Which 007 flick has the worst final 3rd : DAD,DAF,TND,SP ? *Edited to be a 4 way choice*

1235»

Comments

  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    @ForYourEyesOnly , I'll always remember watching TND in the theatre for the first time. I was in complete shock at that ending sequence. Brosnan waving that machine gun around like some toy! He does it in the underground sequence in TWINE as well. Pryce definitely does the best he can but my word those lines are absolutely pathetic. "You're too late again Mr. Bond. It's a bad habit of yours. There's nothing you can do.......". So 'low budget tv'. Agreed on the 'drill' sequence as well. Why didn't Carver just jump out of the way? And are you telling me he couldn't hear the drill start up? The film had some production difficulties as I recall, and it shows.

    If we are to objectively judge Moore's fights then he will always come up short. Rog was a lover, not a fighter. However, I still think some of his best work is in TSWLM (particularly at the pyramids) and in MR (the Chang fight). I've also always enjoyed his encounter at Saida's in TMWTGG and at Kananga's lair in LALD (Rog was pretty mobile in his first film).
    ---
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Watch Connery at 1:43 just after he smells the cork. He quickly looks over Wint very subtly, as he recognizes the 'rather potent' aftershave prior to making his remark. That is excellent acting imho.

    I do like that scene,well until he puts the bomb between Wint's legs...the way Kidd is set on fire is always cut from ITV no matter what time the film is on,i only ever saw that happen when i got my old special edition DVD ,i was gobsmacked.

    Wint going out with his tails between his legs is one of the most hilarious moments in all of Bondom. Could never be filmed now, of course.
    So true. A shame.
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Watch Connery at 1:43 just after he smells the cork. He quickly looks over Wint very subtly, as he recognizes the 'rather potent' aftershave prior to making his remark. That is excellent acting imho.

    I do like that scene,well until he puts the bomb between Wint's legs...the way Kidd is set on fire is always cut from ITV no matter what time the film is on,i only ever saw that happen when i got my old special edition DVD ,i was gobsmacked.
    There should be a rule against cutting films on tv. Unforgivable. Just show it at a more adult oriented hour.

    They did it with the Peter Franks lift fight as well,i always wondered how Franks fell over the balcony etc ,and when i finally saw the fight properly it made sense,and is now one my favourite ConneryBond fights because of it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @barryt007, that is pathetic. I recall watching a few Rog Bond films on ITV back in the day when I used to live there and I don't remember any cuts. Perhaps the rules have changed.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    @barryt007, that is pathetic. I recall watching a few Rog Bond films on ITV back in the day when I used to live there and I don't remember any cuts. Perhaps the rules have changed.

    No,thats a very good point,they DIDNT cut them then,it just seems more and more PC ethics are creeping into everything .
    The 9pm watershed is there for a reason...after that time just let the films flow naturally and uncut or just dont bother with the watershed at all !!
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    @bondsum. Connery's performance is great there I quite agree. His slyness is brilliant. I meant more in terms of how he looked. He just seems out of shape and is a shadow of the man he once was (at least in my view).

    Funnily enough, he seems far more threatening and subtle here than he does in TB when he gloats about "the Spectre of defeat" to Largo at the gambling table. I always felt he slipped a little into full on smug in that scene - especially as he mentions Spectre three times.

    and yes I agree with you about Halle too. St. John may be over-the-top (I admit I do laugh at her expressions) but she's not as flat out irritating as bloody Jinx, who seems to think its her film and always seems to be trying to upstage Brosnan.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    barryt007 wrote: »
    @bondjames - TND's ending gets worse and worse for me every time. I think Johnathan Pryce manages to make something out of his lines, but his death scene remains odd (it always was; Brosnan let go of him way too early). There's also that jarring sequence with him machine gunning and the special effects department suddenly decided to stop producing the gun flashes, so we see him shooting an empty gun silently for about two seconds.

    As for the Moore fight, some of it is alright but there's surely no excuse for that laughable jump-hug he executes before he tries to strangle Sandor. At some points Sir Roger looks plain geriatric, and I think that pull-up kick he performs is the worst of all the ones there's been in the series. I did like Roger's initial elbow strike and his last few moves in the fight, but he hit like a grandpa in the rest of it.

