I do remember a quote from HB about LALD from waaaaay back. The bit where Kananga tells his minions, 'If he finds the poppy fields, kill him.' I mean, HB wrote, what the hell have they been trying to do since Bond arrived on the scene? What does he mean, if he finds the poppy fields kill him? Like, otherwise they'd let him toddle off?
Yet for all that, the line makes sense in its context, it takes some of us many many viewings to spot that, cos the whole film slips down a treat, like cool custard.
Over the years I've discovered that those who really like Moore's first film fall into two camps - either they are very young and it was one of their first Bond films or it was their very first Bond experience.
Having seen all of the films in the cinema, I naturally see the film through my own lenses.
If one approaches it as just a fun romp and not dissected in any critical way, then it's a big piece of slick entertainment, and if that's all one needs from the films then it certainly fulfills this quite nicely.
For me, I'm one of those jaded Fleming admirers who needs to have at least some logic and serious mindedness to the plotting over the stunt work and the explosions.
In that frame of mind, this film has always disappointed me. It's obvious that EON realized they could do it because that time frame was at the height of the blaxploitation films so it would be a great way to cash in on the genre as well as get away with a lot of socially sensitive material that would be impossible to cover at another time. Throwing in a lot of slapstick and Moore's puns just made it go down even easier. The whole idea of using vodou throughout was also an extra element of spice as the subject itself wasn't really widely covered in films at that time and was still considered by the uninformed as something mysterious and eerie. It's one of the reasons Fleming used it in the novel for in the fifties it was even more of a scary topic.
As for the complaints as to why there are so many questions why the characters in the film do or say things that have no reasonable explanation, I place the blame squarely on EON's shoulders. If you're writing a Monty Python film or even CR '67, you don't need logic or reality because the very nature of omitting those attributes is what adds to the humor.
"Tis but a scratch".
"A scratch, your arms off"!
"No it isn't".
"What's that then?"
"I've had worse."
Prolonged action sequences also help keep people from giving closer examination to a film (and from having to write good dialogue or create better plotting). However after making boatloads of cash off of DAD, EON knew audiences (especially the overseas box office that was more interested in action than English dialogue) would just lap up this kind of filmmaking, so why change it? It's what they wanted, right?
Fleming's novel made sense because the villain was a Soviet trained spy smuggling Morgan's treasure and using it to fund their espionage operations. As he was getting this from Jamaica and it was British colony at the time, it was logical that the operation against Big had to involve British intelligence working with the CIA and FBI.
This was solid cold war stuff and western intelligence agencies working against these type of Soviet operations in the western hemisphere were commonplace then. Fleming just mixed in the exotic elements of Morgan's treasure and vodou to make it entertaining.
EON takes this and turns it into an early 70's blaxpoitation action piece about heroin smuggling but keeps the exotic vodou theme. Fine, except by doing this they no longer need any sense of logic in their plotting (as mentioned - killing off three agents - what a way to keep your operation undercover). Just mix together black villains, a new 007, even more slapstick and use another US location centered plot right after just having made another one (DAF) so you can garner even more domestic box office.
If you really love this film, I respect your admiration and in fact there are a few aspects to the film I actually enjoy myself. By all means share your enthusiasm for any of the EON Bonds, there are many out there who are in the same camp.
We all have our favorites for various reasons and it's why we enjoy being members of AJB - so we can share in our enjoyment of the series and everything Fleming and Bond.
LALD falls right in the middle of the Roger Moore Bond films for me - it's better than TMWTGG, TSWLM, and AVTAK, and not as good as TSWLM, FYEO and OP.
PROS: I like much of the acting, especially from Yaphet Kotto (Kananga), Jane Seymour (Solitaire), Julius Harris (Tee Hee), and Geoffrey Holder (Baron Samedi). I enjoy the voodoo element and I get a kick out of the fact that some of the film is set in New York, my home town, and specifically in Harlem, the neighborhood in which I grew up.
