I just think that escaping from the City Hall is a much more realistic predicament for someone to get into.
So is an unplanned pregnancy, but I'm not sure it merits a Bond Film ---although, perhaps...oh, never mind )
Seriously, though...don't you think seeing an empty vase being cracked over someone's head---and then being told that it holds a relative's ashes!!---reflects a profound lack of concern with detail, and producing something of quality and value?
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
I refuse to make amends for actually liking a James Bond film, on a James Bond forum!!
I'd certainly never ask you to, my friend {[]
AVTAK is my least favourite Bond film---starring my least favourite Bond---and yet I'll always rewatch it, because I'm a Bond fan...but I can't pretend it's as good as so many other Bond films.
I will continue to entertain theories on Granddad's missing ashes, though :v In the meantime, it stands out (to me) as an example of Eon simply 'going through the motions' during this Darkest of Bond Ages
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
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
going through the motions' during this Darkest of Bond Ages
I think the Brosnan age was more guilty of this than the Moore age. Then again, I'm a big fan of all but a couple (AVTAK being one of them) of Moore's movies.
In the meantime, it stands out (to me) as an example of Eon simply 'going through the motions' during this Darkest of Bond Ages
I agree. After the Brilliance of the Moore era, AVTAK and the two Dalton films that followed, really was the 'Darkest of Bond Ages.'
"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
You're a good sport, Loeffelholz. Have I wished you a happy b-day? Let me do so once again {[]
I will continue to entertain theories on Granddad's missing ashes, though :v In the meantime, it stands out (to me) as an example of Eon simply 'going through the motions' during this Darkest of Bond Ages
Okay. She rolled up dad and smoked him. Hence the munchies, hence the Quiche!
AVTAK is my least favourite Bond film---starring my least favourite Bond---and yet I'll always rewatch it, because I'm a Bond fan...but I can't pretend it's as good as so many other Bond films.
I never said it was a good film. But there's a difference between bad and boring.
I refuse to make amends for actually liking a James Bond film, on a James Bond forum!!
I'd certainly never ask you to, my friend {[]
AVTAK is my least favourite Bond film---starring my least favourite Bond---and yet I'll always rewatch it, because I'm a Bond fan...but I can't pretend it's as good as so many other Bond films.
I will continue to entertain theories on Granddad's missing ashes, though :v In the meantime, it stands out (to me) as an example of Eon simply 'going through the motions' during this Darkest of Bond Ages
Maybe Grandpa's ashes just evaporated--or Stacy sniffed them after she ran out of cocaine.
That surprises me. Why do you dislike LALD so much?
Because Eon had a very good story in the novel and in bringing it up to date,they would've had a much better plot than the poor excuse for a comedy they threw onto the screen.It's very much informed by the then current Blaxploitation movies(in fact,it couldn't have been made with them),and that's great.But there are plenty of moments in the book Eon chose not to touch because they aimed this film--and nearly all of Roger's other movies--at children.Small children.The movie looks to be built around stunts as opposed to an intriguing story.I liked the boat chase and the alligator farm, however it's nearly all action but precious little character development.It's okay for what it,I guess.
But Mr.Big could've--should've--been far more threatening.That he eventually is inflated like a balloon, is not only ridiculous but was probably offensive to many Black audience members.Eon decided that Mr.Big wasn't even worthy to be a Bond villain of any note.
The best thing about the film is Jane Seymour's performance as Solitaire.I also liked the reading of the Tarot cards sequence predicting that 007 was coming to New Orleans.Roger seems a bit confused in this, wavering from kind of serious to lifting the famous eyebrow.Not effective for me.Much as I like Roger,he was much more impressive as Simon Templar than as 007--and IMO The Saint's a more challenging part to play than James Bond.
And McCartney's theme song didn't impress me.Additionally the movie needed a(slightly) darker and more serious tone.It's simply too lightweight as far as I'm concerned.I realize that some people love this movie.I don't.
Unlike you,Dan,I enjoyed both of Dalton's films and consider his interpretation of 007 superior to Brosnan's--who I also like,but not quite as much.:)
Eon chose not to touch because they aimed this film--and nearly all of Roger's other movies at children.Small children.The movie looks to be built around stunts as opposed to an intriguing story.It's all action but precious little character development.
