I love 3 of Moore's films (TSWLM, FYEO and OP- all feature in my top 10), I really like one (LALD), one is OK (AVTAK) and the other two I find quite weak. But the good outweighs the bad for me. Even Connery and Brosnan didn't exactly have untarnished records when it came to weaker films though, IMHO.
RJJB, with all due respect, could you cut Roger a little slack?
Look, no one is denying anybody their right to an opinion. But for the life of me, I simply cannot understand the absolute dismissive attitude some members have towards Roger. Love him or hate him, Roger is part of Bond history and, as such, he deserves a little more respect and admiration than a BS term like "garbage". I mean, seriously, give me (and Roger) a break.
I can feel my temper start to rise, people...so I will cut this short.
This is a fantastic forum but I am really getting sick and tired at some of the LAZY writing and thinking that supposedly constitutes a sophisticated point of view. A little more effort should be involved. And cut back on the cruelty, if you please.
(Is it possible to be critical without having to resort to cheap shots?)
RJJB, you have every right to not like Roger but, do me a favor, next time you throw out a world like "garbage" just be sure you realize that you (and many other Roger-haters, for that matter) come across as a Bond-fan... who can't discern the subtle pleasures of all the Bonds and...who, in turn, does not know what the hell he is talking about.
But, of course, I know that can't be true.
Can it?
Is Roger the weak link of all the Bonds? Perhaps. For me, Roger represents old-time fun and entertainment. (And his films are ageing nicely, thank you).
If you truly believe, RJJB, that his 7 Bond films are "garbage", that's your opinion.
My opinion is that you are 100% dead wrong in your assessment and attitude.
"A Proud Member of The No Cheap-Shot at Roger Society."
"What a helpful chap."
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited January 2007
Moore was my least favourite Bond---hands down. He was never really 'Bond' for me...I'm a big fan of Moore (the man, and the actor); he just wasn't my personal vision of James Bond. But he was for many, many, many people, and he kept the franchise alive for a long time, so he'll always have my gratitude and complete respect---even though his last two films were the low-point of the series for me.
I just finished watching the 'Ultimate Edition' of LALD, featuring excellent audio commentary from Sir Roger himself, and was reminded anew of why I like him so much. Very classy, very funny and most erudite.
In fact, during the ridiculous Craig-Bashing which preceded the release of CR, dear old Sir Roger was my touchstone when responding to those who said that Craig 'wasn't right' for the part: hair colour, looks, etc., ad nauseam...Roger Moore was Proof Positive, for me, that there was room for Daniel Craig in the broad spectrum of Bond possibilities {[]
Similarly, I think that poor George Lazenby, a non-actor (!), deserves much Mo(o)re slack than he generally receives
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
RJJB, with all due respect, could you cut Roger a little slack?
Look, no one is denying anybody their right to an opinion. But for the life of me, I simply cannot understand the absolute dismissive attitude some members have towards Roger. Love him or hate him, Roger is part of Bond history and, as such, he deserves a little more respect and admiration than a BS term like "garbage". I mean, seriously, give me (and Roger) a break.
I can feel my temper start to rise, people...so I will cut this short.
This is a fantastic forum but I am really getting sick and tired at some of the LAZY writing and thinking that supposedly constitutes a sophisticated point of view. A little more effort should be involved. And cut back on the cruelty, if you please.
(Is it possible to be critical without having to resort to cheap shots?)
RJJB, you have every right to not like Roger but, do me a favor, next time you throw out a world like "garbage" just be sure you realize that you (and many other Roger-haters, for that matter) come across as a Bond-fan... who can't discern the subtle pleasures of all the Bonds and...who, in turn, does not know what the hell he is talking about.
But, of course, I know that can't be true.
Can it?
Is Roger the weak link of all the Bonds? Perhaps. For me, Roger represents old-time fun and entertainment. (And his films are ageing nicely, thank you).
If you truly believe, RJJB, that his 7 Bond films are "garbage", that's your opinion.
My opinion is that you are 100% dead wrong in your assessment and attitude.
"A Proud Member of The No Cheap-Shot at Roger Society."
"What a helpful chap."
First of all, Big, no disrespect ever intended to anyone who likes RM as Bond. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, so please do not tell me that I am "100% dead wrong." I may disagree with your point of view, but I would never tell you that you are wrong.
As for giving Roger Moore a break, I already do. With the amount of messages that are posted gushing about how wonderful RM is and how RM saved the franchise and how Sir Roger is a wonderful human being, I generally hold my tongue. I could have a numerous daily posts if I really wanted to get into a discussion of those points of view. But it gets tiring being negative all the time, so if I occasionally spout off a bit, trust me, it's only the tip of the much larger iceberg.
As for appreciating the subtle pleasures of all the Bonds, I am not going to wear blinders when I feel an actor is completely wrong for the part. And like many Bond fans, I have seen all the RM movies numerous times, I was excited when they premiered. I eagerly went to see them on every opening day. But with the passage of time, I no longer have any enjoyment in watching them. And being an informed viewer of the movies, I have every right to call them garbage, if that's what I feel they are --for me. They certainly may be old time fun and entertainment for you, but to me they are anything but that. I admire nothing about them. And if I don't like the actor who is portraying Bond, the best script in the world would not be enough to overcome that fault. RM may be part of Bond history, but not everything in history is always fondly remembered.
