I agree with some of the opinons on here. Moore was certainly not a rubbish Bond but...certainly not the best Bond they could have gotten, either. He, like the other "multiple Bonds"(guys that played Bond more than once) had some good movies(Live and Let Die is a personal favorite of mine) and he had some...not so good movies(Moonraker).
This is just my own opinion, but instead of Moore, they should have stuck with George Lazenby. I wonder how the Bond movies would have turned out had they done that?
I disagree that he was camp or a poor fighter - the point about him always facing physically superior villains, and that, in turn, making him look bad is something I hadn't thought about. The sequence previously mentioned in TMWTGG where he fights Alfred Hitchcock and two other thugs is one of his finest moments.
Roger Moore has always been my favourite James Bond, but that doesn't mean he was necessarily the best. I'd probably have given that to Connery. The humour during the Moore era was the fault of the writers, and it wasn't always that bad. He has indeed though appeared in some of the weaker Bond films -- but since Moore was in more official Bond films than any other actor - he's bound to have a couple of stinkers! (TMWTGG, MR and AVTAK).
However, he thoroughly made up for it in the greatest of his films; Live and Let Die, which climbs my Bond rankings the more I see it, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only (in which Roger gives what must be one of his best performances).
Rather than wondering what Lazenby could have done had he continued as Bond - I've always thought about what we'd have missed if Moore hadn't been Bond.
I have been hearing a lot about Moore looking too old when he made the Bond films. But people have to remember the time they were made youth was not worshipped the way it is now. There was some respect for the guile and skill that comes with a certain amount of age. You had Charles Bronson's Paul Kersey in the Death Wish movies. John Wayne's Rooster Cogburn was in recent memory. And although I do not have a copy of the Raiders of the Lost Ark novelization close at hand right now, I remember that the description of Indiana Jones was something along the lines that "he looked like he might have been handsome ten years earlier." Which could of course describe Moore's Bond. Is it unconvincing he could bed the women he did? Moore looked better at 50 than some guys look at 28, and his Bond had an air of sophistication and intrigue that many women, even significantly younger ones, might reasonably have found attractive.
Bond is one character who should not have to be young. While in one's forties something may (or may not) be lost in youthful vigor, there is much to be said for experience. Bond's encyclopedic knowledge is much more (Moore?) convincing if he has a few decades under his belt.
I will grant since he was in his late fifties by the time VTAK came out, that was pushing it a little. Bear in mind that Captain Kirk was making movies in the eighties, and Moore certainly looked better than William Shatner (though of course Trek did explore the aging theme). I agree if Roger had sauntered off after FYEO that may have been the right move. But he certainly did not start off too old. Being mid- forties in LALD is fine, and fifty in TSWLM is perfect. I would submit Bond's approximate age range, from the time he becomes a double-0 to having to maybe slow down and take a desk job, should be approximately 38-54.
Debates on who was the best Bond are rubbish. They all brought something different (though Brosnan was more like a "best of" compilation). If they hadn't each been different they would have all been the same and that would have been boring. Maybe after Sean they could have looked for someone who looked and acted exactly the same. But that actor would undoubtedly have been slammed, seen as inferior, much more than Moore has ever been. Going with Roger, who was distinctly different, after Sean was the right move. They maybe should have moved on to Timothy about four or five years earlier. Or maybe not.
At any rate, here's to the return of the well-aged hero.
Moore was the first Bond I ever saw and the movie was The Spy Who Loved Me. I think I was about 11. Shortly after seeing it on TV, For Your Eyes Only came to the theatres and I saw it there several times.
I certainly enjoyed Moore's Bond movies back then. Then I got a little older, a little more mature and Octopussy and View to a Kill came out. That is about when I began to wince in pain when I saw some of Moore's Bond antics. The clown costume was the icing on the cake. James Bond dressed as a clown...yuck.
Moore made me both like and dislike Bond in my life. My critique of Moore would be that he hung on too long and the writers didnt seem to grow the story at all. We all just got stuck in a campy, tongue in cheek era that overstayed it's welcome.
Moore wasnt rubbish. He made me and many others love Bond films, he just should have let go quicker.