That's a little condescending. I mean, if a film does not have sufficient character development (and lets face it, most Bond films don't) then it must be aimed at small children? Whether or not LALD has a good plot, (and I think it is pretty good), can it really be described as a film aimed at small children? Or more to the point, could I imagine the parents of some of my young cousins allowing them to see LALD? I would imagine that the answer is no, at least for now. I guess it depends on how one defines a film that is intended for children or one that is 'adult.' Obviously character development might be a criteria, although many 'adult' films (such as Die Hard) don't feature much character development and IMO it's not always necessary. Plus, not that it really matters but TSWLM was IMO the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time. I guess what I'm saying is, whether you think the Moore films are great or not, surely you don't mean that they're intended for 'small children?'
Roger seems a bit confused in this, wavering from kind of serious to lifting the famous eyebrow.Not effective for me.Much as I like Roger,he was much more impressive as Simon Templar than as 007--and IMO The Saint's a more challenging part to play than James Bond.
I've never seen The Saint, so I can't comment on the complexity of the title role, but I loved Moore's performance in LALD. IMO he brought a real confidence to the film that I think was quite extraordinary, especially considering it was his first film. In fact, based on the quality of his performance, I would never have guessed that it was his first Bond film.
Unlike you,Dan,I enjoyed both of Dalton's films and consider his interpretation of 007 superior to Brosnan's--who I also like,but not quite as much.:)
Do you at least consider Connery to be the best?
"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
Eon chose not to touch because they aimed this film--and nearly all of Roger's other movies at children.Small children.The movie looks to be built around stunts as opposed to an intriguing story.It's all action but precious little character development.
That's a little condescending. I mean, if a film does not have sufficient character development (and lets face it, most Bond films don't) then it must be aimed at small children? Whether or not LALD has a good plot, (and I think it is pretty good), can it really be described as a film aimed at small children? Or more to the point, could I imagine the parents of some of my young cousins allowing them to see LALD? I would imagine that the answer is no, at least for now. I guess it depends on how one defines a film that is intended for children or one that is 'adult.' Obviously character development might be a criteria, although many 'adult' films (such as Die Hard) don't feature much character development and IMO it's not always necessary. Plus, not that it really matters but TSWLM was IMO the greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time. I guess what I'm saying is, whether you think the Moore films are great or not, surely you don't mean that they're intended for 'small children?'
Roger seems a bit confused in this, wavering from kind of serious to lifting the famous eyebrow.Not effective for me.Much as I like Roger,he was much more impressive as Simon Templar than as 007--and IMO The Saint's a more challenging part to play than James Bond.
I've never seen The Saint, so I can't comment on the complexity of the title role, but I loved Moore's performance in LALD. IMO he brought a real confidence to the film that I think was quite extraordinary, especially considering it was his first film. In fact, based on the quality of his performance, I would never have guessed that it was his first Bond film.
Unlike you,Dan,I enjoyed both of Dalton's films and consider his interpretation of 007 superior to Brosnan's--who I also like,but not quite as much.:)
Do you at least consider Connery to be the best?
Sean Connery's definitely the best of the 007s-no ifs, ands, or buts.He's THE James Bond.
Maybe I did come across as a bit condescending with some of my earlier remarks,and upon careful consideration, I agree with you--I went too far,but I never really meant to offend.And for that, I sincerely apologize.:)
As for the characters?Sure,they're especially complex.In fact,they're archtypes and stereotypes with a few caricatures tossed in for good measure.Goldfinger isn't Eugene O'Neil, and no one's ever going to confuse Diamonds Are Forever with anything by Shaw.But it's the dialogue and general behavior of the characters that informs them and some of them--again,just my opinion--are more interesting than others.They're not deep,perhaps, but a few of them seem to be more human than the others.But of course this is all defined by personal opinions so there's no right or wrong answer.
Frankly,I think the Bond movies began to lose their way with the superattentuated(always wanted to use this word ),You Only Live Twice,which,while fun,also featured too many gadgets and a plot that comes much closer in spirit to that of a Flint film(check out Our Man Flint and In Like Flint and I think you'll see what I mean).It also prefigures the unbelievable Matt Helms.yes,Eon loved their rockets--they're in Dr.No--so maybe eventually putting Bond in or near space was a natural progression.Still,bad guys hiding out in a volcano(!) with TVs everywhere and a rocketship that swallows space capsules,was a little much for me.Then there was Diamonds Are Forever...Perhaps the only direction Eon felt it could go into was with bigger and more outlandish storylines with even more elaborate technology.I don't mind a few gadgets but when they become practically 007's right arm, I think that's wrong.I'd rather see 007 use his wits as opposed to a miniscule laser gun that just happens to be up his sleeve.