And just to show you that I can understand your POV on a similar level, let me say that YOLT and DAF are two of the worst movies of the series. But for me, there is a degree of sentimentality attached to them with which I can enjoy them. They represent times in my life and for that reason alone I can get past their shortcomings.
Lastly, as I am voicing my own opinion, based on viewing the movies, I certainly do the hell know about that which I am talking. (Sorry, a co-worker has made me gunshy about ending a sentence with a preposition.) And so do you and so does anyone else who has seen the movies and posts on this forum. He/she may take potshots at a movie I personally like, but it is, after all, only an on-line dicussion. And if someone wants to loathe a particular movie that I think is one of the best in the series, so be it. I am not going to lose sleep or to change my own opinion of the movie. So before you feel you need to leap to the defense of RM, just remember that your appreciation of his contribution to the series is never going to be diminished by some anonymous person on a message board.
It's funny..OHMSS is my favorite Bond film, but George Lazenby isn't my favorite Bond actor. Even though, you gotta admit he did a VERY fine job for someone who had never really acted before. Very fine indeed.
And Moore is my least favorite Bond as well. Yes, I like Roger Moore and I completely respect him, but he did not fit my vision of what Bond is(especially after reading some of the novels). Moore is exactly the opposite of what Bond really is supposed to be, IMO. Still, he DOES have good Bond films(LALD being my favorite Moore Bond movie, and FYEO was VERY good too).
That may be, but the the silver age is heavily, heavily tarnished. If I were to name the age of the Moore films, I would list them as being in the "garb-age".
Well, I still don't agree. The only Moore film I would describe as 'garbage' was AVTAK. Other than that, I was disappointed with TMWTGG and MR (both of which do have some good things going fo them but are near the bottom of my list,) loved LALD, OP and FYEO (all of which I consider to be among the greatest Bond films of all times) and absolutely adored TSWLM (which I consider to be the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time.) The Moore years were inconsistant, but considering that Moore produced 4 masterpieces, I don't think they were particularly tarnished. I also think they were of a much higher quality (apart from AVTAK) than the *Dalton years which I would describe as garbage.
*I mean no disrespect to those who love Dalton however this is just what I happen to think.
"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
Is Roger the weak link of all the Bonds? Perhaps. For me, Roger represents old-time fun and entertainment. (And his films are ageing nicely, thank you).
Come on Big, stick to your guns. If you don't believe that Roger (or perhaps you do) was the weak link, then don't let those anti-Mooresters get to you.
"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 I overstated my case...its just that Roger has gotten so much flack over the years that when I see a statement that denigrates him totally...I have to put in my two cents.
As for being right or wrong...well, lets just say every opinion carries its own legitimacy. If you think Roger is totally wrong as Bond...that's fine...you are obviously not the first person to state that position...but if that was stated originally...I would not have reacted.
But what came across in your "garbage" comment was that the Roger era is without any value...and that I disagree with totally.
As for "knowing what the hell you're talking about"...I stepped too far.
You are obviously a member who knows his stuff (as most of us do) so I will just say that I have to be more tolerant of a Bond fan's blanket statements when it comes to Bond.
My thinking over the years has become simple: everyone and his brother thinks Sean is the best 007...thats a no-brainer.
What requires a little more effort is an appreciation for the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bonds.
Roger never gets any respect and, as such, I appreciate any members support for him.
Look, RJJB, language is a very tricky thing. You can casually throw a provocative world like "garbage" into the mix, and you just know eventually, in this forum especially, someone will challenge you on it on a fundamental level.
I guess on a deeper level I simply cannot get over the harshness of the criticism from Bond-fans when it comes to Roger and certain parts of the series. Where's the love? (To put it more bluntly)
Look. I try not to wear blinders when it comes to 007. I am completely aware of the flaws in the series. Lets not kid ourselves...as good as the Bonds are...some could be a whole lot better.
What I look for, RJJB, is not blind love and admiration for the films (who wants that?) but a fair appraisal from a Bond-fan who might not even necessarily LIKE the film he is watching. (Which you do with YOLT and DAF).
I guess the word is enthusiasm.
Which brings me to my final point: any negative criticism of 007 from any Bond-fan should at least be enthusiastic..... I mean, even the ugliest of all the Bond ducklings, TMWTGG, deserves a pat on the back. People dismiss the film outright...but my belief is no Bond film can EVER be dismissed.
(And just to show you I am not all, sunshine and rainbows: the last falf of DAD is an absolute failure. From the moment Bond arrives in Iceland to the end of the film...everything falls flat...simply put: the worst 45 minutes in over 20 films).
But I will still defend it.
Well, RJJB...it just goes to show that 007 has fans with many loyalties...and one of them is to Roger.
What always gets me, is that Rogers films can't just be appreciated as rollickingly good Summer blockbuster style entertainment movies.
If you turn off your hyper-critical switch for a couple of hours, you are guaranteed a good time with Roger's movies, with laughs and thrills in equal measure - and how many films can you say that about?