CONS: I am not fond of Moore's version of Bond. Also, the Sheriff Pepper character is silly without being funny. Rosie Carver is annoying on the level of Stacy Sutton. The title song is great, but otherwise the score leaves me cold (I really miss Barry's music). Finally, the way Kananga's demise is handled is pretty disappointing.
Fleming's novel made sense because the villain was a Soviet trained spy smuggling Morgan's treasure and using it to fund their espionage operations. As he was getting this from Jamaica and it was British colony at the time, it was logical that the operation against Big had to involve British intelligence working with the CIA and FBI.
This was solid cold war stuff and western intelligence agencies working against these type of Soviet operations in the western hemisphere were commonplace then. Fleming just mixed in the exotic elements of Morgan's treasure and vodou to make it entertaining.
EON takes this and turns it into an early 70's blaxpoitation action piece about heroin smuggling but keeps the exotic vodou theme. Fine, except by doing this they no longer need any sense of logic in their plotting (as mentioned - killing off three agents - what a way to keep your operation undercover). Just mix together black villains, a new 007, even more slapstick and use another US location centered plot right after just having made another one (DAF) so you can garner even more domestic box office.
Excellent analysis, CA, and I think you've touched on why LALD's logic falls apart in some sequences: Mankiewicz (and co) retained parts of Fleming's novel but threw in their own inventions, so that when the film returns to the novel for, eg, the scene where Bond's table sinks through the floor leaving him facing Mr Big, Tee Hee and Solitaire (one of the best scenes in both film and novel) it follows a sequence (the airport chase) that isn't in the book, and is followed by another (the crocodile farm) that isn't in the book either. Keep this up for the whole film and there are bound to be some logical lapses.
For me, I'm one of those jaded Fleming admirers who needs to have at least some logic and serious mindedness to the plotting over the stunt work and the explosions.
I don't see most of Fleming's novels as being overly serious or logical. The plot holes in FRWL drive me nuts.
It's interesting how some non-Fleming movies like Moonraker and AVTAK have a very Fleming-esque plot device of investigating the villain for some unusual incident/accident and it develops into something much bigger.
LALD, however, fails to establish a strong connection between the agents who were killed and the main plot of heroin smuggling. Why were they killed? What were they doing there in the first place? etc... (HardyBoy raises some good questions)
Just mix together black villains, a new 007, even more slapstick and use another US location centered plot right after just having made another one (DAF) so you can garner even more domestic box office.
It's obvious you have read the novel, yet you seem to imply that EON added "black" villains to jump on the blaxploitation bandwagon?
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Moore looked younger and fitter, and seemed enthusiastic to be there.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I've always been fond of LALD but have come to really like it recently. It feels so 1970s & funky & I like how the production team embraced this as a non-Connery Bond film. I like the simplicity of the plot, the gaggle of villains, the crocodile escape & the big speedboat chase set-piece. And above all I love Moore. Totally different to Connery but equally confident. He may have been three years older but he feels like the much younger guy. And I love the black roll-neck with the .44 Magnum.
For me, I'm one of those jaded Fleming admirers who needs to have at least some logic and serious mindedness to the plotting over the stunt work and the explosions.
I don't see most of Fleming's novels as being overly serious or logical. The plot holes in FRWL drive me nuts.
It's interesting how some non-Fleming movies like Moonraker and AVTAK have a very Fleming-esque plot device of investigating the villain for some unusual incident/accident and it develops into something much bigger.
LALD, however, fails to establish a strong connection between the agents who were killed and the main plot of heroin smuggling. Why were they killed? What were they doing there in the first place? etc... (HardyBoy raises some good questions)
Just mix together black villains, a new 007, even more slapstick and use another US location centered plot right after just having made another one (DAF) so you can garner even more domestic box office.
It's obvious you have read the novel, yet you seem to imply that EON added "black" villains to jump on the blaxploitation bandwagon?
In regards to FRWL, are you referring to the film or the novel?
Flemings novels are more serious and logical in comparison to the films. As far as logic in the plotting, I find lapses in logic in the works of most famous fiction writers.