    The fight outside the pyramids against Ivan and Boris was much better in my opinion, where Bond's blows actually looked believably threatening. The Jaws fight on the train is also done perfectly; these two are perhaps the only Roger fights other than the one with the yo-yo assassins in OP that I can't complain about. The rest of them look a bit too acted-out and unbelievable, in my opinion, whether it's the blows being unconvincing or the speed of the fight just being under par.

    You dont like the fight on the Golden Gate Bridge vs Zorin?

    I like that fight, but you can kind of tell that most of it was done on a soundstage.
  • From worst to least bad.

    1. Die Another Day: An assault on the senses, reason, and good taste. There's a TRON suit. The satellite. CGI cars. Some of the worst one-liners of all time. A vaguely offensive ending/
    2. Spectre: A bizarre, suspense-free storm of cliches. Dramatic typing. A nonsensical twist. Bond shoots down a helicopter with a pistol. Then he...doesn't shoot Blofeld.
    3. Diamonds are Forever: Tiffany Case has an IQ in the single digits, Blofeld's "death" is horribly anticlimactic, and the special effects of the satellite are horrendous, but the helicopter attack is decent.
    4. Tomorrow Never Dies: Easily the least bad, since there are no direct assaults on logic and good sense. The gunplay is excessive, but everything is logically structured and could be explained to someone who asks.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    From worst to least bad.

    1. Die Another Day: An assault on the senses, reason, and good taste. There's a TRON suit. The satellite. CGI cars. Some of the worst one-liners of all time. A vaguely offensive ending/
    2. Spectre: A bizarre, suspense-free storm of cliches. Dramatic typing. A nonsensical twist. Bond shoots down a helicopter with a pistol. Then he...doesn't shoot Blofeld.
    3. Diamonds are Forever: Tiffany Case has an IQ in the single digits, Blofeld's "death" is horribly anticlimactic, and the special effects of the satellite are horrendous, but the helicopter attack is decent.
    4. Tomorrow Never Dies: Easily the least bad, since there are no direct assaults on logic and good sense. The gunplay is excessive, but everything is logically structured and could be explained to someone who asks.

    Probably this. Though I agree with the likes of @bondsum who say that the Wint/Kidd fight partially makes up for the otherwise dull oil rig climax.
  • Posts: 1,165
    DAF - The worst Bond with no redeemable qualities other than the soundtrack.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,589
    TR007 wrote: »
    DAF - The worst Bond with no redeemable qualities other than the soundtrack.

    I'd argue that it's so bad that it's actually awesome, in a cult-like manner. It's the only Bond film that seems to have been written and directed under the influence. LOL (And yes, Barry's score is awesome too)

    As for the worst third: My vote is for DAD. SP is a close second.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think the climax's for both SP and DAF suffer from being flat-out dull. Both DAD and TND are bad but, in my view, not dull.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think the climax's for both SP and DAF suffer from being flat-out dull. Both DAD and TND are bad but, in my view, not dull.
    That is true, but the camp and charismatic performances of Connery, Gray and St. John elevate DAF for me, just as all the actors/actresses in the other Hamilton films do as well (no matter how cheesy the scenarios may be). None of that exists in the latest effort, which takes itself very seriously without any levity but fails to excite as well on top of that.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited September 2017 Posts: 25,432
    I know DAF is not the greatest though I always enjoy watching it for its obsurdities, plus it's got a great soundtrack I have the deluxe DAF score and I listen to it often.
  • I like SP's finale. Surreal intimate and personal but still interesting and has a nice sense of "this is what it's all been leading up to" to it. And DAD's while stupid and poorly made is at least high concept and memorable. Same with DAF, it's poor but it's memorable and unmistakeably Bond. TND though, the finale is just a generic action movie with all the cheese and none of the blood and guts. Nothing memorable or Bondanian about it imo so that's the worst for me. Shame because the film up until Bond leaves Hamburg is actually really good fun and hard to fault. But after they escape Carver's building it just becomes really bland and forgettable which I think is the worst thing a Bond film can be.
  • Posts: 11,189
    The second half of TND is pretty much all filler-action. Thinking about it, the first half isn't all that great either but it has some good moments and scenes. I find the car park chase a guilty pleasure.