Recently, I rewatched LTK closely followed by AVTAK. Frankly, although I appreciate LTK is probably technically a better movie, I know which one kept me entertained the most! (hint: it wasn't LTK! )
Thanks for the intelligent converssation, Big. Good to know we can agree to disagree without drawing blood! One of the problems with on line postings is that the tone of voice or attitude that is used can not be properly conveyed.
Thanks for the kind words, RJJB. I have always found this web-site has members who have impeccable manners. 007 would be proud.
And you know what, RJJB? From Bond-fans I expect nothing less than a certain level of sophistication. Why? Because we are talking about a gentleman by the name of James Bond. If anything, Bond's manners are beyond impeccable... and there is much to be learned from the greatest hero in the movies.
Thanks for the kind words, RJJB. I have always found this web-site has members who have impeccable manners. 007 would be proud.
And you know what, RJJB? From Bond-fans I expect nothing less than a certain level of sophistication. Why? Because we are talking about a gentleman by the name of James Bond. If anything, Bond's manners are beyond impeccable... and there is much to be learned from the greatest hero in the movies.
Big, I completely agree with you that some of the descriptions of the films and actors on this site are not great (and I am not without responsibility in this regard) however I think something should be made clear. My least favourite Bond films are AVTAK, TLD and DAD. However they are not among my least favourite films. I would rather watch TLD or AVTAK than Predator 2 or Drop Dead Fred. My dislike of AVTAK, TLD and DAD is only in comparion to the other 18 Bond films. My dislike of Predator 2, RoboCop 2, Dune and Drop Dead Fred is related to my view that these are terrible films full stop. My point is, that while I might attack TLD or AVTAK, it is only in comparison to the other Bond films and it is only on a Bond website. I would hope that other people have a similar attitude.
"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 I overstated my case...its just that Roger has gotten so much flack over the years that when I see a statement that denigrates him totally...I have to put in my two cents.
As for being right or wrong...well, lets just say every opinion carries its own legitimacy. If you think Roger is totally wrong as Bond...that's fine...you are obviously not the first person to state that position...but if that was stated originally...I would not have reacted.
But what came across in your "garbage" comment was that the Roger era is without any value...and that I disagree with totally.
As for "knowing what the hell you're talking about"...I stepped too far.
You are obviously a member who knows his stuff (as most of us do) so I will just say that I have to be more tolerant of a Bond fan's blanket statements when it comes to Bond.
My thinking over the years has become simple: everyone and his brother thinks Sean is the best 007...thats a no-brainer.
What requires a little more effort is an appreciation for the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bonds.
Roger never gets any respect and, as such, I appreciate any members support for him.
Look, RJJB, language is a very tricky thing. You can casually throw a provocative world like "garbage" into the mix, and you just know eventually, in this forum especially, someone will challenge you on it on a fundamental level.
I guess on a deeper level I simply cannot get over the harshness of the criticism from Bond-fans when it comes to Roger and certain parts of the series. Where's the love? (To put it more bluntly)
Look. I try not to wear blinders when it comes to 007. I am completely aware of the flaws in the series. Lets not kid ourselves...as good as the Bonds are...some could be a whole lot better.
What I look for, RJJB, is not blind love and admiration for the films (who wants that?) but a fair appraisal from a Bond-fan who might not even necessarily LIKE the film he is watching. (Which you do with YOLT and DAF).
I guess the word is enthusiasm.
Which brings me to my final point: any negative criticism of 007 from any Bond-fan should at least be enthusiastic..... I mean, even the ugliest of all the Bond ducklings, TMWTGG, deserves a pat on the back. People dismiss the film outright...but my belief is no Bond film can EVER be dismissed.
(And just to show you I am not all, sunshine and rainbows: the last falf of DAD is an absolute failure. From the moment Bond arrives in Iceland to the end of the film...everything falls flat...simply put: the worst 45 minutes in over 20 films).
But I will still defend it.
Well, RJJB...it just goes to show that 007 has fans with many loyalties...and one of them is to Roger.
"Keeping the British end up, sir."
Don't ya just love a good debate!!
The way I see all this, is that everyone is entitled to think what they will of the Bond films.
One problem that has struck me is that people use the words 'Best' and 'Worst' within the context of their opinions instead of saying something is their favourite or least favourite. I know I have done this, it just comes naturally.
The problem with this is that claiming, for example, that 'Goldeneye IS the BEST Bond film' instead of stating that 'My favourite Bond film is Goldeneye' is that the first statement is telling someone who thinks otherwise that they are wrong. And as has been said, we cannot put tone of voice into our posts so they can often be mis-understood.
Now, I'm not telling everyone to start writing like this, tht would be absurdly arrogant and completely unreasonable. I will still post statements like this I'm sure.
I just thought it worth pointing out as I feel this type of statement although not actually aggressive, is telling people, on a subconscious level, that they are wrong.