As far as the black villains, I was inferring that they decided to introduce a new Bond and "add" black villains to the EON series by choosing this particular novel strictly because they were capitalizing on the blaxploitation permeating the film releases at that time.
Fleming's novel made sense because the villain was a Soviet trained spy smuggling Morgan's treasure and using it to fund their espionage operations. As he was getting this from Jamaica and it was British colony at the time, it was logical that the operation against Big had to involve British intelligence working with the CIA and FBI.
This was solid cold war stuff and western intelligence agencies working against these type of Soviet operations in the western hemisphere were commonplace then. Fleming just mixed in the exotic elements of Morgan's treasure and vodou to make it entertaining.
EON takes this and turns it into an early 70's blaxpoitation action piece about heroin smuggling but keeps the exotic vodou theme. Fine, except by doing this they no longer need any sense of logic in their plotting (as mentioned - killing off three agents - what a way to keep your operation undercover). Just mix together black villains, a new 007, even more slapstick and use another US location centered plot right after just having made another one (DAF) so you can garner even more domestic box office.
Excellent analysis, CA, and I think you've touched on why LALD's logic falls apart in some sequences: Mankiewicz (and co) retained parts of Fleming's novel but threw in their own inventions, so that when the film returns to the novel for, eg, the scene where Bond's table sinks through the floor leaving him facing Mr Big, Tee Hee and Solitaire (one of the best scenes in both film and novel) it follows a sequence (the airport chase) that isn't in the book, and is followed by another (the crocodile farm) that isn't in the book either. Keep this up for the whole film and there are bound to be some logical lapses.
Thanks. I personally feel that the whole process of adapting novels to film rather like creating a really flavorful, spicy dish and having to dilute it down so more can consume it. I feel sorry for writers who have such talent and integrity and who might want to do everything they can to carry the original author's vision to the screen or play, but then have to bow down to the pressures of the studios, producers and the box office. I can see why there have been and continue to be so many heated arguments between writers and directors/producers on what the final product needs to be!
I have no problem believing that more is about 10 years younger as Bond than he is himself, it's only until about Octopussy where he looks a bit too old imo.
He certainly looks younger and fitter than Connery in DAF.
and it's my best friend's son's favourite Bond film (aged 9)
So, what is it about LALD. A few ideas:
- the voodoo set up really does add a sense of mystery
- this was the first Bond to focus on stunts and set pieces (the double decker bus slice, the motorboat jump, the crocodile scene)
- I think the largely black cast freshened the film up.It put Bond in a different social context and makes him the odd one out.
- As it was Moore's first film, the scriptwriters didn't write FOR him (the great weakness in later films - for which Moore gets the blame - was that the writers were signposting the "eyebrow raised", the quip and the smirk. So he has to work much harder for the performance
- The down to earth story works. It's about drug smuggling, not world domination.
- and I think the soundtrack is great. I love funk music and it's one of the few soundtracks that I listen to just because I like the music
LALD is always called the "blaxploition" Bond but it always seemed like the Blaxploition v. Dirty Harry Bond. The first 25 minutes after the PTS, the audience is basically encouraged to laugh at Bond as he strolls around Harlem trying to gather intelligence while every person North of 110th Street laughs at him.
Later, Bond gets his revenge on Mr. Big by stealing his woman, destroying his enterprise and eventually killing him, all the while carrying a monster S&W Model 29, just like Dirty Harry (which came out two years earlier).
It's as if the first 25 minutes waas designed to appeal to one audience the rest of the movie to another.
Currently watching this on itv, ( starting on itv+1 in 5 mins)
I must have watched it 30 odd times and something just struck me, just after bond torches the snake in his bathroom and rosie is opening the door, why can't bond find his ppk? Where is it? If whisper took it how did bond produce it during the picnic?
Currently watching this on itv, ( starting on itv+1 in 5 mins)
I must have watched it 30 odd times and something just struck me, just after bond torches the snake in his bathroom and rosie is opening the door, why can't bond find his ppk? Where is it? If whisper took it how did bond produce it during the picnic?