I remember seeing Roger interviewed on an afternoon chat show many years ago(this would be around 1979,when he was cohosting the "Mike Douglas Show" and promoting The Spy Who Loved Me).He explained very clearly to his friend Mike and to the studio audience that Eon was now making "Family Films"-for adults and children alike.As he was not Sean Connery--(something the critics continually reminded him), and since the public had proven that they enjoyed seeing gadgets,Roger said that Eon had elected to play up the comedy aspects with his cycle of films.This had proven successful with Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, and Eon had chosen to continue their films in a similar vein.
Roger acknowledged that he was always more comfortable playing James Bond tongue-in-cheek, than seriously.
Like you,I've seen Roger play straight dramatic parts, and he's generally been good at it.But that's often in films set apart from those made by Eon.In my opinion,most of his Bond films have been played more broadly and he's behaved accordingly.In all fairness,when what's going on is occasionally off the charts, it's probably impossible for anyone to keep a straight face and there was no good reason for Roger to try.
Probably the biggest problems I've had with some of Roger's "family friendly" 007 epics is that a good number of them seem less inspired than the earlier films-- which had some of Ian Fleming's best novels to serve as their inspiration.That said, Roger's movies were made for a different generation than mine.And they definitely made plenty of money--I bought tickets to see everuy one of them.And also liked most of them on the first go round.
That's because I've always liked Roger Moore.
I do like The Spy Who Loved Me--y'know,in a sense it's almost the Die Another Day of it's time.There's a fantastic villain with a grandiose scheme(not terribly well explained),assisted by a variation on Oddjob.The locales are gorgeous.Additionally,there are a few subtle references to what came before--notably,at long last, the recognition that Tracy had once lived, wed 007, and been killed as a result.Enough time had passed that Eon wasn't trying to erase memories of OHMSS.The scene also reinforces Roger's position as 007.No matter the actor playing 007(until Craig and the reboot)he'll always have the same basic history because he's the same man.I really liked that.As for TSWLM,I think it's a fine movie with plenty of entertainment value,not a magnificent film perhaps,but considerably better than LALD and TMWTGG which preceeded it.It certainly accomplised what it set out to do.I think Jaws is the weakest point in the film.I also like the outlandish Moonraker and Octopussy(reportedly Roger's favorite-he always says,"the one with Maud" when asked which film he considers his best),and I think that aside from the silly "delicatessen in stainless steel" comment in For Your Eyes Only,that that particular film is Roger's very best outing as 007.He's just superb in FYEO--Connery couldn't have done a better job.
In conclusion,I really don't mean to come across as old and crabby and absolutely impossible to please, because I'm not--I can find something to enjoy in every Bond film, and if I didn't say that I've enjoyed most of Roger's films--not all,but most-- as much as any of the series' other entries,I'd be lying.:)
This'll be my last post on this particular thread.Looking back,I realize that this thread was set up in order to post appreciative comments about A View to a Kill and it's beautiful leading lady--and not for any unrelenting criticism of them.
Sean Connery's definitely the best of the 007s-no ifs, ands, or buts.He's THE James Bond.
If "it's " and "buts" were candy and nuts...
Some may point out that at least Moore (and Brosnan too) made valid attempts throughout the duration of their contracts. While Connery was amazing in FRWL and GF, he did a pretty half arse effort in YOLT and DAF.
As for Moore's movies being aimed more at young children, i'll agree that they werent all that serious. But Disney makes movies aimed at small children. Its not like AVTAK is aimed at the same target audience as the little mermaid or anything.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I never said it was a good film. But there's a difference between bad and boring.
I'll take the former over the latter any time. -{
Fair enough. Bad is definitely better than boring. I'm very thankful to never have been bored by the Bonds---regardless of the occasionally wavering quality...
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
WG, you're entitled to your own opinions! You may not think AVTAK is great and you don't have to.
While I am someone who loves and cherishes AVTAK as a great Bond film, my mission isn't to make everyone see it the same way (the NSA was merely established for people to see the good sides of AVTAK and they could take it or leave it, and for the record, NO SQUIRRELS WERE EVER HARMED.)