Please note this is an opinion of mine and I am not stating it as fact.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
I was watching an episode of The Saint yesterday called 'The Gentle Ladies' and Roger got really tough with a blackmailer- he was VERY convincing and you certainly wouldn't want to mess with him. He got a similarly hard edged scene in 'The Wild Geese'. I think the decision to have more jokes was not because Roger couldn't handle serious fare at all- it was simply what was there in the scripts. In fact I'm of the opinion that perhaps the jokiest and silliest Bond film was Diamonds Are Forever. It's good campy fun and I always have a laugh when watching it, but the whole thing runs like a complete pastiche- after the first half hour or so, absolutely nothing is taken seriously. So I think this should be kept in perspective when the 'Roger bashing' takes place. But heck, I'm a big Roger Moore fan and he's my 2nd fave Bond so maybe I'm biased.;)
I was watching an episode of The Saint yesterday called 'The Gentle Ladies' and Roger got really tough with a blackmailer- he was VERY convincing and you certainly wouldn't want to mess with him. He got a similarly hard edged scene in 'The Wild Geese'. I think the decision to have more jokes was not because Roger couldn't handle serious fare at all- it was simply what was there in the scripts. In fact I'm of the opinion that perhaps the jokiest and silliest Bond film was Diamonds Are Forever. It's good campy fun and I always have a laugh when watching it, but the whole thing runs like a complete pastiche- after the first half hour or so, absolutely nothing is taken seriously. So I think this should be kept in perspective when the 'Roger bashing' takes place. But heck, I'm a big Roger Moore fan and he's my 2nd fave Bond so maybe I'm biased.;)
Yes, looking at episodes of the Saint and some of Roger's other movies, who was it that made the decision he couldn't play a hard edged Bond? In retrospect, the idea of making the movies more jokey 'because its Roger' was ridiculous.
That said, I think that most of Roger's movies are amongst the most entertaining of the whole series. Maybe not technically the best (whatever that is!?) but certainly never a dull moment!
I was watching an episode of The Saint yesterday called 'The Gentle Ladies' and Roger got really tough with a blackmailer- he was VERY convincing and you certainly wouldn't want to mess with him. He got a similarly hard edged scene in 'The Wild Geese'. I think the decision to have more jokes was not because Roger couldn't handle serious fare at all- it was simply what was there in the scripts. In fact I'm of the opinion that perhaps the jokiest and silliest Bond film was Diamonds Are Forever. It's good campy fun and I always have a laugh when watching it, but the whole thing runs like a complete pastiche- after the first half hour or so, absolutely nothing is taken seriously. So I think this should be kept in perspective when the 'Roger bashing' takes place. But heck, I'm a big Roger Moore fan and he's my 2nd fave Bond so maybe I'm biased.;)
I think the decision to have more jokes (and more action set pieces) was made by United Artists/Broccoli/Saltzman after the "failure" of OHMSS at the box office.
Another hard edged scene Roger Moore played is in The Sea Wolves. He dramatically turns a knife on Barbara Kellerman's character and she drops to the floor. It's much like Bond turning the knife on Demetrious in Casino Royale.
Just finished watching OHMSS again (have been in bed with flu) and must say it is very good indeed!! The snow/ski-ing scenes in particular were awesome considering how long ago it was filmed. It has one of the best story lines and Lazenby isn't that bad - that said I'm sure we would have all preferred Connery in the role (before he got too old).
I don't honestly think I would say I would prefer Connery in the role. I simply can't fault Lazenby's performance at all. A shame he didn't do a lot more- if he had I think he might possibly have been rated up there with Connery, imo.
I don't think this was the worst Bond by any means. It actually has one of my favorite Bond qwuotes ever. When the girl writes her room number on the inside of his thigh at the dinner table and when he looks startled the host asks if he's ok he replies "Just a little stiffness" Classic! :-)
I thought Lazenby did a good job (except for the "This never happened to the other guy" remark) and I definitely would have loved to see Connery and Rigg on screen together though... I always think of this film as the one that got away.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Just finished watching OHMSS again (have been in bed with flu) and must say it is very good indeed!! The snow/ski-ing scenes in particular were awesome considering how long ago it was filmed. It has one of the best story lines and Lazenby isn't that bad - that said I'm sure we would have all preferred Connery in the role (before he got too old).
I'm in the camp that dreams of an OHMSS with Connery (though I like Lazenby) and think that this was the most superb adaptation of a Fleming book, which happens to be the best Fleming novel. However, in recently rethinking about the ideal actor to play Bond, I totally ignored the important aspects of Bond's situation in the novel, which was from a more mature and experienced standpoint, having had enough of his profession and discovering later on that he's ready to graduate from his free-wheeling, bachelor lifestyle. The movie worked by making do without that baggage, but keeping all of that in for the sake of character development would have been the icing on the cake.