    The SP final for me just kind of drags and isn't as exciting as it seems to think it is.
  • Posts: 4,045
    I know DAF is not the greatest though I always enjoy watching it for its obsurdities, plus it's got a great soundtrack I have the deluxe DAF score and I listen to it often.

    It's one of the best scores, and such a range and variety of styles.
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    SP is a top 5 Bond film for me.
    I love the ending. It might feel a little lackluster but I like it.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    The second half of TND is pretty much all filler-action. Thinking about it, the first half isn't all that great either but it has some good moments and scenes. I find the car park chase a guilty pleasure.

    The first half to me is just one of those films where it all seems to be coming together. It's nothing really new sure but it's really fun and has a couple of cool ideas (evil rupert murdoch, Bond running into an old flame, remote control car). It's formulaic Bond but it's formulaic Bond done pretty much perfectly. The only issue I have with the first half is the theme somf. But then after the HALO jump (which is an underrated stunt) it all goes downhill imo. I think the escape from Carver's building is cool and I like bits of the bike chase but it really doesn't live up to its potential, especially once we reach the finale.

    I put TND in the same boat as LALD. Solid mid table Bond film, really fun and watchable and is on the verge of being top ten, but they both fall just short of being one of my favourites. Which in a way makes them more frustrating to watch than the films I outright dislike, because they come so close to being really good.

    And I agree on the car chase. It gets more and more OTT as it goes on (a rocket launcher in a car park?) but it's just a fun idea done really well and Arnold's score and the fun Brosnan seems to be having playing it makes it really fun to watch.
  • vzok wrote: »
    I know DAF is not the greatest though I always enjoy watching it for its obsurdities, plus it's got a great soundtrack I have the deluxe DAF score and I listen to it often.

    It's one of the best scores, and such a range and variety of styles.

    Exactly. When it comes to stylistic variety, DAF's score blows all the others away.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    Overall DAF and DAD don't bother me that much because the films they're attached to lost me long before the third act. The entirety of TND is basically in action set piece welded to another so I'm not surprised if the ending is another derivative action set piece.

    So while DAF might be my least favourite third act - the oil rig sequence is arduous to watch - it has the glorious insanity of Wint and Kidd finale that I look forward to.

    I think SP hurts the most because I actually like the first half of the film. It also is where the writers seem to make every wrong choice - it is devoid of action (something Mendes doesn't seem to be able to do with any consistency) and awful character choices for Swann and Blofeld. I'm not a SP hater - it disappoints me because it has so much potential which a film like TND doesn't have from the beginning. And DAF and DAD are goofy and cheesy from early on in the peice.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 3,334
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    @bondsum. Connery's performance is great there I quite agree. His slyness is brilliant. I meant more in terms of how he looked. He just seems out of shape and is a shadow of the man he once was (at least in my view).

    Funnily enough, he seems far more threatening and subtle here than he does in TB when he gloats about "the Spectre of defeat" to Largo at the gambling table. I always felt he slipped a little into full on smug in that scene - especially as he mentions Spectre three times.

    and yes I agree with you about Halle too. St. John may be over-the-top (I admit I do laugh at her expressions) but she's not as flat out irritating as bloody Jinx, who seems to think its her film and always seems to be trying to upstage Brosnan.
    Fair enough @BAIN123. But I try not to over-analyze these earlier movies too much, especially when trying to compare 60s effects to present day special effects (though I know it wasn’t you that made that point). I’m really referring to the over-analysis of Bond movies in general. They were really only ever intended as lightweight, throwaway pop entertainment for the general masses, not to be pawed over, dissected and excessively critiqued by countless generations for ever and a day and put under a microscope. Sadly, Bond movies just can’t hold up to such relentless and intense scrutiny, and neither were they designed to.

