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 always found the opposite to be true, the above statement compounded with his awkward clumsiness in the physicality department just made him the least convincing spy on the planet.
But likewise, it must be said that people love him for other reasons and those reasons are very valid.
LALD, TMWTGG and FYEO prove without doubt that Moore could play Fleming’s Bond and add a harder edge to the character. He could also sell the physical side (albeit not as well as Connery) too.... he was an imposing man (at 6ft 2in).....just watch ‘The Saint’ and you will see he can do fist fights exceptionally well!
Although Fleming eventually warmed to Connery and even went on to become a fan of his portrayal, to him Bond had to be a gentleman. We can argue for as long as we want about what ‘Gentleman ’ means in this context, but just watch the peak-era films that Moore starred in and you’ll understand exactly what I mean. Bond is a ‘gentleman’ spy and assassin.
Britt Ekland, who starred opposite Moore in 1974’s The Man with the Golden Gun, told The Telegraph that ‘Roger [Moore] is the best Bond, of course – not just because of being my Bond, but because if you read the early Ian Fleming books describing him, that’s how he was.”
Most actors lack the class and sophistication of Moore. The whole reason the part of Bond was natural to him.
Ultimately, the numbers never lie. According to Forbes, Connery's Bond films grossed a total of 4.5 billion dollars (adjusted to inflation). Craig's films have grossed 3.6 billion. There were also fewer theaters in the '60s and '70s than there are now.
Yeah, I've seen The Saint. He was still rubbish in a fight. And, to be honest, even if he was better in The Saint, it wouldn't make a difference to how poor he was in that same department as Bond. Even in those films mentioned above as example's of Moore's 'harder edge', there are moments of goof and clumsiness where he was totally out of his depth against villains of equal size - or in Nick Nack's case, much smaller.
Sure, we could argue about what 'Gentlemen' means, but it's not really relevant. It sort of dances around the issue, because you can be convincing as a 'Gentleman' spy and still be physically convincing when it comes to killing someone. Moore had charm in abundance, but I never bought him as a killer. Thankfully, as I said above, the saving grace is that his films were less interested in realism (even more so than any others up to that point). So they were enjoyable regardless. People don't love Moore's take on the character for his gritty realism, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I'll humbly disagree with yourself and Britt Ekland on this one - I still enjoy Moore's movies though!
I don't put too much weight on BO figures. DaD did well at the BO but is total garbage.
Not only were there fewer theaters, those films stayed around for longer it seems and people would go again and again. You couldn't just wait for the film to pop up a couple months later on home video and a TV premiere would also be years away. You can also keep in mind that the DN/FRWL reissue when spymania hit grossed even more for those than the actual first runs from what I've heard. The Bonds used to have the market to themselves but basically since TSWLM onward there's been a more crowded market of genre films to compete with.
Lastly, TWINE is the weakest film in the series as far as I'm concerned.
While Roger Moore always appeared to be more concerned about his hair and appearance than getting his hands dirty, he was, in fact, an adept karate student of Aaron Banks.
There are numbers of hand-to-hand sequences in the Moore films, many include 'karate chops' and some low kicks and many campy uses of props but his fight scenes never reach the intensity and grit of Connery's, or later, Craig's, fight scenes. Moore understood his limitations in this area, and opted for cunning rather than grit in gaining the upper hand on his opponents in hand-to-hand combat scenes.
The series aided this paradigm by introducing characters such as Tee Hee of Live and Let Die (1973) and Jaws from The Spy Who Loves Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979) to make Moore's mortal fighting deficit seem less personal in light of these super-villains' extraordinary strength and size.
Moore was not entirely without talent or training in when it came to physical combat, his greatest skill of all was knowing what would make James Bond look good – and believable – when it came to these matters.
This wasn't a matter of laziness. Moore wasn't afraid to put in the work when a role called for it. In his pre-Bond television spy life as The Saint, the actor took up judo to help him properly play the scrappy Simon Templar.
So IMO his Bond was still good in a fight. He was a big imposing man too. Sure, Connery was tougher but I’m pretty sure Moore could give 5ft 10in Craig Bond a good fight given his 6ft 2in stature.
