. This is the 007 we know and enjoy, not the silly Bond-ola and double-taking pigeons. As for the scene with Holly in her hotel room, I never liked Holly anyway, so I don't really care for this scene too much. Then we move to Rio de Janiero, and the silly, goofy stuff takes over. The Carnival is annoying and has echoes of Thunderball, which is fine, but if that was the motive, then TB wins on that note. As for the fight on the cable cars, I absolutely despise it. It's boring, horribly shot, and is incredibly cheesy. Plus, the music in the background is terrible! The movie does pick up again once Bond gets his gadget-laden boat from Q, and then there is a great boat chase which I love! I just wish it could have been longer. Then we go to Drax's Amazon lair, which is a set piece that I think is magnificent. All the scenes here are enjoyable, especially the fight with the python and the escape from the shuttle ignition. After this, we go into outer space, accompanied by Barry's awesome "Flight Into Space." Once aboard Drax's space station, the movie sinks a little, and the climax can't pick it back up again. The final battle in space is good, but it is much too short. If there is one thing that I like in a Bond movie, it's a worthwhile climax that lasts a good bit of time, and MR fails to deliver on that note. Still, the final battle is good, and I like the last few scenes where the station is breaking up and Bond and Holly have to destroy the globes.
All in all, Moonraker is a medium-ranked Bond movie that has its share of silliness and seriousness. There are real Bond moments and cheesy, cringe-worthy moments. The action is great in some places and terrible in others, and the same for the music. The one thing that Moonraker has that I like the most are the locations and how they move from one to the next while spending a good amount of time in each. Moonraker has moved now from the near-bottom pile to the middle. If I was rating it out of 5 stars, I'd give it a 2.5/5
Ah, now there's an idea! Yeah, I think Brosnan would have been well-suited for TLD. In fact, he was asked to play Bond in TLD but couldn't or wouldn't for some reason that I don't know. Anyway, TLD is sort of like GE to me in that it is darker and more hard-edged, but still maintaining balance. I don't think Brosnan would have been the best choice for LTK, since it was made for Dalton's Bond, but definitely for TLD.
Nice to read of MR's rising in your rankings, 00Beast. I agree that one of its strengths is how we meet the 2 main supporting characters(the main villain and the primary Bond girl) both early on and they're in the film throughout. A lot of Bond films have Bond meet just one or the other early on but not MR.
I'm glad Dalton played Bond in TLD instead. I think he provided a nice surprise. Plus, I don't know if Brosnan/Maryam d'Abo's Kara would've generated as much onscreen chemistry as the Dalton/d'Abo combo.
Agreed. MR's unpretentious and never pretends to be anything more than a fun diversion. It completely succeeds at what it aims to accomplish unlike say QOS or TWINE. The most underrated film by the fanbase IMHO.
I tend to view QoS as underrated. I don't see what gets everyone so angry. Take away the editing and Arnold's so called weak composition, and people will still find things to complain about. I see QoS as slowly growing on people in the future, especially when people realize it will never be as good as CR, and the two shouldn't even be compared.
The thing is QoS IS a sequel to Royale so it's kind of inevitable the two will be compared.
Diamonds isn't really a follow up to Majesty's in the same way QoS is to CR though. Tracey is never mentioned in the PTS of DAF - it's merely assumed that Bond is after Blofeld in revenge for his wife's death.
Moore was Bond when I was a kid but to me he was the Anti-Bond - not tough, not cool, not sexy to woman. Also his films were too immature for my tastes even at 13 years old - I could only watch maybe 20 minutes at a time before I'd have to switch the channel. Who was this guy who was pretending to be Bond? Why couldn't they find another guy like Connery? (answer: because only Connery is Connery) My dislike for Moore increased over the years - by the time I was in high school I realized that if I ever met Moore's Bond in a dark alley he would fear me, not the other way around (and I'm not overly huge or badass). But eventually I tried watching a couple of his films; FYEO was the first one I watched all the way through about 8 years ago. At the time I thought "That was it? THAT was the one everyone was raving about?" And then I realized that I was missing the "Oh thank GOD!" factor of this film returning Bond to his roots after MR. I liked FYEO at the time although I found it a bit of a letdown based on what I had heard about it and some overly silly stuff in it.
