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
Looking at it as they probably did in '64 it was something so different and exciting I could see it. But now it's more intriguing than special. I admit to still getting a kick in seeing it when watching GF even now.
To my knowledge the seatbelt was introduced in the nineteen seventies....
I'd give that to the movie : in the novel Bond going to the Bahamas is far more convoluted and a tad far fetched. And it needs lots and lots of exposition from M. I love how it shows how brilliant M is, but it is a tad long and a tad far fetched.
I wouldn't give that at all. M's hunch is no more convoluted, far-fetched, or consumptive of screentime than the whole plastic-surgery double subplot silliness. I like the idea of M having a hunch that pays off--it's another bit of characterization eliminated so that Bond comes off well at M's expense, which was sadly customary in the Connery/Moore films (another controversial opinion, I know).
The greatness of Bernard Lee tends to obscure how underwritten M was in the classic Bonds. I'm not arguing that he the character should have been as over-exposed as he/she was in the Brosnan/Craig era, but Fleming's M was certainly a richer character than the Connery/Moore-era M.
As much as I enjoy the classic Connery/Moore era, that's one of my little nitpicks too over how the filmmakers seemed to want to make out Bond to be a little too on top of things, that nothing can go under his nose. Like how in the GF novel it was Hawker that found Goldfinger's golf ball rather than Bond in the film. Despite that, they do try at least give Connery some vulnerability where he couldn't have made it out of a tight spot like at the end of TB where it's Domino that saves him (retained from the novel, though done in a different manner). Where they do get it right I think is in bits like Bond noticing Red Grant drug Tantiana, because you'd kind of expect Bond to be a little more alert especially after what happened with Kerim.
It's sort of the same thing with Bond having INSANE knowledge in every field of interest, even the most obscure. I can totally buy Bond knowing the best restaurants in major cities, as it makes sense a man well traveled like Bond would take an interest to that. But when Lazenby shows his expertise as a lepidopterist it's a little TOO much (and I can't imagine that NOT boring Fleming's Bond). I can only go with that kind of stuff in the sillier films like Bond knowing the vintage date of a drink "1851, unmistakable" in DAF because so much of film is heightened it's clearly meant be more taken as a gag rather than something that impresses or tells us about Bond.
+1
Absolutely, that's partly why so many critics and journalists regularly referred to Bond as a Superman during those years. I admit that Bond's hyper-competence probably was part of the fantasy appeal of the character, but it became overdone, though you're right to point out Bond noticing Red Grant drug Tatiana as a valid exception.
Yes, it's one of the little "off" moments in an otherwise great film, and meant to hark back to Bond's similar displays of recondite knowledge in the Connery era. Fleming's Bond would probably know the common names of various birds, but there's no way he would have memorized the scientific names of butterflies. Making a M a lepidopterist in the first place has always seemed weird to me, but that's because I personally find the habit a bit sinister (the whole idea of keeping cases of impaled insects in one's house, errrghhh).
Oh don't get me wrong: I said on this very topic I believe that I would like to see M more as Bond's superior in every sense of the word: as his boss yes, but also more intelligent, being more capable to see the big picture, better organised, etc. I also mentioned as an example the novel Thunderball. But I do think he comes off as almost godly in his deduction, a bit like Sherlock Holmes does sometimes. Sure, his reasoning made sense, but what were the odds that he would be that right? And while I love that bit in the novel, really enjoyed the read, I do think it would take more time showing it, or rather the conversation would obviously be less dynamic than what we had in the movie. But it might simply be that they did not want to have Derval, the Bond girl's brother, a traitor.
In any case, I do prefer Bond to be a little more faillible than he sometimes comes off.
I know he's Bond, but you'd think he'd be more concentrated on how to escape than looking over at Loque at that time.
But the moment in DAF when Sir Donald asks his knowledge of diamonds is limited is a nice reflection of the character. The Moore version may have explained what would follow on his own.
I will say that Moonraker is certainly one of the most enjoyable movies. It’s cheap entertainment. The Spy Who Loved Me has some MAJOR pacing issues, particularly with its third act.
Thank you for summarizing my opinions. It’s far from a bad movie, just minor nitpicking and major pacing problems in the third act, and it’s still a fun ride.
It's my favorite Moore film but not the best. It does crack my top 5.
A perceptive comment
Moore was a much better actor than the general public gives him credit for, I think.
The Man Who Haunted Himself gives ample proof of that.
I would argue that the 'comedy' he is so noted for, actually only really comes in to play in the middle two films of his tenure.
It's a stunning film to look at in many ways, and to me is the beginning of "Blockbuster Bond," and Cubby's ethos of putting all the money up on the screen. The locations feel exotic, and the lineup of women is unparalleled. Just . . . staggering.
And yet: I also think it marks the beginning of the self-indulgence that reached its peak in the Moore era and weakened the movies. Sometimes the right thing to do is to leave something on the cutting room floor, to imply the joke without telling it, or to lead us to the water without forcing us to drink.
The opening sequence alone is pretty egregious: Bond beats a villain in drag to death, escapes on a jet pack (!), then defeats some pistol-wielding henchmen with water canon built into his car? . . . Maybe have 1 of those ideas in the first 5 minutes, not all 3!
The Pts should have ended with Bond exiting the room after he tosses the flowers, but it may have been too similar to GF!
Still I do like when the water cannon segues into the titles sequence! Maybe if they just left out the jet pack?
I think they put in the jetpack there as it wouldn't have been able to fly any further. It's a rather elaborate way of escaping abot 500 meters. So yes, they could've left it out. But I guess they wanted to show the edge of what was technically possible.
Moonraker is better then The Spy Who Loved Me as it is a more refined version of that line of thinking for the film. TSWLM was almost a transitional film between TMWTGG and MR in terms of tone. I must say I've always loved Hamlisch's score, but you can't compete with John Barry's haunting Moonraker soundtrack.
TSWLM was good for what it set itself out to be. Following the lukewarm reception of Golden Gun, this is definitely what was needed.