Logically, Connery being older would have been perfect, but tackling these maturity issues would have also been too against type, at least as far as EON would allow. Hypothetically, would Dalton at his age in LTK, work in portraying OHMSS Bond in the novel? I think yes, but I can imagine that the biggest casualty would have been the general swank and swagger (IMO, successfully infused by Lazenby) that adds to the attractiveness of the film. What about a North by Northwest Cary Grant? I'm even thinking about Connery in Robin & Marian, particularly his maturity but discounting his visual age in that movie.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
connery in ohmss? lazenby in daf?in years to come we will probably find out.how far have we come in the last twenty years?mobile phones,dvds,the internet,digital tv,the sopranos,pear cider etc.in ten/twenty years time it will be a piece of cake just to stick one actor into a film to replace another without anyone being able to spot the join.hopefully we will all still be around to see it.
connery in ohmss? lazenby in daf?in years to come we will probably find out.how far have we come in the last twenty years?mobile phones,dvds,the internet,digital tv,the sopranos,pear cider etc.in ten/twenty years time it will be a piece of cake just to stick one actor into a film to replace another without anyone being able to spot the join.hopefully we will all still be around to see it.
connery in ohmss? lazenby in daf?in years to come we will probably find out.how far have we come in the last twenty years?mobile phones,dvds,the internet,digital tv,the sopranos,pear cider etc.in ten/twenty years time it will be a piece of cake just to stick one actor into a film to replace another without anyone being able to spot the join.hopefully we will all still be around to see it.
I hope that I'm dead when that happens.
what i meant was that rather than imagining whether sean conery would have been better in ohmss,or if george lazenby would have been fantastic in daf and live and let die,we would actually be able to see it.wouldn't that be wonderful to see?
Lazenby gets a bad wrap, he is actually really good in OHMSS. He is more into the part than Connery was in Thunderball. Sean's swaggering in TB makes me cringe; as he is clearly not as into the part as he was in the first three. He is just doing an impression of himself, enacting what is supposed to be suave, trying to get the non-stop eyebrows to do the work for him. He seems bored with the part, like Harrison Ford's almost run-through level Han Solo in Return of the Jedi. At least Sean had done three whole movies very well. TB is only redeemed by SPECTRE scenes and the great underwater battle scene. Connery recovered somewhat for YOLT possibly because he figured it was his last hurrah. Then in DAF he might have realized that he had lost something in his physical appeal and again put more thought into his interesting downbeat performance.
I don't quite understand what the hardcore Connery fans want. Did they want the movies to end with him? Did they want him to be cloned or for someone exactly like him to be found and take over the part? I doubt a Connery rip-off would have made anyone happy. And I for one am glad more films were made.
Let me make it plain I think Sean was the best, especially in his first three films, in fact he was so good that the rest of the actors, by being almost as good, are great. Lazenby brought a lightheartedness to Bond that makes Tracy's death seem that much more devastating. Connery seemed more like a hardened man who would have been able to take it in stride. OHMSS is George's movie, his cool devil-may-care presence is winning and distinctly different. I love him as Sir Hillary; it is on the one hand funny and at the same time he pulls it off I believe much better than Sean could have, who would have seemed like the same person underneath. When Bond, as Sir Hillary, says he doesn't like flying it seems believeable. It's very Clark Kent-ish. Had Connery done this film, it would have been his sixth playing the same character in under a decade. How much enthusiasm could he have summoned up at that point? - despite how great the script is.
Connery fans should have been happy with what they got. As a lifelong Han Solo fan (based on SW and ESB), I wish Ford could have been as good in Jedi as Connery was in Goldfinger.
But, at least in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade they were great together.:)
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
connery in ohmss? lazenby in daf?in years to come we will probably find out.how far have we come in the last twenty years?mobile phones,dvds,the internet,digital tv,the sopranos,pear cider etc.in ten/twenty years time it will be a piece of cake just to stick one actor into a film to replace another without anyone being able to spot the join.hopefully we will all still be around to see it.
I hope that I'm dead when that happens.
You can always choose to not watch.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Lazenby gets a bad wrap, he is actually really good in OHMSS. He is more into the part than Connery was in Thunderball. Sean's swaggering in TB makes me cringe; as he is clearly not as into the part as he was in the first three. He is just doing an impression of himself, enacting what is supposed to be suave, trying to get the non-stop eyebrows to do the work for him. He seems bored with the part, like Harrison Ford's almost run-through level Han Solo in Return of the Jedi. At least Sean had done three whole movies very well. TB is only redeemed by SPECTRE scenes and the great underwater battle scene. Connery recovered somewhat for YOLT possibly because he figured it was his last hurrah. Then in DAF he might have realized that he had lost something in his physical appeal and again put more thought into his interesting downbeat performance.
I don't quite understand what the hardcore Connery fans want. Did they want the movies to end with him? Did they want him to be cloned or for someone exactly like him to be found and take over the part? I doubt a Connery rip-off would have made anyone happy. And I for one am glad more films were made.
I thought Connery was superb in TB. IMO it was the third greatest Bond performance of all time. As for Lazenby; apart from the physicality and his handling of the final scene, I think Lazenby was absolutely terrible and worse than alot of people say he was (I'm thinking especially of the one-liners.)
My dream is that Connery had done OHMSS. I think he could have been absolutely brilliant. He would have handled the physicality as well as Lazenby and I think he would have done a vastly superior job in regards to the actual acting (pre-final scene.) My only hesitation is infact the final scene; could Connery have handled it as well? I don't mean in terms of acting (IMO Connery is a fantastic actor and the best actor to have played Bond by far but the final scene requires the actor to show what was then not considered to be particularly 'masculine.' (I really hate that word. ) I don't know if Connery would have been willing to do this.