So I just watched it again and like QoS I liked it far better the second time round once I knew what to expect. The embarrassingly juvenile ending "skit" with Thatcher is still bad and I still thought that the PTS was useless - I would have liked to see one of those rare Bond-less PTS's where it was the Havelock's murder, ending with the close up on Melina's eyes leading into the title song (pretty appropriate IMHO). The title song was a great example of a good song which also modernizes the Bond film of the time - not dated, just an update into a new sound. Pretty song and a great opportunity to feature the singer in the titles. Also, Binder's credits seemed to have more energy and were more visually interesting than most.
The first thing I noticed in the film was how ancient Moore looked. I mean, I know he looked good for his age (and in different scenes his age seemed to swing at least ten years!) but I don't enjoy watching a Bond that old. Maybe if he had kept himself in better shape...Moore was never like Connery or Lazenby (he was already getting man-boobs in LALD) but is this the kind of shape you'd think that Bond should be in?
http://screenmusings.org/ForYourEyesOnly/pages/FYEO_0604.htm
Moore's Bond seemed a bit...overwhelmed by things in the film such as the action scenes and Bibi's character. Again, it suits Moore's age but is it what I'd expect from Bond? I can see a young Dalton doing this film with far greater effect and I could then see Bond's rejection of Bibi being out of her immaturity, not just her youth and energy (she looked like she'd kill Moore in bed, and not in a Xenia Onnatopp kind of way). Also, Bond had little chemistry with Melina which is a shame - I think that's due to the age difference and not the actors. But having said that Moore's Bond has an old pro's grace about him which is kind of endearing and he certainly has smoothness and charm. He also seems to dial down his performance from what I had seen in the past which helps tremendously.
The next thing that I noticed was how good the direction was. Visually it's a great film with fantastic scenery and good use of locations and the "crash-cutting" editing made it feel like a Bond film from the 60s. Amazing to think that this was John Glen given how pedestrian his later films' direction were. The underwater scenes which were not underwater looked a lot better now which might be because they were cleaned up for the UE version. Some good action scenes as well although again Bond seemed a bit too overwhelmed in some of them.
As for performances I rank Topol up there with the best of Bond's allies. Glover's character, while a little bland, was good and would have benefited from more screentime and fleshing out. Melina was stunningly beautiful and it's always nice to see a strong female character instead of a helpless bimbo - too bad about the lack of chemistry. The less said about Bibi the better; I don't think that the problem is as much the character as the performance. Whether that's the fault of the direction or the actress I'm not sure but the result is a character who seems...in the way of the film as opposed to helping it.
The cold war plot was quite good and Bond's final line to the Russian general was a classic (especially at the time of first release). The music was a very weak point to me - the score itself doesn't sound "Bond-y" at all and comes across as dated and generic. As I said above though a great title song.
All in all a very enjoyable film. I'm much more willing to look past what might have been and enjoy it on its own merits now. While it's not exactly the type of Bond film (or Bond!) that I enjoy it's very good for the Bond film that it is.
The scenes with Cassandra Harris are sweet even though she may not have been the best of actresses.
I now prefer Octopussy, it has more suspense plotwise.
Interesting note: Last night I watched The Thomas Crown Affair remake starring Pierce Brosnan as Thomas Crown and also scored by Bill Conti. The man really can't escape Bond lol.
I believe FYEO tends to be highly overrated, usually by fans who hate MR. I never was a MR hater so FYEO probably wasn't meant for me but I've never disliked it. It just tends to play like an expensive episode of "The Saint". Not bad but one of the all time great Bond films like the ones from 1960s? :? Hardly.
Completely agree. Plus, stronger villains, more chemistry between Bond and his leading ladies, a more exciting finish, John Barry music score and Moore seemed to be having more fun. I've always preferred OP to FYEO.
I still think Eyes is (overall) better than MR but it just seemed a bit dry when I last saw it. Put it this way, it took me three sittings to get through the film.
But still a decent Bond outing.
Same here! That camera editing is horribly done. Modern-day aside, we don't need to squint and give ourselves a headache just to catch what's happening!
I saw NSNA for the first time over the summer, having always stuck to the real, EON produced Bond movies. I really hated NSNA, made even worse by the fact that it was just a cheap rip-off of Thunderball. Had Thunderball not been made, then perhaps NSNA could have been at least passable. Then again, the acting is terrible in NSNA.
That said, since Ol' Rog was still Bond, I do sort of like NSNA just to get a glimpse at how things might have turned out if Sean was still doing it. Old or not, he does look better and healthier here than in DAF
I find NSNA is enjoyable in parts. Connery is still a badass, Basinger and Carrera are HOT, and the new Largo is pretty fun to watch with all his unpredictable insanity.