Though actually I'm glad that Roger made more Bonds than he should have instead of less, as in the case of Dalton. You can always just not watch the Moores you don't like, whereas all you can do with Timothy is imagine how good they could have gotten. Roger was at least able to fulfill all his potential with the character, as was Sean and I believe Pierce.
From what I can remember from the docos on the James Bond DVD's, Moore started to tire of the role after Moonraker. He was a bit reluctant to do For Your Eyes Only, was the last actor to sign up for Octopussy and was fed alot of money to do A View To A Kill. I think it was because Cubby couldn't decide on a replacement. I would have to re watch the dodcos to confirm this, but to me it shows Roger new he was getting too old for the role.
Moore isn't my favorite Bond, but I still think he does a great job. His movies seem to be the most fun to watch. Thats why my top three Bond movies are all Moores. (OP, FYEO, then TSWLM, but my rankings do tend to change) I watch a lot of Bond movies and it seems like I always end up watching a Moore. I watch Moore far more then Connery, and Brosnan. The only Moore Bond movie that I don't watch that much is MR. Anyway, I think Moore's a great Bond, and he has never been "rubbish" in my book.
I've always felt that Roger Moore was by far the best Bond. He seems much more public school than the others , both previous and after , this is what fleming intended.
Also Roger Moore was Bond in a much more difficult era than Connery. I mean in the 60s there was no competion at all.
Also the 1960s Connery Bonds haven't aged well at all...Thats including "Diamonds"...That film is just awful...rubbish story and appalling editing.
I think the latter day Moore films have aged well. You can clearly see that their set in the 70s/80s , but younger people can still relate to the technological wizardry.
The 1960s Connery Bonds come across as very 1950s.
don't know if i'm breaking any copy right laws here but i would just like to quote a part of the insert in the LALD ultimate edition " for an entire generation of moviegoers roger moore is the agent 007.he eventually made seven bond films and anchored many of the series greatest successes. in LALd moore also did what many thought was impossible; he became agent 007 and triumphantly led the james bond series into an exciting new era." i agree with those sentiments 100% and i believe that any bond fan (despite their personal preference, mine is dalton) owes a great deal of gratitude to Sir Roger, for taking the role and continuing the series success. i for one could'nt imagine the bond series without moore's input. to my mind he had the difficult job following connery. sean had all the advantages of being first and i wonder if the positions had been reversed and moore had gone first would connery have been able to take over as seamlessly as moore did?
If Moore had been first, there would have never been a need for anyone to take over the role. The series would have not enjoyed its initial success if Moore began it and would have not continued. You may not prefer him, but without Connery starting the series, it would not have enjoyed its initial success RM in the first four movies would have never worked. He is too much of a comedic actor and it would have never brought intial longevity to the series. Just look at the other 60 spy franchises that didn't last.
They had a lighter touch and they didn't progress any further once the spy craze was over.
If Moore had been first, there would have never been a need for anyone to take over the role. The series would have not enjoyed its initial success if Moore began it and would have not continued. You may not prefer him, but without Connery starting the series, it would not have enjoyed its initial success RM in the first four movies would have never worked. He is too much of a comedic actor and it would have never brought intial longevity to the series. Just look at the other 60 spy franchises that didn't last.
They had a lighter touch and they didn't progress any further once the spy craze was over.
i think you have misunderstood the nature of my question it was not about moore going first but a speculation on whether connery would have been such a success had he had to follow moore.in my view i don't think he would have been. regardless of their respective portrayals of bond i have always thought roger moore comes across as much more likeable on screen, and when you are having to win over a generation of connery fans that is an important factor.
In a word--no.Yes,Roger was very different from Sean Connery and George Lazenby, but that was to be expected.
Unlike the two previous 007s,Roger Moore arrived with a preestablised image--because throughout his career he pretty much specialised in playing heroes--and for 7 years he was world famous to TV audiences as the gentleman outlaw Simon Templar.I suspect Roger's fame as "The Saint" was one of the biggest reasons Eon signed him.In 1969,Cubby actually tried to create a new actor with Lazenby, but the experiment wasn't viewed as successful--at least at a time when Sean Connery was still considered to be THE James Bond by a large majority of the public.And considering how expensive the Bond movies had become, Cubby didn't want to gamble on a less well known actor again--which is perfectly understandable.