Nonetheless, as much as I love OHMSS (it's seventh on my list), I really wish that Connery had done it, because Lazenby (as good as he was in final scene as well as the physical scenes) is a major reason why the film isn't higher. If only.
BTW, although I'm not a hardcore Connery fan (I'm more of a hardcore Bond fan) let me answer your question that I am happy there were more films; I just wish some (OHMSS, AVTAK, the Dalton films, CR and future Craig films) were better cast.
"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
Lazenby gets a bad wrap, he is actually really good in OHMSS. He is more into the part than Connery was in Thunderball. Sean's swaggering in TB makes me cringe; as he is clearly not as into the part as he was in the first three. He is just doing an impression of himself, enacting what is supposed to be suave, trying to get the non-stop eyebrows to do the work for him. He seems bored with the part, like Harrison Ford's almost run-through level Han Solo in Return of the Jedi. At least Sean had done three whole movies very well. TB is only redeemed by SPECTRE scenes and the great underwater battle scene. Connery recovered somewhat for YOLT possibly because he figured it was his last hurrah. Then in DAF he might have realized that he had lost something in his physical appeal and again put more thought into his interesting downbeat performance.
If you said that George Lazenby was more into the part in OHMSS than Sean Connery was in YOLT I would have agreed with you. Connery's very good in TB, he looks motivated and is in very good physical shape. In YOLT, he's clearly bored, doesn't try to perform, and has put on weight. In DAF, he looks more motivated to me and adjusts his performance to match the lighter tone of the film, but he's not motivated enough to lose some of the extra weight he has gained since YOLT.
As for Lazenby, his lack of acting experience is painfully obvious during much of OHMSS. Having said that, he is good in the action scenes.
As for Lazenby, his lack of acting experience is painfully obvious during much of OHMSS.
Disagree. It is only the first scene with Marco, and his first meeting with M, that his inexperience shows otherwise he is spot on and nails the important ones, confrontation with Blofeld, proposal, safe cracking, final scene. Not at all bad for a rookie.
Comments
True. DAF and DAD come to mind immediately.
RJJB, with all due respect, could you cut Roger a little slack?
Look, no one is denying anybody their right to an opinion. But for the life of me, I simply cannot understand the absolute dismissive attitude some members have towards Roger. Love him or hate him, Roger is part of Bond history and, as such, he deserves a little more respect and admiration than a BS term like "garbage". I mean, seriously, give me (and Roger) a break.
I can feel my temper start to rise, people...so I will cut this short.
This is a fantastic forum but I am really getting sick and tired at some of the LAZY writing and thinking that supposedly constitutes a sophisticated point of view. A little more effort should be involved. And cut back on the cruelty, if you please.
(Is it possible to be critical without having to resort to cheap shots?)
RJJB, you have every right to not like Roger but, do me a favor, next time you throw out a world like "garbage" just be sure you realize that you (and many other Roger-haters, for that matter) come across as a Bond-fan... who can't discern the subtle pleasures of all the Bonds and...who, in turn, does not know what the hell he is talking about.
But, of course, I know that can't be true.
Can it?
Is Roger the weak link of all the Bonds? Perhaps. For me, Roger represents old-time fun and entertainment. (And his films are ageing nicely, thank you).
If you truly believe, RJJB, that his 7 Bond films are "garbage", that's your opinion.
My opinion is that you are 100% dead wrong in your assessment and attitude.
"A Proud Member of The No Cheap-Shot at Roger Society."
"What a helpful chap."
I just finished watching the 'Ultimate Edition' of LALD, featuring excellent audio commentary from Sir Roger himself, and was reminded anew of why I like him so much. Very classy, very funny and most erudite.
In fact, during the ridiculous Craig-Bashing which preceded the release of CR, dear old Sir Roger was my touchstone when responding to those who said that Craig 'wasn't right' for the part: hair colour, looks, etc., ad nauseam...Roger Moore was Proof Positive, for me, that there was room for Daniel Craig in the broad spectrum of Bond possibilities {[]
Similarly, I think that poor George Lazenby, a non-actor (!), deserves much Mo(o)re slack than he generally receives
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
First of all, Big, no disrespect ever intended to anyone who likes RM as Bond. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, so please do not tell me that I am "100% dead wrong." I may disagree with your point of view, but I would never tell you that you are wrong.
As for giving Roger Moore a break, I already do. With the amount of messages that are posted gushing about how wonderful RM is and how RM saved the franchise and how Sir Roger is a wonderful human being, I generally hold my tongue. I could have a numerous daily posts if I really wanted to get into a discussion of those points of view. But it gets tiring being negative all the time, so if I occasionally spout off a bit, trust me, it's only the tip of the much larger iceberg.
As for appreciating the subtle pleasures of all the Bonds, I am not going to wear blinders when I feel an actor is completely wrong for the part. And like many Bond fans, I have seen all the RM movies numerous times, I was excited when they premiered. I eagerly went to see them on every opening day. But with the passage of time, I no longer have any enjoyment in watching them. And being an informed viewer of the movies, I have every right to call them garbage, if that's what I feel they are --for me. They certainly may be old time fun and entertainment for you, but to me they are anything but that. I admire nothing about them. And if I don't like the actor who is portraying Bond, the best script in the world would not be enough to overcome that fault. RM may be part of Bond history, but not everything in history is always fondly remembered.