    I also feel that Jill St John is only doing what Guy Hamilton demanded of her. If she goes from an acerbic and sassy chippie to a dumb redhead over the course of the movie, then the fault squarely lies with the script changes and Hamilton’s direction and not her. Admittedly, St John was mostly cast as “window dressing” in the majority of her previous movies - The Liquidator, Tony Rome, The Lost World - but that’s more to do with how pretty, young women were written in Hollywood movies of that period, rather than the actress herself. I actually like her performance in the first act of the movie quite a lot, even up to some of those early Las Vegas moments where she’s still in the same acerbic character. Everything seems to go off-piste about the moment that strange woman turns into a gorilla in the weird Vegas sideshow, and St John coincidentally metamorphoses into a bimbo. This is a shame, as the first half showed great promise and a much-missed freshness for Bond’s leading ladies at the time, with the exception of Diana Rigg. (Whereas Rigg benefits from a better script, and in a better movie, that’s not directed by Hamilton.)

    As for the issues of Connery being slightly overweight (and as I’ve also pointed out elsewhere on these forums) so was Roger Moore back in 71, so it’s all a tad pedantic. Of course Moore benefited from a longer lead-up time before LALD commenced shooting, unlike Connery for DAF, who was a last-minute replacement for John Gavin, so didn’t have enough time to get in better shape for his role. That said, Connery is still the governor, and a little bit of flab only upsets the fitness fashionistas that like to see everyone nowadays sculpted like Michelangelo's David. As a young kid who saw the movie in the theaters in 71, and again later in 76 at a re-release, it didn’t bother me one jot. And it still doesn’t.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    I admit @bondsum I have probably fallen into the trap of over-analyzing these films since becoming an online fan.

    Re DAF I admit I do enjoy the first part of the film more now than I did before. It's got character and wit, even if the story isn't all that exciting.

    It's the second half that I still continue to struggle with to this day. Yes it's got some great dialogue from Connery and Charles Gray (he in particular is great) but it just drags for me and I'm usually tempted to skip it if possible to the Wint and Kidd fight.

    I appreciate we are coming from very different periods in Bond's history. I obviously didn't see DAF until much later in the 1990s so maybe don't have the fondness for it that you did.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 12,837
    I think the main problem with DAF is Blofeld. I think the PTS is pretty bad but after that I always find myself enjoying it. But then after the Blofeld reveal it all goes downhill and just seems so half arsed imo. The oil rig sequence has no tension at all and Bond and Blofeld seem more like friendly rivals than arch enemies, and the whole "Blofeld holds the world to ransom" plot was boring at that point general. It's nothing new and it also isn't very well done. The Wint and Kidd fight has always seemed a bit jarring to me because their reappearance reminds me that I was watching a very different film an hour or so ago.

    I think the Blofeld stuff is bad and it also just constantly reminds you of OHMSS, which makes it seem worse because Tracy isn't even mentioned and Bond and Blofeld seem to enjoy facing off against eachother. Plus Blofeld was overused at this point anyway, I think three films in a row is too much and they never did anything interesting with him. They just seemed to wheel him out as an excuse to avoid writing an interesting villain because everyone knows "oh, guy with white cat, yeah he's evil", so there's no effort required from the writers.

    DAF would be so much better if it was just a standalone film about Bond battling diamond smugglers imo. Make the PTS a really cool little mini movie ala GF to reintroduce Connery, make Willard Whyte the main villain (I think the idea of Hugh Hefner as a Bond villain has legs) and ditch the space lazer, and you'd have a really fun Bond film. There was probably no point doing a proper OHMSS follow up without Lazenby but then why feature Blofeld at all if they didn't want to do that.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    I think the main problem with DAF is Blofeld. I think the PTS is pretty bad but after that I always find myself enjoying it. But then after the Blofeld reveal it all goes downhill and just seems so half arsed imo. The oil rig sequence has no tension at all and Bond and Blofeld seem more like friendly rivals than arch enemies, and the whole "Blofeld holds the world to ransom" plot was boring at that point general. It's nothing new and it also isn't very well done. The Wint and Kidd fight has always seemed a bit jarring to me because their reappearance reminds me that I was watching a very different film an hour or so ago.