All of this makes his awkwardness in these scenes, as well as their generally poor choreography, even more disappointing. If he had strong fighting skills in reality, it sure didn't come across in his Bond films, unfortunately. For my money, most of the other Bonds would have won out against Moore's version of the character fairly easily, especially Connery, Lazenby and Craig.
Now, I'll just excuse myself before this thread morphs into a TWINE appreciation thread or TWINE hate thread. Whichever.
This is on the DVD. I always liked this exchange, it's self-knowing and Brosnan delivers that line excellently. It just solidifies his relationship with M so well. Would have bought the house down.
I have always been intrigued by this deleted scene, its gorgeous....
Also, I believe it was filmed in the same location as the party in Eyes Wide Shut
How did this scene fit with the rest of the film? What was happening? Why did it get deleted?
I'm assuming it was Bond and Elektra's first kiss after her high hand card game with Zukovsky in the casino. It would have transitioned to her house in Baku, where Bond and Elektra are in bed.
I always felt one of the biggest mistakes of TWINE was not seeing the very crucial moment Bond actually breaks down and gives into Elektra's advances. All the way up to the casino scene, Bond is keeping his guard up with Elektra, but then the next time we see him he's suddenly in bed with her.
This is the first I've learned of there actually being such a scene that was shot, so I'm curious why they would cut it out at all. It's such a pivotal moment for Bond finally giving into the temptation.
Great points. I'm not a fan of the self-referential moments (GE has quite a few, IIRC, and so does SF). They take me out of the film.
TWINE is much worse than DAD because its boring. All the Brosnan films are pretty awful but TWINE is bad and dull. DAD is terrible but also bonkers, which at least gives it a car crash, can't turn away quality.
I’m fine with them when done just right. I like the bit in TB where Fiona basically mocks the trope of Bond turning a Bond girl to the good side “but not this one!”
I disagree. I enjoy those moment, they can be quite cheeky and show some degree of self-awareness. It's wrong to go too far in either direction though - i.e become too 'jokey' or overly solemn.
I don't think Bond would 'break' down. Plus, he and Electra have romantic chemistry by that point. You expect them to give in to each other.....
I disagree about that line though. I think the Dame nailed it's delivery.
Anyone seen this video? It's fascinating to see how little Leicester Square has not changed in over 20 years. Also the outfits! Christ, they are so bad. What was Brosnan thinking?
+1
What on earth is Brosnan wearing?
Looks like he borrowed Dalton's Rhett Butler costume from the Gone With the Wind sequel, Scarlett.
Maybe Denise Richards' makeup was the inspiration for Zao a couple years later.
Sophie Marceau must've stumbled out of bed and realized she had to attend a premiere.
Cigar Girl came in from the set of a Star Trek film or series and chose to keep the makeup on.
Also, Denise Richards gets it in the neck in this review. I think its a bit unfair as two superhero female characters people quickly celebrate - Harley Quinn and Black Widow - are wholly unbelievable. I mean Margot Robbie is meant to be a brilliant psychologist and Scarlett Johannson a Russian spy. They look closer to pornstars. Is it that unbelievable that Denise Richards would be a scientist???
But glad that TWINE is getting a critical reevaluation. It's deserved.
I didn't see much chemistry. And like I mentioned, Bond was turning her advances down up to the casino scene, so to see them in bed next time just feels abrupt. It's almost as bad as the totally illogical set up of the Thames River chase.
Not good enough for the filmmakers, apparently.
I found this rather charming interview with Richards. She comes off as intelligent and informed, far from the air-head she is portrayed as in the media (at least 1999, I think Richards reputation in 2020 is very different).
She seems great. People (like the dude in this interview) are just so pervy on her and ask dumb questions which reflect badly when she gives dumb answers back .It's hardly her fault. People just saw her as a pretty face.
It's a shame that in many respects, the team behind TWINE may also have just seen Richards as a 'pretty face'. In 1999, Richards was stone cold babe, but they could and should have done more with Dr Jones.....
It's a beautiful car, one that gets some decent screen time as well, shame it gets overlooked. It's up there with the DB5 and the Vanquish.
Bit late on this, but Brosnan looks like he is trying to audition to be the next Doctor (strong 8th Doctor vibes to his choice of clothing).