And just to show you that I can understand your POV on a similar level, let me say that YOLT and DAF are two of the worst movies of the series. But for me, there is a degree of sentimentality attached to them with which I can enjoy them. They represent times in my life and for that reason alone I can get past their shortcomings.
Lastly, as I am voicing my own opinion, based on viewing the movies, I certainly do the hell know about that which I am talking. (Sorry, a co-worker has made me gunshy about ending a sentence with a preposition.) And so do you and so does anyone else who has seen the movies and posts on this forum. He/she may take potshots at a movie I personally like, but it is, after all, only an on-line dicussion. And if someone wants to loathe a particular movie that I think is one of the best in the series, so be it. I am not going to lose sleep or to change my own opinion of the movie. So before you feel you need to leap to the defense of RM, just remember that your appreciation of his contribution to the series is never going to be diminished by some anonymous person on a message board.
And Moore is my least favorite Bond as well. Yes, I like Roger Moore and I completely respect him, but he did not fit my vision of what Bond is(especially after reading some of the novels). Moore is exactly the opposite of what Bond really is supposed to be, IMO. Still, he DOES have good Bond films(LALD being my favorite Moore Bond movie, and FYEO was VERY good too).
*I mean no disrespect to those who love Dalton however this is just what I happen to think.
Perhaps I overstated my case...its just that Roger has gotten so much flack over the years that when I see a statement that denigrates him totally...I have to put in my two cents.
As for being right or wrong...well, lets just say every opinion carries its own legitimacy. If you think Roger is totally wrong as Bond...that's fine...you are obviously not the first person to state that position...but if that was stated originally...I would not have reacted.
But what came across in your "garbage" comment was that the Roger era is without any value...and that I disagree with totally.
As for "knowing what the hell you're talking about"...I stepped too far.
You are obviously a member who knows his stuff (as most of us do) so I will just say that I have to be more tolerant of a Bond fan's blanket statements when it comes to Bond.
My thinking over the years has become simple: everyone and his brother thinks Sean is the best 007...thats a no-brainer.
What requires a little more effort is an appreciation for the Rodney Dangerfield of the Bonds.
Roger never gets any respect and, as such, I appreciate any members support for him.
Look, RJJB, language is a very tricky thing. You can casually throw a provocative world like "garbage" into the mix, and you just know eventually, in this forum especially, someone will challenge you on it on a fundamental level.
I guess on a deeper level I simply cannot get over the harshness of the criticism from Bond-fans when it comes to Roger and certain parts of the series. Where's the love? (To put it more bluntly)
Look. I try not to wear blinders when it comes to 007. I am completely aware of the flaws in the series. Lets not kid ourselves...as good as the Bonds are...some could be a whole lot better.
What I look for, RJJB, is not blind love and admiration for the films (who wants that?) but a fair appraisal from a Bond-fan who might not even necessarily LIKE the film he is watching. (Which you do with YOLT and DAF).
I guess the word is enthusiasm.
Which brings me to my final point: any negative criticism of 007 from any Bond-fan should at least be enthusiastic..... I mean, even the ugliest of all the Bond ducklings, TMWTGG, deserves a pat on the back. People dismiss the film outright...but my belief is no Bond film can EVER be dismissed.
(And just to show you I am not all, sunshine and rainbows: the last falf of DAD is an absolute failure. From the moment Bond arrives in Iceland to the end of the film...everything falls flat...simply put: the worst 45 minutes in over 20 films).
But I will still defend it.
Well, RJJB...it just goes to show that 007 has fans with many loyalties...and one of them is to Roger.
"Keeping the British end up, sir."
If you turn off your hyper-critical switch for a couple of hours, you are guaranteed a good time with Roger's movies, with laughs and thrills in equal measure - and how many films can you say that about?
Recently, I rewatched LTK closely followed by AVTAK. Frankly, although I appreciate LTK is probably technically a better movie, I know which one kept me entertained the most! (hint: it wasn't LTK!
And you know what, RJJB? From Bond-fans I expect nothing less than a certain level of sophistication. Why? Because we are talking about a gentleman by the name of James Bond. If anything, Bond's manners are beyond impeccable... and there is much to be learned from the greatest hero in the movies.
"World domination. Same old dream."
And you know what, RJJB? From Bond-fans I expect nothing less than a certain level of sophistication. Why? Because we are talking about a gentleman by the name of James Bond. If anything, Bond's manners are beyond impeccable... and there is much to be learned from the greatest hero in the movies.
"World domination. Same old dream."
Don't ya just love a good debate!!
The way I see all this, is that everyone is entitled to think what they will of the Bond films.
One problem that has struck me is that people use the words 'Best' and 'Worst' within the context of their opinions instead of saying something is their favourite or least favourite. I know I have done this, it just comes naturally.