Why I prefer Moore to Connery is that Moore's Bond is just so fun to watch. One minute he'll crack a joke or something of the sort or the next he's staring down Locque and kicking his car off a cliff. His character of Bond is one that people don't tend to look into and always see the "comical" one.
The beach scene in FYEO, when Lisl is killed is strangely reminiscent of the Tracy scene in OHMSS, and you can see that Roger becomes strangely attached to her and yells out for her to "Come back!" because he doesn't want to face a similar situation to his encounter with Tracy. When she dies, you can see the pain in his eyes. He gets his ultimate revenge on Locque later for killing her and Ferrara.
He also, in a very rare moment, manhandles Andrea Anders in the likes of Connery. Moore isn't like that usually, but here it happens. In AVTAK, he's serious all-throughout, with a few jokes here and there, but in San Francisco, especially after the death of Howe, he's cold and distant toward Zorin. A similar situation in AVTAK occurs when Sir Godfrey is killed. Bond gets angry and utters "Killing Tibbett was a mistake."
These are but a few examples, but this may insinuate that one, Roger Moore is not just the funny, smirky Bond everyone thinks of, his movies are fun and enjoyable with Flemingesque hints kept down to a fair amount and that AVTAK isn't one of those OTT, poorly put together film but it has a dark, suspenseful side to it that you may not catch on first viewing.
OK, I swore that I would never get into an AVTAK discussion, and especially that I wouldn't get into an AVTAK discussion with JFF. But since my friend WG has bowed out, I think I need to pick up his mantle.
JFF, let me start with a compliment, but please don't let it go to your head. If you become a lawyer, you're the guy I want defending me. You're tenacious and dogged and you're the kind of advocate who'd give his client the "zealous defense" the law demands. But, for Gawd's sake, please don't become a politician, because you'd be the kind of pol who sells his constituents into serfdom and tells them they've just been led into a new era of prosperity and civil rights.
What bothers me about your many AVTAK defenses is not that you love the film--the heart wants what the heart wants, and you can't help that--but that you often rely on things that aren't in the film in order to justify your love for it. The business of Stacey being rendered temporarily deaf by the explosion is a recent example. It's a clever explanation and had you written the novelization of the script you could incorporate that element; but where is it in the film? Does Stacey ever say "I can't hear you" to someone who speaks to her, or is there a tinitis-like ringing on the soundtrack to indicate she can't hear? It's just not there. But even if she was completely deaf, wouldn't she have seen the shadow of the blimp, or felt the air around her being disturbed by a gigantic air ship with massive whirling fan blades? What I feel you do in defending AVTAK with such explanations is that you recreate the film, making it into something you WANT it to be and ignoring what it actually IS.
I guess I don't understand why you can't just say, "I like the movie, warts and all." Most of the rest of us can do that with particular Bond films. Not that I'd hold myself up as an example for anyone to follow, but take me, for instance: my guilty pleasure is You Only Live Twice. I'll admit it--the story is nonsense, filled with illogical plot developments and contradictions. It's also so far removed from the source novel that had Ian Fleming survived to see the movie I'm sure the shock would have killed him. But it's never boring--it's fun to watch and has great sets, great photography, and beautiful music. I'll defend it on those grounds, rather than try to explain away Blofeld's sending a fleet of helicopters after Little Nellie when Bond was on the verge of reporting he hadn't seen anything suspicious, or what happened to the poison gas in the tunnel, or how in the heck Blofeld could build a rocket base inside a volcano without anyone noticing.
Sadly, all your justifications of AVTAK's story problems and your insistence on there being a "dark side" to the film don't make it any better to me--and I have seen it several times. I rank it at the bottom with TMWTGG for much the same reasons: for all the money spent, the production values are abysmally low. There's all the clunky rear-projection work I complained of earlier, the taxicab that breaks into neat parts when hit--as if it had been scored by a saw, the dummy that's tossed into a wedding cake, the obvious stuntmen that appear every time Bond does more than lift a finger, the fake-looking mine set stolen from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and the waxwork makeup job on Roger Moore. These things take me out of the film. Instead of following along with AVTAK's own goofy logic--like I do with YOLT--I find myself getting annoyed by the fakery and feeling that behind the movie is a bunch of people who no longer believe in their own product but who are just going through the motions.
There. I said it. And no doubt you'll make me sorry.
Hardy, perhaps sometimes I do tend to come up with alternate scenarios that may explain AVTAK's problems, but I merely see it as delving into the film and coming up with what may have been intended (it may not have been, but it's what I believe).