Good point Chris. If I remember rightly Bond throws the gun onto the bed and it has vanished later on. Whisper must have taken it at some point. As far as producing the replacement gun at the picnic I can only put it down to a special delivery, possibly DHL?
Currently watching this on itv, ( starting on itv+1 in 5 mins)
I must have watched it 30 odd times and something just struck me, just after bond torches the snake in his bathroom and rosie is opening the door, why can't bond find his ppk? Where is it? If whisper took it how did bond produce it during the picnic?
Good point Chris. If I remember rightly Bond throws the gun onto the bed and it has vanished later on. Whisper must have taken it at some point. As far as producing the replacement gun at the picnic I can only put it down to a special delivery, possibly DHL?
) maybe, I did think maybe he got the replacement ppk from quarrel jnr? But at no point does whisper leave his trolley, is this just continuity? Or am I missing something?
Comments
Yet for all that, the line makes sense in its context, it takes some of us many many viewings to spot that, cos the whole film slips down a treat, like cool custard.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Cool Custard with Bakewell Tarts?
Having seen all of the films in the cinema, I naturally see the film through my own lenses.
If one approaches it as just a fun romp and not dissected in any critical way, then it's a big piece of slick entertainment, and if that's all one needs from the films then it certainly fulfills this quite nicely.
For me, I'm one of those jaded Fleming admirers who needs to have at least some logic and serious mindedness to the plotting over the stunt work and the explosions.
In that frame of mind, this film has always disappointed me. It's obvious that EON realized they could do it because that time frame was at the height of the blaxploitation films so it would be a great way to cash in on the genre as well as get away with a lot of socially sensitive material that would be impossible to cover at another time. Throwing in a lot of slapstick and Moore's puns just made it go down even easier. The whole idea of using vodou throughout was also an extra element of spice as the subject itself wasn't really widely covered in films at that time and was still considered by the uninformed as something mysterious and eerie. It's one of the reasons Fleming used it in the novel for in the fifties it was even more of a scary topic.
As for the complaints as to why there are so many questions why the characters in the film do or say things that have no reasonable explanation, I place the blame squarely on EON's shoulders. If you're writing a Monty Python film or even CR '67, you don't need logic or reality because the very nature of omitting those attributes is what adds to the humor.
"Tis but a scratch".
"A scratch, your arms off"!
"No it isn't".
"What's that then?"
"I've had worse."
Prolonged action sequences also help keep people from giving closer examination to a film (and from having to write good dialogue or create better plotting). However after making boatloads of cash off of DAD, EON knew audiences (especially the overseas box office that was more interested in action than English dialogue) would just lap up this kind of filmmaking, so why change it? It's what they wanted, right?
Fleming's novel made sense because the villain was a Soviet trained spy smuggling Morgan's treasure and using it to fund their espionage operations. As he was getting this from Jamaica and it was British colony at the time, it was logical that the operation against Big had to involve British intelligence working with the CIA and FBI.
This was solid cold war stuff and western intelligence agencies working against these type of Soviet operations in the western hemisphere were commonplace then. Fleming just mixed in the exotic elements of Morgan's treasure and vodou to make it entertaining.
EON takes this and turns it into an early 70's blaxpoitation action piece about heroin smuggling but keeps the exotic vodou theme. Fine, except by doing this they no longer need any sense of logic in their plotting (as mentioned - killing off three agents - what a way to keep your operation undercover). Just mix together black villains, a new 007, even more slapstick and use another US location centered plot right after just having made another one (DAF) so you can garner even more domestic box office.
If you really love this film, I respect your admiration and in fact there are a few aspects to the film I actually enjoy myself. By all means share your enthusiasm for any of the EON Bonds, there are many out there who are in the same camp.
We all have our favorites for various reasons and it's why we enjoy being members of AJB - so we can share in our enjoyment of the series and everything Fleming and Bond.
( still don't) but loved Roger from The Saint and The Persuaders. -{ .
To see how successful it was on the chart for Bond box office results.