    I think the Blofeld stuff is bad and it also just constantly reminds you of OHMSS, which makes it seem worse because Tracy isn't even mentioned and Bond and Blofeld seem to enjoy facing off against eachother. Plus Blofeld was overused at this point anyway, I think three films in a row is too much and they never did anything interesting with him. They just seemed to wheel him out as an excuse to avoid writing an interesting villain because everyone knows "oh, guy with white cat, yeah he's evil", so there's no effort required from the writers.

    DAF would be so much better if it was just a standalone film about Bond battling diamond smugglers imo. Make the PTS a really cool little mini movie ala GF to reintroduce Connery, make Willard Whyte the main villain (I think the idea of Hugh Hefner as a Bond villain has legs) and ditch the space lazer, and you'd have a really fun Bond film. There was probably no point doing a proper OHMSS follow up without Lazenby but then why feature Blofeld at all if they didn't want to do that.

    Agreed completely. Everything else they did with Blofeld was also stupid — his clones and their deaths within five minutes of appearing, the drag, etc. The only interesting thing they had was his impersonating of Willard Whyte, and that's not enough to redeem the forced return of the character. I didn't mind Charles Gray as the villain, but by this point Blofeld was such a far cry from the character he was when he was introduced 8 years prior.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited September 2017 Posts: 6,390
    I think the main problem with DAF is Blofeld. I think the PTS is pretty bad but after that I always find myself enjoying it. But then after the Blofeld reveal it all goes downhill and just seems so half arsed imo. The oil rig sequence has no tension at all and Bond and Blofeld seem more like friendly rivals than arch enemies, and the whole "Blofeld holds the world to ransom" plot was boring at that point general. It's nothing new and it also isn't very well done. The Wint and Kidd fight has always seemed a bit jarring to me because their reappearance reminds me that I was watching a very different film an hour or so ago.

    I think the Blofeld stuff is bad and it also just constantly reminds you of OHMSS, which makes it seem worse because Tracy isn't even mentioned and Bond and Blofeld seem to enjoy facing off against eachother. Plus Blofeld was overused at this point anyway, I think three films in a row is too much and they never did anything interesting with him. They just seemed to wheel him out as an excuse to avoid writing an interesting villain because everyone knows "oh, guy with white cat, yeah he's evil", so there's no effort required from the writers.

    DAF would be so much better if it was just a standalone film about Bond battling diamond smugglers imo. Make the PTS a really cool little mini movie ala GF to reintroduce Connery, make Willard Whyte the main villain (I think the idea of Hugh Hefner as a Bond villain has legs) and ditch the space lazer, and you'd have a really fun Bond film. There was probably no point doing a proper OHMSS follow up without Lazenby but then why feature Blofeld at all if they didn't want to do that.

    Really, really good points here. They half-a**ed the whole Blofeld character and didn't want to remind the audience of OHMSS anyway, so why do it?

    If we had to have Blofeld, I still think a reprise by Savalas would have been better than Gray. And I just sense that Savalas would also play well opposite St. John.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 3,334
    I think the problem with revising DAF casting and script decisions to suit modern palettes is fruitless. Let’s not forget that it was mostly David Picker who was really calling the shots over the producers on DAF. It was Picker that wanted to change the tone of DAF, steering it away from the more grounded OHMSS and the “downer ending” and back to the more surreal tones of YOLT with a lot of GF thrown in. It was Picker that brought in Tom Mankiewicz to punch-up the script’s humor, and it was Picker that junked Eon’s choice of John Gavin to replace him with Connery. The two year gap between OHMSS and DAF would not have been as fresh in the minds of audiences back then without the aid of TV repeats and the availability of VHS. Besides, their ace up their sleeve was having Connery back. The final script for DAF clearly wasn’t written for Telly Savalas in mind for the role of Blofeld. It’s a big shame it wasn’t and I agree with the majority of you here, but Savalas was surplus to requirements when Lazenby dropped out. The Bond series never particularly cared about continuity anyway. LALD lost Q without so much as a blink of an eye and we almost had a new M in the form of Kenneth Moore to replace Bernard Lee. If the actors were available then they’d use them, if they were not, then they’d replace them with a new face.