Still, I believe there are problems in AVTAK. No Bond movie is perfect, even my all time favorite Goldeneye has a few problems here and there.
Problems in AVTAK include the embarassing warehouse fight (ugh, if I ever released my own cut of AVTAK, I would cut that out), the criminal underuse of Alison Doody and Papillon Soo, the cutting of Stacey's fight with Howe and the protest scene (would've explained a lot more things and given Stacey more credibility as a character) and the use of California Girls in the PTS when Barry could easily have scored it, and yes the obvious stuntmen/dummy are irksome.
I can live with these "warts" of the film as you say, but the things that bother you may not necessarily bother me. I like the mine set, I like the cut-in-half-car because it's completely ludicrous like many situations in Bond films and I don't think Moore looks that bad.
So I suppose it sort of boils down to the fact that how you defend your films is different than how I defend mine. I may go overboard (no, really?) and get a little too creative with explaining things but that's only because I want people to see that perhaps the most universally hated film has some nice things in it and just maybe, they'll give it a second chance.
In a way though, it's different, you and I defending these different films. YOLT is generally liked by the Bond community, sure some people may attack certain aspects of it (like you've listed below) but overall it comes down to "It was Bondmania then, and therefore it's okay in my book.". With AVTAK, they tend to not have as favorable comments.
You don't have to like AVTAK, Hardy. I never said that everyone has to, the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone liked something, you don't even have to look at my points about the film's "dark edge" or my justifications. That's just my way of expressing that yes indeed there is something good about the film that not many people see and you don't have to. You may not see that at all. And that is perfectly fine.
Hardy, I'd never want to make you "sorry", I'm just offering up an opposing viewpoint. I would never want to make anyone sorry (except Dan for the elimination game and Rogue for not revealing the NSA mole ). We both have films that we love and maybe we turn a blind eye to some of its problems, but I don't think that invalidates any of our opinions.
The problem with Stacey Sutton is alot simpler than it seems. She wouldn't have been bad at all if it weren't for that obnoxious high pitch scream every five minutes. It gets absolutely ridiculous. If She just wouldn't have squeeled like a pig so much, she wouldn't have been half as bad.
She is a geologist.
She can drive and eat crackers at the same time.
She actually has a cat named PUSSY.
She nearly killed Zorin by pulling at his leg on the Golden Gate Bridge.
I love her cute little laugh after the Blimp blows up. EXT. ON TOP OF THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE. DAY. Bond: “There’s never a cab when you want one.” Stacey: “Ha ha ha ha ha ha.”
She puts up well with Mayday’s superhuman strength by only having Mayday rip off her Zorin costume but leaving the white dress intact.
PS: My guess is that the rock salt is really Granddad.
Stacy Sutton is my favorite bond girl, not only because she is extremely hot, but because she is one of the least popular bond girls. Shes the reason I watch AVTAK.
Stacy Sutton is my favorite bond girl, not only because she is extremely hot, but because she is one of the least popular bond girls. Shes the reason I watch AVTAK.
wow favorite Bond Girl,that is a real stretch, in my opinion she is the bottom,and that laugh of hers makes me cringe everytime I hear it, but to each his own I guess.:007)
You know the part where Stacey is at the mines with Bond, explaining what Zorin's master plan is? I always find myself rooting for her like she's a kid at a Spelling Bee, hoping she'll be able to successfully finish her lines. If feels like Tanya Roberts spent weeks memorizing that part, and after the 50th take they decided to just go with the version we saw.
If Mary Goodnight ever uttered the phrase "You betcha." perhaps it would cost her a few points with me, but for now I must respectfully disagree that Stacey is the better Bond girl.
...after comparing her to Mary Goodnight today, I can say that Goodnight is far, far worse.
What does everyone else think?
Mary Goodnight is awesome!!! No one ever looked better in a bikini than Brit!!! She had one of the best bodies of any Bond girl from any era. Do I sound shallow? What the hell, I am!!!! haha.
Comments
So is an unplanned pregnancy, but I'm not sure it merits a Bond Film
Seriously, though...don't you think seeing an empty vase being cracked over someone's head---and then being told that it holds a relative's ashes!!---reflects a profound lack of concern with detail, and producing something of quality and value?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I refuse to make amends for actually liking a James Bond film, on a James Bond forum!!
And you can take that to the bank and cash it my friends.