I think my initial post about Brosnan giving the 'definitive performance' as Bond was a little OTT. But it's clear that Brosnan doesn't just coast on his charisma and roguish charm. Here Bond is meaner, more dour and showing signs of emotion. Brosnan seems more weathered with a stronger sense of maturity and confidence. He has sparkly eyes and is still tall, dark and mysterious. Though, in the interests of balance he feels wooden in the actions sequences.
007 this time has an appealing vulnerable side - not only a physical one in the form of a dislocated collar bone - but in a growing susceptibility to Elektra, who is more his match than any woman he's met. she outsmarts him psychologically. I also love the line: "I hate killing an unarmed man. Cold blooded murder is a filthy business." Said whilst screwing on a silencer. I admit to spinning back the film to hear that line again......😉
I have to say though that the movie belongs to Sophie Marceau. You sense that you're on familiar 'Bond girl' territory during her opening scene. But the character comes to life soon after and she is nicely matched w/Pierce Brosnan. Every time they have a scene, I'd get goosebumps.
You can't help but feel enamoured and protective of what appears to be a sympathetic character. The skill that Marceau has is making the character seductive and Siren-like. She lures you in with her intoxicating, soulful and sensual demeanour. It's a sensitive and knotty performance; as you do consider something may be wrong, but she doesn't wink at the camera saying 'I'm the villain' (see Andrew Scott in SP). In fact, she even makes a compelling case why Bond has the wrong end of the stick in one scene when she looks to be ousted.
She's a proper slinky femme-fatale with complex motivations that are actually relatable. I mean, her father is willing t pay $5m for a stolen report and not to free his daughter from her kidnapper who is clearly raping her? I'd be pissed off by that alone. Furthermore, M let this happen and used her as bait to get to Renard? I'd want my revenge to.
Marceau gives Bond a real woman to deal with for once. Elektra wraps Bond, Renard and M around her little finger. In turn, for the character to 'work' and be convincing she has to seduce the audience - win our trust and be able to make us doubt ourselves - something Marceau does with such ease. She is also a very elegant, sophisticated European woman who is easy to fall in love with....it's difficult to resist her (and she knows it). Best Bond villain? I think so....
Robert Carlyle is well cast as a reedy, rat-like terrorist. He looks genuinely scary, feral and actually capable of masterminding his schemes. He's quite vile especially considering he boasts about raping Elektra. He's a snivelling nasty-piece-of work.
Though I can't help but think that Carlyle doesn't get more to do....he also is seemingly poised to be a slightly more flamboyant villain. Mainly as he is positioned as 'a man with a grudge and nothing to lose' replete with a head injury that means he cannot feel pleasure or pain. But it's clear that Apted and Carlyle want to focus on the 'reality' of the character; which can make him a little dour. But he's interesting as he's essentially primed as the 'big bad' and we are told he may have manipulated Elektra to fall in love with him.
Soon after, we release that Renard is actually a cuckold and that Elektra is manipulating him......I genuinely don't think she loved Renard. she was merely using him, and he was too dumb to see it. It's quite cruel when she taunts his impotence and his faking of emotions, only then to bring him back. You can add gaslighting to Elektra's list of indiscretions. It's a scene that extenuates her cruelty and seductiveness.
I have to say that the action grows murky and rather tiresome in the second half, with at least one set piece too many. Especially as the two action sequences in the middle of the film (the Russian weapons base and the buzzsaw chase) feeling very similar. But the real centrepiece of this film is the opening sequence which is a masterpiece in itself. I have to say that the real scene-stealer of the whole film is Maria Grazia Cucinotta firing a machine gun on a speedboat....
I think Apted bought real complexity to some of the characters, an interesting geo-political context whilst maintaining the Bond staples. He was able to adhere and subvert the formula whilst exploring new wrinkles. The tone is much more 'real world' albeit heightened; everything in the film is played with a straight face and it helps having proper actors like Judi Dench. But there is still an eversion to the franchise’s most adolescent tendencies (lame jokes and an unnecessary Denise Richards). Though I have a soft spot for this film as it was the first Bond I saw in cinemas when I was 9......so I'm a bit of a sucker for it for my own reasons.
Whilst there may be some attempt at psychological depth, this film wasn't designed to win prestigious awards. It's primarily terrific entertainment. It's more fun than I remembered.
I give it 5/5