PROS: I like much of the acting, especially from Yaphet Kotto (Kananga), Jane Seymour (Solitaire), Julius Harris (Tee Hee), and Geoffrey Holder (Baron Samedi). I enjoy the voodoo element and I get a kick out of the fact that some of the film is set in New York, my home town, and specifically in Harlem, the neighborhood in which I grew up.
CONS: I am not fond of Moore's version of Bond. Also, the Sheriff Pepper character is silly without being funny. Rosie Carver is annoying on the level of Stacy Sutton. The title song is great, but otherwise the score leaves me cold (I really miss Barry's music). Finally, the way Kananga's demise is handled is pretty disappointing.
Agree. I enjoy that amusing little twist! {[]
Excellent analysis, CA, and I think you've touched on why LALD's logic falls apart in some sequences: Mankiewicz (and co) retained parts of Fleming's novel but threw in their own inventions, so that when the film returns to the novel for, eg, the scene where Bond's table sinks through the floor leaving him facing Mr Big, Tee Hee and Solitaire (one of the best scenes in both film and novel) it follows a sequence (the airport chase) that isn't in the book, and is followed by another (the crocodile farm) that isn't in the book either. Keep this up for the whole film and there are bound to be some logical lapses.
I don't see most of Fleming's novels as being overly serious or logical. The plot holes in FRWL drive me nuts.
It's interesting how some non-Fleming movies like Moonraker and AVTAK have a very Fleming-esque plot device of investigating the villain for some unusual incident/accident and it develops into something much bigger.
LALD, however, fails to establish a strong connection between the agents who were killed and the main plot of heroin smuggling. Why were they killed? What were they doing there in the first place? etc... (HardyBoy raises some good questions)
It's obvious you have read the novel, yet you seem to imply that EON added "black" villains to jump on the blaxploitation bandwagon?
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
In regards to FRWL, are you referring to the film or the novel?
Flemings novels are more serious and logical in comparison to the films. As far as logic in the plotting, I find lapses in logic in the works of most famous fiction writers.
As far as the black villains, I was inferring that they decided to introduce a new Bond and "add" black villains to the EON series by choosing this particular novel strictly because they were capitalizing on the blaxploitation permeating the film releases at that time.
Thanks. I personally feel that the whole process of adapting novels to film rather like creating a really flavorful, spicy dish and having to dilute it down so more can consume it. I feel sorry for writers who have such talent and integrity and who might want to do everything they can to carry the original author's vision to the screen or play, but then have to bow down to the pressures of the studios, producers and the box office. I can see why there have been and continue to be so many heated arguments between writers and directors/producers on what the final product needs to be!
He certainly looks younger and fitter than Connery in DAF.
But it's also my son's favourite Bond film
and it's my best friend's son's favourite Bond film (aged 9)
So, what is it about LALD. A few ideas:
- the voodoo set up really does add a sense of mystery
- this was the first Bond to focus on stunts and set pieces (the double decker bus slice, the motorboat jump, the crocodile scene)
- I think the largely black cast freshened the film up.It put Bond in a different social context and makes him the odd one out.
- As it was Moore's first film, the scriptwriters didn't write FOR him (the great weakness in later films - for which Moore gets the blame - was that the writers were signposting the "eyebrow raised", the quip and the smirk. So he has to work much harder for the performance
- The down to earth story works. It's about drug smuggling, not world domination.
- and I think the soundtrack is great. I love funk music and it's one of the few soundtracks that I listen to just because I like the music
Later, Bond gets his revenge on Mr. Big by stealing his woman, destroying his enterprise and eventually killing him, all the while carrying a monster S&W Model 29, just like Dirty Harry (which came out two years earlier).
It's as if the first 25 minutes waas designed to appeal to one audience the rest of the movie to another.
I must have watched it 30 odd times and something just struck me, just after bond torches the snake in his bathroom and rosie is opening the door, why can't bond find his ppk? Where is it? If whisper took it how did bond produce it during the picnic?
Good point Chris. If I remember rightly Bond throws the gun onto the bed and it has vanished later on. Whisper must have taken it at some point. As far as producing the replacement gun at the picnic I can only put it down to a special delivery, possibly DHL?