I'd certainly never ask you to, my friend {[]
AVTAK is my least favourite Bond film---starring my least favourite Bond---and yet I'll always rewatch it, because I'm a Bond fan...but I can't pretend it's as good as so many other Bond films.
I will continue to entertain theories on Granddad's missing ashes, though :v In the meantime, it stands out (to me) as an example of Eon simply 'going through the motions' during this Darkest of Bond Ages
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I think the Brosnan age was more guilty of this than the Moore age. Then again, I'm a big fan of all but a couple (AVTAK being one of them) of Moore's movies.
I agree. After the Brilliance of the Moore era, AVTAK and the two Dalton films that followed, really was the 'Darkest of Bond Ages.'
Okay. She rolled up dad and smoked him. Hence the munchies, hence the Quiche!
Okay, maybe not ;%
I'll take the former over the latter any time. -{
Maybe Grandpa's ashes just evaporated--or Stacy sniffed them after she ran out of cocaine.
I've never seen The Saint, so I can't comment on the complexity of the title role, but I loved Moore's performance in LALD. IMO he brought a real confidence to the film that I think was quite extraordinary, especially considering it was his first film. In fact, based on the quality of his performance, I would never have guessed that it was his first Bond film.
Do you at least consider Connery to be the best?
Sean Connery's definitely the best of the 007s-no ifs, ands, or buts.He's THE James Bond.
Maybe I did come across as a bit condescending with some of my earlier remarks,and upon careful consideration, I agree with you--I went too far,but I never really meant to offend.And for that, I sincerely apologize.:)
As for the characters?Sure,they're especially complex.In fact,they're archtypes and stereotypes with a few caricatures tossed in for good measure.Goldfinger isn't Eugene O'Neil, and no one's ever going to confuse Diamonds Are Forever with anything by Shaw.But it's the dialogue and general behavior of the characters that informs them and some of them--again,just my opinion--are more interesting than others.They're not deep,perhaps, but a few of them seem to be more human than the others.But of course this is all defined by personal opinions so there's no right or wrong answer.
Frankly,I think the Bond movies began to lose their way with the superattentuated(always wanted to use this word
I remember seeing Roger interviewed on an afternoon chat show many years ago(this would be around 1979,when he was cohosting the "Mike Douglas Show" and promoting The Spy Who Loved Me).He explained very clearly to his friend Mike and to the studio audience that Eon was now making "Family Films"-for adults and children alike.As he was not Sean Connery--(something the critics continually reminded him), and since the public had proven that they enjoyed seeing gadgets,Roger said that Eon had elected to play up the comedy aspects with his cycle of films.This had proven successful with Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, and Eon had chosen to continue their films in a similar vein.
Roger acknowledged that he was always more comfortable playing James Bond tongue-in-cheek, than seriously.
Like you,I've seen Roger play straight dramatic parts, and he's generally been good at it.But that's often in films set apart from those made by Eon.In my opinion,most of his Bond films have been played more broadly and he's behaved accordingly.In all fairness,when what's going on is occasionally off the charts, it's probably impossible for anyone to keep a straight face and there was no good reason for Roger to try.
Probably the biggest problems I've had with some of Roger's "family friendly" 007 epics is that a good number of them seem less inspired than the earlier films-- which had some of Ian Fleming's best novels to serve as their inspiration.That said, Roger's movies were made for a different generation than mine.And they definitely made plenty of money--I bought tickets to see everuy one of them.And also liked most of them on the first go round.
That's because I've always liked Roger Moore.
I do like The Spy Who Loved Me--y'know,in a sense it's almost the Die Another Day of it's time.There's a fantastic villain with a grandiose scheme(not terribly well explained),assisted by a variation on Oddjob.The locales are gorgeous.Additionally,there are a few subtle references to what came before--notably,at long last, the recognition that Tracy had once lived, wed 007, and been killed as a result.Enough time had passed that Eon wasn't trying to erase memories of OHMSS.The scene also reinforces Roger's position as 007.No matter the actor playing 007(until Craig and the reboot)he'll always have the same basic history because he's the same man.I really liked that.As for TSWLM,I think it's a fine movie with plenty of entertainment value,not a magnificent film perhaps,but considerably better than LALD and TMWTGG which preceeded it.It certainly accomplised what it set out to do.I think Jaws is the weakest point in the film.I also like the outlandish Moonraker and Octopussy(reportedly Roger's favorite-he always says,"the one with Maud" when asked which film he considers his best),and I think that aside from the silly "delicatessen in stainless steel" comment in For Your Eyes Only,that that particular film is Roger's very best outing as 007.He's just superb in FYEO--Connery couldn't have done a better job.