As noted,although a very different physical type than Sean Connery,Roger Moore had already proven himself to the public as a dashing international adventurer.His forte is light comedy--which(most actors and directors tend to agree) is more difficult to do well than straight drama.Accordingly,Roger infused James Bond with his familiar "charming rogue" persona.
Most of Roger's Bond films are outrageous, and they often go over-the-top,but his talent--which he's always downplayed--remains evident to me,anyway.Roger completely reshaped 007 to suit his own distinctive personality--and during the course of seven motion pictures(not all of them as good as they might have been),consistently shone as their leading man.Roger always prided himself on doing his best, even when his screenplays were of a lesser standard;and this was the case with several of his Bond films.I certainly don't blame him for any of the inferior writing Eon provided.
As For Your Eyes Only shows,Roger could also play James Bond quite effectively and in a serious manner--with a minimum of gadgets and sight gags.Very impressive.
So...is Roger Moore a "Rubbish Bond"? Of course not.
Moore did seven movies. Three of them are among the very best of the series: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Live and Let Die. I like Octopussy quite a bit, although this opinion isn't quite as popular.
The other three aren't great, but Moonraker isn't Moore's fault. Moonraker was quite good until they launched into space and started shooting lasers everywhere. The problems with AVTAK are Moore's age and Tanya Roberts. Watching that film I think Moore knew this was a "film too far" as well. TMWTGG, well, that film has issues but I don't think they are Moore's fault either.
Moore did seven movies. Three of them are among the very best of the series: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Live and Let Die. I like Octopussy quite a bit, although this opinion isn't quite as popular.
The other three aren't great, but Moonraker isn't Moore's fault. Moonraker was quite good until they launched into space and started shooting lasers everywhere. The problems with AVTAK are Moore's age and Tanya Roberts. Watching that film I think Moore knew this was a "film too far" as well. TMWTGG, well, that film has issues but I don't think they are Moore's fault either.
I quite like Roger Moore as James Bond.
Joel
Your opinion is identical to mine. I also consider LALD, TSWLM and FYEO to be among the best in the series. I am also a big fan of OP and I agree with you that TMWTGG and MR are not Moore's fault; except for AVTAK in which he was too old. Are you my clone? )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Moore did seven movies. Three of them are among the very best of the series: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Live and Let Die. I like Octopussy quite a bit, although this opinion isn't quite as popular.
The other three aren't great, but Moonraker isn't Moore's fault. Moonraker was quite good until they launched into space and started shooting lasers everywhere. The problems with AVTAK are Moore's age and Tanya Roberts. Watching that film I think Moore knew this was a "film too far" as well. TMWTGG, well, that film has issues but I don't think they are Moore's fault either.
I quite like Roger Moore as James Bond.
Joel
Your opinion is identical to mine. I also consider LALD, TSWLM and FYEO to be among the best in the series. I am also a big fan of OP and I agree with you that TMWTGG and MR are not Moore's fault; except for AVTAK in which he was too old. Are you my clone? )
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Perhaps Roger should have sensed the time was right to quit after OP. While he wouldn't exactly have gone out on an all time high it would have been a much more fitting finale than AVTAK.
No doubt there was a sense of relief and some satisfaction for both Roger and Eon that OP beat NSNA and Sean Connery at the box office. This probably explains why Roger signed up a year before AVTAK. As opposed to FYEO & OP where he signed up almost at the last minute. This meant that Eon/Wilson/Maibaum knew they had a 57 year old Bond well in advance.
What did they do? The completely ignored Roger's age. E.G. Bond "bedding" four women. Two of them were more for Queen & country but that's no excuse. They paired Roger with Tanya Roberts as the lead Bond girl when Fiona Fullerton would have been easily more credible in terms of age and acting. There were other problems, including the Paris chase sequence where any resemblance the stuntmen had to Roger was purely co-incidental. I also believe Roger was ill during part of the production. And not forgetting that he had some plastic surgery some time between OP & AVTAK. Well, at least his acting was not affected.