The problem with this is that claiming, for example, that 'Goldeneye IS the BEST Bond film' instead of stating that 'My favourite Bond film is Goldeneye' is that the first statement is telling someone who thinks otherwise that they are wrong. And as has been said, we cannot put tone of voice into our posts so they can often be mis-understood.
Now, I'm not telling everyone to start writing like this, tht would be absurdly arrogant and completely unreasonable. I will still post statements like this I'm sure.
I just thought it worth pointing out as I feel this type of statement although not actually aggressive, is telling people, on a subconscious level, that they are wrong.
Please note this is an opinion of mine and I am not stating it as fact.
Yes, looking at episodes of the Saint and some of Roger's other movies, who was it that made the decision he couldn't play a hard edged Bond? In retrospect, the idea of making the movies more jokey 'because its Roger' was ridiculous.
That said, I think that most of Roger's movies are amongst the most entertaining of the whole series. Maybe not technically the best (whatever that is!?) but certainly never a dull moment!
I think the decision to have more jokes (and more action set pieces) was made by United Artists/Broccoli/Saltzman after the "failure" of OHMSS at the box office.
Another hard edged scene Roger Moore played is in The Sea Wolves. He dramatically turns a knife on Barbara Kellerman's character and she drops to the floor. It's much like Bond turning the knife on Demetrious in Casino Royale.
I thought Lazenby did a good job (except for the "This never happened to the other guy" remark) and I definitely would have loved to see Connery and Rigg on screen together though... I always think of this film as the one that got away.
I'm in the camp that dreams of an OHMSS with Connery (though I like Lazenby) and think that this was the most superb adaptation of a Fleming book, which happens to be the best Fleming novel. However, in recently rethinking about the ideal actor to play Bond, I totally ignored the important aspects of Bond's situation in the novel, which was from a more mature and experienced standpoint, having had enough of his profession and discovering later on that he's ready to graduate from his free-wheeling, bachelor lifestyle. The movie worked by making do without that baggage, but keeping all of that in for the sake of character development would have been the icing on the cake.
Logically, Connery being older would have been perfect, but tackling these maturity issues would have also been too against type, at least as far as EON would allow. Hypothetically, would Dalton at his age in LTK, work in portraying OHMSS Bond in the novel? I think yes, but I can imagine that the biggest casualty would have been the general swank and swagger (IMO, successfully infused by Lazenby) that adds to the attractiveness of the film. What about a North by Northwest Cary Grant? I'm even thinking about Connery in Robin & Marian, particularly his maturity but discounting his visual age in that movie.
I don't quite understand what the hardcore Connery fans want. Did they want the movies to end with him? Did they want him to be cloned or for someone exactly like him to be found and take over the part? I doubt a Connery rip-off would have made anyone happy. And I for one am glad more films were made.
Let me make it plain I think Sean was the best, especially in his first three films, in fact he was so good that the rest of the actors, by being almost as good, are great. Lazenby brought a lightheartedness to Bond that makes Tracy's death seem that much more devastating. Connery seemed more like a hardened man who would have been able to take it in stride. OHMSS is George's movie, his cool devil-may-care presence is winning and distinctly different. I love him as Sir Hillary; it is on the one hand funny and at the same time he pulls it off I believe much better than Sean could have, who would have seemed like the same person underneath. When Bond, as Sir Hillary, says he doesn't like flying it seems believeable. It's very Clark Kent-ish. Had Connery done this film, it would have been his sixth playing the same character in under a decade. How much enthusiasm could he have summoned up at that point? - despite how great the script is.
Connery fans should have been happy with what they got. As a lifelong Han Solo fan (based on SW and ESB), I wish Ford could have been as good in Jedi as Connery was in Goldfinger.
But, at least in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade they were great together.:)
You can always choose to not watch.
My dream is that Connery had done OHMSS. I think he could have been absolutely brilliant. He would have handled the physicality as well as Lazenby and I think he would have done a vastly superior job in regards to the actual acting (pre-final scene.) My only hesitation is infact the final scene; could Connery have handled it as well? I don't mean in terms of acting (IMO Connery is a fantastic actor and the best actor to have played Bond by far but the final scene requires the actor to show what was then not considered to be particularly 'masculine.' (I really hate that word.
Nonetheless, as much as I love OHMSS (it's seventh on my list), I really wish that Connery had done it, because Lazenby (as good as he was in final scene as well as the physical scenes) is a major reason why the film isn't higher. If only.
BTW, although I'm not a hardcore Connery fan (I'm more of a hardcore Bond fan) let me answer your question that I am happy there were more films; I just wish some (OHMSS, AVTAK, the Dalton films, CR and future Craig films) were better cast.
If you said that George Lazenby was more into the part in OHMSS than Sean Connery was in YOLT I would have agreed with you. Connery's very good in TB, he looks motivated and is in very good physical shape. In YOLT, he's clearly bored, doesn't try to perform, and has put on weight. In DAF, he looks more motivated to me and adjusts his performance to match the lighter tone of the film, but he's not motivated enough to lose some of the extra weight he has gained since YOLT.
As for Lazenby, his lack of acting experience is painfully obvious during much of OHMSS. Having said that, he is good in the action scenes.