In conclusion,I really don't mean to come across as old and crabby and absolutely impossible to please, because I'm not--I can find something to enjoy in every Bond film, and if I didn't say that I've enjoyed most of Roger's films--not all,but most-- as much as any of the series' other entries,I'd be lying.:)
This'll be my last post on this particular thread.Looking back,I realize that this thread was set up in order to post appreciative comments about A View to a Kill and it's beautiful leading lady--and not for any unrelenting criticism of them.
Carry on...
See you on the other threads.:)
If "it's " and "buts" were candy and nuts...
Some may point out that at least Moore (and Brosnan too) made valid attempts throughout the duration of their contracts. While Connery was amazing in FRWL and GF, he did a pretty half arse effort in YOLT and DAF.
As for Moore's movies being aimed more at young children, i'll agree that they werent all that serious. But Disney makes movies aimed at small children. Its not like AVTAK is aimed at the same target audience as the little mermaid or anything.
Fair enough. Bad is definitely better than boring. I'm very thankful to never have been bored by the Bonds---regardless of the occasionally wavering quality...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
While I am someone who loves and cherishes AVTAK as a great Bond film, my mission isn't to make everyone see it the same way (the NSA was merely established for people to see the good sides of AVTAK and they could take it or leave it, and for the record, NO SQUIRRELS WERE EVER HARMED.)
Why I prefer Moore to Connery is that Moore's Bond is just so fun to watch. One minute he'll crack a joke or something of the sort or the next he's staring down Locque and kicking his car off a cliff. His character of Bond is one that people don't tend to look into and always see the "comical" one.
The beach scene in FYEO, when Lisl is killed is strangely reminiscent of the Tracy scene in OHMSS, and you can see that Roger becomes strangely attached to her and yells out for her to "Come back!" because he doesn't want to face a similar situation to his encounter with Tracy. When she dies, you can see the pain in his eyes. He gets his ultimate revenge on Locque later for killing her and Ferrara.
He also, in a very rare moment, manhandles Andrea Anders in the likes of Connery. Moore isn't like that usually, but here it happens. In AVTAK, he's serious all-throughout, with a few jokes here and there, but in San Francisco, especially after the death of Howe, he's cold and distant toward Zorin. A similar situation in AVTAK occurs when Sir Godfrey is killed. Bond gets angry and utters "Killing Tibbett was a mistake."
These are but a few examples, but this may insinuate that one, Roger Moore is not just the funny, smirky Bond everyone thinks of, his movies are fun and enjoyable with Flemingesque hints kept down to a fair amount and that AVTAK isn't one of those OTT, poorly put together film but it has a dark, suspenseful side to it that you may not catch on first viewing.
JFF, let me start with a compliment, but please don't let it go to your head. If you become a lawyer, you're the guy I want defending me. You're tenacious and dogged and you're the kind of advocate who'd give his client the "zealous defense" the law demands. But, for Gawd's sake, please don't become a politician, because you'd be the kind of pol who sells his constituents into serfdom and tells them they've just been led into a new era of prosperity and civil rights.
What bothers me about your many AVTAK defenses is not that you love the film--the heart wants what the heart wants, and you can't help that--but that you often rely on things that aren't in the film in order to justify your love for it. The business of Stacey being rendered temporarily deaf by the explosion is a recent example. It's a clever explanation and had you written the novelization of the script you could incorporate that element; but where is it in the film? Does Stacey ever say "I can't hear you" to someone who speaks to her, or is there a tinitis-like ringing on the soundtrack to indicate she can't hear? It's just not there. But even if she was completely deaf, wouldn't she have seen the shadow of the blimp, or felt the air around her being disturbed by a gigantic air ship with massive whirling fan blades? What I feel you do in defending AVTAK with such explanations is that you recreate the film, making it into something you WANT it to be and ignoring what it actually IS.