It all adds up to a bit of a mess. Shame, because AVTAK had some real potential. Good cinematography, good locations, good score, very good title song. Christopher Walken's great, Patrick Macnee's great, the sequence at the pumping station is very good and the Golden Gate Bridge finale is one of the best endings.
Yes, Roger looked old in AVTAK, but Eon/Wilson/Maibaum helped to make him look older.
Perhaps Roger should have sensed the time was right to quit after OP. While he wouldn't exactly have gone out on an all time high it would have been a much more fitting finale than AVTAK.
No doubt there was a sense of relief and some satisfaction for both Roger and Eon that OP beat NSNA and Sean Connery at the box office. This probably explains why Roger signed up a year before AVTAK. As opposed to FYEO & OP where he signed up almost at the last minute. This meant that Eon/Wilson/Maibaum knew they had a 57 year old Bond well in advance.
What did they do? The completely ignored Roger's age. E.G. Bond "bedding" four women. Two of them were more for Queen & country but that's no excuse. They paired Roger with Tanya Roberts as the lead Bond girl when Fiona Fullerton would have been easily more credible in terms of age and acting. There were other problems, including the Paris chase sequence where any resemblance the stuntmen had to Roger was purely co-incidental. I also believe Roger was ill during part of the production. And not forgetting that he had some plastic surgery some time between OP & AVTAK. Well, at least his acting was not affected.
It all adds up to a bit of a mess. Shame, because AVTAK had some real potential. Good cinematography, good locations, good score, very good title song. Christopher Walken's great, Patrick Macnee's great, the sequence at the pumping station is very good and the Golden Gate Bridge finale is one of the best endings.
Yes, Roger looked old in AVTAK, but Eon/Wilson/Maibaum helped to make him look older.
MNL, you're forgetting one important part about AVTAK... the Jenny Factor!
Anyway, later I'll defend Roger as well, and it will be a very memorable post.
Moore did seven movies. Three of them are among the very best of the series: The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only, and Live and Let Die. I like Octopussy quite a bit, although this opinion isn't quite as popular.
The other three aren't great, but Moonraker isn't Moore's fault. Moonraker was quite good until they launched into space and started shooting lasers everywhere. The problems with AVTAK are Moore's age and Tanya Roberts. Watching that film I think Moore knew this was a "film too far" as well. TMWTGG, well, that film has issues but I don't think they are Moore's fault either.
I quite like Roger Moore as James Bond.
Joel
Your opinion is identical to mine. I also consider LALD, TSWLM and FYEO to be among the best in the series. I am also a big fan of OP and I agree with you that TMWTGG and MR are not Moore's fault; except for AVTAK in which he was too old. Are you my clone? )
If so, he better hate LTK!
LOL!
19 out of 20 gentlemen, and I keep considering making it 20 out of 20... Although Moonraker is #20 for me due to the absurdity of the space sequences, I really like the first 2/3 of the movie. I cannot say the same about LTK. I watch it whenever I decide to watch the entire series in order. I never reach for it on its own.
Roger Moore is the best and will be the best Bond ever!all actors age i did not think too much about is age but more to do with is excellent acting and charm
I think it's great that Mr. Moore has so many loyal and appreciative fans. I also laud his many efforts on the behalf of UNICEF and other charities. And because I have no desire to say anything negative about him, I will say no more.
For today at least.
This thread inspired me to watch all of the Roger Moore James Bond films in order. The results of the individual viewings are scattered about this forum, but I think I can unequivocally say that in my opinion, Roger Moore was an excellent James Bond. The only film that I felt his performance was poor in was A View to a Kill, and part of that was his age.
Roger, to me, set the standard for Bond's smoothness & class. Although many think humor when they think of Roger, I think that he was the complete package as James Bond.
I would not dread watching any of Moore's films, even Moonraker which I put dead last on my list. Four of his seven films make it in my personal top ten. Roger Moore will always be 007 in my book.