    Clearly, modern fans who have grown up on a staple diet of VHS and constant televised Bond repeats would rather now have seen a continuation of OHMSS; but that wasn’t what the studio boss David Picker wanted, neither Broccoli for that matter, nor even cinema audiences back in 71. One also needs to understand the cinematic landscape of the period and what other movies Bond was competing against at that time, plus the overall drop in cinema attendances that preferred their color TV sets at home as opposed to going out.

    DAF is very much a movie of its time and was a reaction, rightly or wrongly, against OHMSS, hence why Peter Hunt wasn’t invited back. I’m sure if Hunt had been involved, the script would’ve been in keeping with its predecessor. Sadly, Hunt had put Picker’s nose out of joint, fighting against the movie’s running time, casting decisions, protracted photography and overall tone of the movie. Let’s not forget the original OHMSS script post-Thunderball featured a submersible Aston Martin, which goes to show how far removed it was from the 1970 version.

    PS, incidentally, Willard Whyte was based more on Howard Hughes, not so much Hugh Hefner.
  • Posts: 533
    Why do we have to choose these four movies?
  • CASINOROYALECASINOROYALE Somewhere hot
    Posts: 1,003
    DAD is the worst Bond film hands down. Entertaining yes but it feels like an American Bond movie.
  • Worst to Best:
    1) Spectre
    2)DAD
    3)TND
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,425
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think the problem with revising DAF casting and script decisions to suit modern palettes is fruitless. Let’s not forget that it was mostly David Picker who was really calling the shots over the producers on DAF. It was Picker that wanted to change the tone of DAF, steering it away from the more grounded OHMSS and the “downer ending” and back to the more surreal tones of YOLT with a lot of GF thrown in. It was Picker that brought in Tom Mankiewicz to punch-up the script’s humor, and it was Picker that junked Eon’s choice of John Gavin to replace him with Connery. The two year gap between OHMSS and DAF would not have been as fresh in the minds of audiences back then without the aid of TV repeats and the availability of VHS. Besides, their ace up their sleeve was having Connery back. The final script for DAF clearly wasn’t written for Telly Savalas in mind for the role of Blofeld. It’s a big shame it wasn’t and I agree with the majority of you here, but Savalas was surplus to requirements when Lazenby dropped out. The Bond series never particularly cared about continuity anyway. LALD lost Q without so much as a blink of an eye and we almost had a new M in the form of Kenneth Moore to replace Bernard Lee. If the actors were available then they’d use them, if they were not, then they’d replace them with a new face.

    Clearly, modern fans who have grown up on a staple diet of VHS and constant televised Bond repeats would rather now have seen a continuation of OHMSS; but that wasn’t what the studio boss David Picker wanted, neither Broccoli for that matter, nor even cinema audiences back in 71. One also needs to understand the cinematic landscape of the period and what other movies Bond was competing against at that time, plus the overall drop in cinema attendances that preferred their color TV sets at home as opposed to going out.

    DAF is very much a movie of its time and was a reaction, rightly or wrongly, against OHMSS, hence why Peter Hunt wasn’t invited back. I’m sure if Hunt had been involved, the script would’ve been in keeping with its predecessor. Sadly, Hunt had put Picker’s nose out of joint, fighting against the movie’s running time, casting decisions, protracted photography and overall tone of the movie. Let’s not forget the original OHMSS script post-Thunderball featured a submersible Aston Martin, which goes to show how far removed it was from the 1970 version.

    PS, incidentally, Willard Whyte was based more on Howard Hughes, not so much Hugh Hefner.

    A critical moment for Bond. I think this is one situation where we must be grateful for the studio stepping in and bringing back Connery. DAF could have been so much better and it's always going to be a loss that Laz didn't come back to do OHMSS properly but had Gavin been cast would Bond have survived. Sean kept the show on the road and then they cast Rog, who was thankfully British but also acceptable to a an American audience.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 11,189
    Probably a good thing Gavin wasn't cast based on his performance in this scene. He'd be the second "clothes-peg"

Sign In or Register to comment.