I guess I don't understand why you can't just say, "I like the movie, warts and all." Most of the rest of us can do that with particular Bond films. Not that I'd hold myself up as an example for anyone to follow, but take me, for instance: my guilty pleasure is You Only Live Twice. I'll admit it--the story is nonsense, filled with illogical plot developments and contradictions. It's also so far removed from the source novel that had Ian Fleming survived to see the movie I'm sure the shock would have killed him. But it's never boring--it's fun to watch and has great sets, great photography, and beautiful music. I'll defend it on those grounds, rather than try to explain away Blofeld's sending a fleet of helicopters after Little Nellie when Bond was on the verge of reporting he hadn't seen anything suspicious, or what happened to the poison gas in the tunnel, or how in the heck Blofeld could build a rocket base inside a volcano without anyone noticing.
Sadly, all your justifications of AVTAK's story problems and your insistence on there being a "dark side" to the film don't make it any better to me--and I have seen it several times. I rank it at the bottom with TMWTGG for much the same reasons: for all the money spent, the production values are abysmally low. There's all the clunky rear-projection work I complained of earlier, the taxicab that breaks into neat parts when hit--as if it had been scored by a saw, the dummy that's tossed into a wedding cake, the obvious stuntmen that appear every time Bond does more than lift a finger, the fake-looking mine set stolen from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and the waxwork makeup job on Roger Moore. These things take me out of the film. Instead of following along with AVTAK's own goofy logic--like I do with YOLT--I find myself getting annoyed by the fakery and feeling that behind the movie is a bunch of people who no longer believe in their own product but who are just going through the motions.
There. I said it. And no doubt you'll make me sorry.
Still, I believe there are problems in AVTAK. No Bond movie is perfect, even my all time favorite Goldeneye has a few problems here and there.
Problems in AVTAK include the embarassing warehouse fight (ugh, if I ever released my own cut of AVTAK, I would cut that out), the criminal underuse of Alison Doody and Papillon Soo, the cutting of Stacey's fight with Howe and the protest scene (would've explained a lot more things and given Stacey more credibility as a character) and the use of California Girls in the PTS when Barry could easily have scored it, and yes the obvious stuntmen/dummy are irksome.
I can live with these "warts" of the film as you say, but the things that bother you may not necessarily bother me. I like the mine set, I like the cut-in-half-car because it's completely ludicrous like many situations in Bond films and I don't think Moore looks that bad.
So I suppose it sort of boils down to the fact that how you defend your films is different than how I defend mine. I may go overboard (no, really?) and get a little too creative with explaining things but that's only because I want people to see that perhaps the most universally hated film has some nice things in it and just maybe, they'll give it a second chance.
In a way though, it's different, you and I defending these different films. YOLT is generally liked by the Bond community, sure some people may attack certain aspects of it (like you've listed below) but overall it comes down to "It was Bondmania then, and therefore it's okay in my book.". With AVTAK, they tend to not have as favorable comments.
You don't have to like AVTAK, Hardy. I never said that everyone has to, the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone liked something, you don't even have to look at my points about the film's "dark edge" or my justifications. That's just my way of expressing that yes indeed there is something good about the film that not many people see and you don't have to. You may not see that at all. And that is perfectly fine.
Hardy, I'd never want to make you "sorry", I'm just offering up an opposing viewpoint. I would never want to make anyone sorry (except Dan for the elimination game and Rogue for not revealing the NSA mole
She is a geologist.
She can drive and eat crackers at the same time.
She actually has a cat named PUSSY.
She nearly killed Zorin by pulling at his leg on the Golden Gate Bridge.
I love her cute little laugh after the Blimp blows up. EXT. ON TOP OF THE GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE. DAY. Bond: “There’s never a cab when you want one.” Stacey: “Ha ha ha ha ha ha.”
She puts up well with Mayday’s superhuman strength by only having Mayday rip off her Zorin costume but leaving the white dress intact.
PS: My guess is that the rock salt is really Granddad.
wow favorite Bond Girl,that is a real stretch, in my opinion she is the bottom,and that laugh of hers makes me cringe everytime I hear it, but to each his own I guess.:007)
If Mary Goodnight ever uttered the phrase "You betcha." perhaps it would cost her a few points with me, but for now I must respectfully disagree that Stacey is the better Bond girl.
Especially when they are in the shower and:
Bond: 'Drat I dropped the soap!'
Stacy: 'I'll get it'
Bond: 'Thats not the soap'
"Better make that two."
Mary Goodnight is awesome!!! No one ever looked better in a bikini than Brit!!! She had one of the best bodies of any Bond girl from any era. Do I sound shallow? What the hell, I am!!!! haha.