This thread inspired me to watch all of the Roger Moore James Bond films in order. The results of the individual viewings are scattered about this forum, but I think I can unequivocally say that in my opinion, Roger Moore was an excellent James Bond. The only film that I felt his performance was poor in was A View to a Kill, and part of that was his age.
Roger, to me, set the standard for Bond's smoothness & class. Although many think humor when they think of Roger, I think that he was the complete package as James Bond.
I would not dread watching any of Moore's films, even Moonraker which I put dead last on my list. Four of his seven films make it in my personal top ten. Roger Moore will always be 007 in my book.
Joel
Joel, you are an absolute star! {[] I too am a huge Moore fan (although he's my third favourite Bond) and I always appreciate it whenever peopls say nice things about him. It seems to me that it has become rather fashionable to take part in 'Moore bashing.' Anyway I completely agree with you. He was an excellent Bond and he was indeed the complete package.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
He's actually my 2nd fave Bond. I love 4 of his films (LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, OP), I like one (AVTAK) but have little time for his other two. But, nevertheless, I take the rough with the smooth. And I always find him entertaining- I'm a big Saint and Persuaders fan too.
I was watching a few of his films this week, (LALD, FYEO, OP) and I fully realized why Moore Bond films come along with the humor stereotype. However, at he same time I took into account the fact that at many times Moore just as deadly (the killing of the man in Cairo (TSPWLM)) just as suave (watch any scene with him in a casino) and just as serious (FYEO) as any of the other Bonds.
I absolutely love the scene in which Bond meets Columbo for the first time. The dialoge is witty and fresh. We get to see how Bond doesn't fully trust anyone, and the lines about him toasting to it tomorrow and informing Columbo he too is gutsy while aiming the gun at him are incredibly well done. The humor here, if any, is dry and IMO very literary Bond. And Moore pulled it all off just as good as even the most serious Bond. (I don't want to name anyone because thta would open an entireky different can of worms.)
Moore's assasination of Sandor (TSWLM) is a high point in not only the Moore films but in the series. Despite the fact that with TSWLM they were taking Bond in a more family oriented funny direction, they still made it clear what Bond's double prefix stood for. He killed him coldly, and fairly uncaringly.
No, I truly don't think Moore was a rubbish Bond, and if anything he was the epitome of Bond's character in the 70's and 80's if not of all time. Minus of course a few of the more ridiculus laughs (which I blame more on the writers and directors than i do Moore) IMO I belive I rank him around third.
And I always find him entertaining- I'm a big Saint and Persuaders fan too.
LALD was the first Bond film I ever saw, when I was nine years old, at the local cinema. My brother and I were excited to see Moore because we loved "The Saint" TV series. I doubt that we even knew who James Bond was at the time. Once we started getting caught up on the earlier Bond films and the additional Moore entries as they came out I gradually went from preferring Moore to preferring Connery. But Moore has more strengths than weaknesses as 007 and, as has been noted above, the fault has often been the script rather than the actor.
Yes, you look at him in 'The Saint' and to me he's no more jokey in that than Sean was as Bond. I've always considered Simon Templar to be the role Moore was born to play and the role he was probably best in, but had the humour been kept at bay (AND, a lot of the time the REALLY bad humour isn't Roger's either- it's the sight/sound gags like the 'double take pigeon', the stupid sound effect of the car stunt in TMWTTGG, the Tarzan yell) he would have been even better as Bond.
Comments
This is just my own opinion, but instead of Moore, they should have stuck with George Lazenby. I wonder how the Bond movies would have turned out had they done that?
Roger Moore has always been my favourite James Bond, but that doesn't mean he was necessarily the best. I'd probably have given that to Connery. The humour during the Moore era was the fault of the writers, and it wasn't always that bad. He has indeed though appeared in some of the weaker Bond films -- but since Moore was in more official Bond films than any other actor - he's bound to have a couple of stinkers! (TMWTGG, MR and AVTAK).
However, he thoroughly made up for it in the greatest of his films; Live and Let Die, which climbs my Bond rankings the more I see it, The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only (in which Roger gives what must be one of his best performances).