Finally, and this may be a bit biased, but the first time I saw this movie years ago, I HATED the Smallfawcett character. But since then, I've seen all of Mr.Bean on Netflix, LOVED that, and now I find the character much more enjoyable. Funny how that works sometimes!
Still love it! I currently have it sitting in 3rd place on my list.
1.) Goldfinger
2.) Diamonds are Forever
3.) You Only Live Twice
4.) From Russia with Love
5.) Dr. No
6.) Thunderball
7.) Casino Royale
8.) Goldeneye
9.) The World is Not Enough
10.) Tomorrow Never Dies
11.) Quantum of Solace
12.) The Living Daylights
13.) Licence to Kill
14.) Die Another Day
15.) The Spy Who Loved Me
16.) A View to a Kill
17.) Octopussy
18.) The Man with the Golden Gun
19.) Moonraker
20.) For Your Eyes Only
21.) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
22.) Live and Let Die
Having just watched Dr. No, I cant help but think it needs to be higher on my list, but I do not think I enjoy it more than GF, DAF, YOLT or FRWL. It's a dilemma.
I think I need to move OHMSS higher up too. I really do enjoy watching the film, but I cannot stand Lazenby as Bond. I may at least move it above Moonraker.
All the Moore films are somewhat interchangeable. I think I'm going to move OP above AVTAK.
I do not hate DAD as much as others do, but it is a bit of an odd one for me. The first half is very strong, but as soon as we get to the ice palace its an OTT fest. Halle Berry was a terrible choice for a Bond girl. I strongly dislike her character Jinx. Her lines are cheap, and she over acts to the point where I cringe.
This may be a bit off topic, but having recently seen a lot of the films again, I thought I'd give some mini- reviews as well as asking opinions on my list. I'm gonna mull this over for a bit and post my new rankings in the rankings thread as soon as I make my changes.
TGJB
People say it is the pinnacle of Roger Moore Bond movies, and I must say that I understand why! The story is fast-paced, leaving no time for unnecessary scenes and silliness. To go along with this, we get spectacular locations that range from the snowy Alps to the deserts of Egypt, and then to the waters of Sardinia. The plot, while being similiar to YOLT, is actually in my opinion better. A madman wants to fulfill his obsession by causing nuclear threat to escalate to the critical point, and with TSWLM's fast-moving story, we are given an even better movie experience. As for characters, we have got all the Bond regulars of course, though they don't get hardly any screen time. The introduction to General Gogol is a welcome addition, and a fun role to watch later on as he goes back and forth between a danger and a valuable ally. As for Agent Triple X Amasova, Barbara Bach's acting is terrible, and makes the character a burden to watch. Yes, she's extremely attractive, but her looks don't save her from being a dull character. As for villains, I don't understand the dislike for Stromberg. He may not have the most original or memorable characteristics, but he's one nasty villain! He feeds his secretary to a shark, blows up his two best brains to save money, and is willing to destory the world above him to live beneath the sea. Of course, everyone remembers Jaws, and this is while his character was still watchable and even enjoyable. Then there are Sandor and Naomi, and they are good villains, but they are under-used unfortunately. One of the greater points of TSWLM is the blend of action with epic set-pieces, due to director Lewis Gilbert and Ken Adams. The PTS ski chase, the pyramid encounter with Jaws, the train fight, the car chase, and the amazing, too-good-for-words climax on the Liparus and Atlantis all radiate with pure Bondness. Accompanying these magnificent action pieces are Marvin Hamlisch's awesome music. Bond '77 is one of the greatest Bond music tracks ever, and Nobody Does it Better remains one of the best Bond theme songs. All in all, TSWLM is a Top Ten worthy Bond movie, if not Top 5 worthy.
This is for sure one of my favorites, always has been.
As I always noted : Moore looked much younger in LALD than Connery in DAF (but Rog was the oldest one), and it reversed back when Connery looked much younger in NSNA than Moore in AVTAK. Moore looked very good until he hit 50, while Connery has looked very good SINCE he hit 50.
With Connery, maybe he took to heart how he looked in DAF-- then worked hard to get back into great shape. Connery's a good looking dude, but there's definitely a transition period (maybe from 1971-1980 roughly) where he was a good looking young man, and a distinguished older man-- getting from one to the other was SCARY, lol. I'm looking at you, Zardoz. :-))