Rather than wondering what Lazenby could have done had he continued as Bond - I've always thought about what we'd have missed if Moore hadn't been Bond.
Bond is one character who should not have to be young. While in one's forties something may (or may not) be lost in youthful vigor, there is much to be said for experience. Bond's encyclopedic knowledge is much more (Moore?) convincing if he has a few decades under his belt.
I will grant since he was in his late fifties by the time VTAK came out, that was pushing it a little. Bear in mind that Captain Kirk was making movies in the eighties, and Moore certainly looked better than William Shatner (though of course Trek did explore the aging theme). I agree if Roger had sauntered off after FYEO that may have been the right move. But he certainly did not start off too old. Being mid- forties in LALD is fine, and fifty in TSWLM is perfect. I would submit Bond's approximate age range, from the time he becomes a double-0 to having to maybe slow down and take a desk job, should be approximately 38-54.
Debates on who was the best Bond are rubbish. They all brought something different (though Brosnan was more like a "best of" compilation). If they hadn't each been different they would have all been the same and that would have been boring. Maybe after Sean they could have looked for someone who looked and acted exactly the same. But that actor would undoubtedly have been slammed, seen as inferior, much more than Moore has ever been. Going with Roger, who was distinctly different, after Sean was the right move. They maybe should have moved on to Timothy about four or five years earlier. Or maybe not.
At any rate, here's to the return of the well-aged hero.
I certainly enjoyed Moore's Bond movies back then. Then I got a little older, a little more mature and Octopussy and View to a Kill came out. That is about when I began to wince in pain when I saw some of Moore's Bond antics. The clown costume was the icing on the cake. James Bond dressed as a clown...yuck.
Moore made me both like and dislike Bond in my life. My critique of Moore would be that he hung on too long and the writers didnt seem to grow the story at all. We all just got stuck in a campy, tongue in cheek era that overstayed it's welcome.
Moore wasnt rubbish. He made me and many others love Bond films, he just should have let go quicker.
Also Roger Moore was Bond in a much more difficult era than Connery. I mean in the 60s there was no competion at all.
Also the 1960s Connery Bonds haven't aged well at all...Thats including "Diamonds"...That film is just awful...rubbish story and appalling editing.
I think the latter day Moore films have aged well. You can clearly see that their set in the 70s/80s , but younger people can still relate to the technological wizardry.
The 1960s Connery Bonds come across as very 1950s.
They had a lighter touch and they didn't progress any further once the spy craze was over.
Unlike the two previous 007s,Roger Moore arrived with a preestablised image--because throughout his career he pretty much specialised in playing heroes--and for 7 years he was world famous to TV audiences as the gentleman outlaw Simon Templar.I suspect Roger's fame as "The Saint" was one of the biggest reasons Eon signed him.In 1969,Cubby actually tried to create a new actor with Lazenby, but the experiment wasn't viewed as successful--at least at a time when Sean Connery was still considered to be THE James Bond by a large majority of the public.And considering how expensive the Bond movies had become, Cubby didn't want to gamble on a less well known actor again--which is perfectly understandable.
As noted,although a very different physical type than Sean Connery,Roger Moore had already proven himself to the public as a dashing international adventurer.His forte is light comedy--which(most actors and directors tend to agree) is more difficult to do well than straight drama.Accordingly,Roger infused James Bond with his familiar "charming rogue" persona.
Most of Roger's Bond films are outrageous, and they often go over-the-top,but his talent--which he's always downplayed--remains evident to me,anyway.Roger completely reshaped 007 to suit his own distinctive personality--and during the course of seven motion pictures(not all of them as good as they might have been),consistently shone as their leading man.Roger always prided himself on doing his best, even when his screenplays were of a lesser standard;and this was the case with several of his Bond films.I certainly don't blame him for any of the inferior writing Eon provided.
As For Your Eyes Only shows,Roger could also play James Bond quite effectively and in a serious manner--with a minimum of gadgets and sight gags.Very impressive.
So...is Roger Moore a "Rubbish Bond"? Of course not.
The other three aren't great, but Moonraker isn't Moore's fault. Moonraker was quite good until they launched into space and started shooting lasers everywhere. The problems with AVTAK are Moore's age and Tanya Roberts. Watching that film I think Moore knew this was a "film too far" as well. TMWTGG, well, that film has issues but I don't think they are Moore's fault either.
I quite like Roger Moore as James Bond.
Joel
If so, he better hate LTK!
Perhaps Roger should have sensed the time was right to quit after OP. While he wouldn't exactly have gone out on an all time high it would have been a much more fitting finale than AVTAK.
No doubt there was a sense of relief and some satisfaction for both Roger and Eon that OP beat NSNA and Sean Connery at the box office. This probably explains why Roger signed up a year before AVTAK. As opposed to FYEO & OP where he signed up almost at the last minute. This meant that Eon/Wilson/Maibaum knew they had a 57 year old Bond well in advance.
What did they do? The completely ignored Roger's age. E.G. Bond "bedding" four women. Two of them were more for Queen & country but that's no excuse. They paired Roger with Tanya Roberts as the lead Bond girl when Fiona Fullerton would have been easily more credible in terms of age and acting. There were other problems, including the Paris chase sequence where any resemblance the stuntmen had to Roger was purely co-incidental. I also believe Roger was ill during part of the production. And not forgetting that he had some plastic surgery some time between OP & AVTAK. Well, at least his acting was not affected.
It all adds up to a bit of a mess. Shame, because AVTAK had some real potential. Good cinematography, good locations, good score, very good title song. Christopher Walken's great, Patrick Macnee's great, the sequence at the pumping station is very good and the Golden Gate Bridge finale is one of the best endings.
Yes, Roger looked old in AVTAK, but Eon/Wilson/Maibaum helped to make him look older.
I think that EON just got lazy, and I think it hurt the series somewhat.
Is RM a rubbish bond? No bloddy way, hes the best (Before DC time) {[]
"Better make that two."
MNL, you're forgetting one important part about AVTAK... the Jenny Factor!
Anyway, later I'll defend Roger as well, and it will be a very memorable post.
"Better make that two."
LOL!
19 out of 20 gentlemen, and I keep considering making it 20 out of 20... Although Moonraker is #20 for me due to the absurdity of the space sequences, I really like the first 2/3 of the movie. I cannot say the same about LTK. I watch it whenever I decide to watch the entire series in order. I never reach for it on its own.
Joel
For today at least.
Roger, to me, set the standard for Bond's smoothness & class. Although many think humor when they think of Roger, I think that he was the complete package as James Bond.
I would not dread watching any of Moore's films, even Moonraker which I put dead last on my list. Four of his seven films make it in my personal top ten. Roger Moore will always be 007 in my book.
Joel
I absolutely love the scene in which Bond meets Columbo for the first time. The dialoge is witty and fresh. We get to see how Bond doesn't fully trust anyone, and the lines about him toasting to it tomorrow and informing Columbo he too is gutsy while aiming the gun at him are incredibly well done. The humor here, if any, is dry and IMO very literary Bond. And Moore pulled it all off just as good as even the most serious Bond. (I don't want to name anyone because thta would open an entireky different can of worms.)
Moore's assasination of Sandor (TSWLM) is a high point in not only the Moore films but in the series. Despite the fact that with TSWLM they were taking Bond in a more family oriented funny direction, they still made it clear what Bond's double prefix stood for. He killed him coldly, and fairly uncaringly.
No, I truly don't think Moore was a rubbish Bond, and if anything he was the epitome of Bond's character in the 70's and 80's if not of all time. Minus of course a few of the more ridiculus laughs (which I blame more on the writers and directors than i do Moore) IMO I belive I rank him around third.
LALD was the first Bond film I ever saw, when I was nine years old, at the local cinema. My brother and I were excited to see Moore because we loved "The Saint" TV series. I doubt that we even knew who James Bond was at the time. Once we started getting caught up on the earlier Bond films and the additional Moore entries as they came out I gradually went from preferring Moore to preferring Connery. But Moore has more strengths than weaknesses as 007 and, as has been noted above, the fault has often been the script rather than the actor.