Anyone else have one opinion of an actor and another of his films?

Absolutely_Cart

My particular dilemma is with the Moore Era. Roger is my favorite actor of the bunch. He brought the class, wit, charm, one-liners, humor, excitement, versatility and heart into the role. Moore had so many memorable moments for me, made me smile a lot and immersed me into his adventures seamlessly. The issue is that the 7 films he was featured in were derivative and inconsistent in quality.

Live and Let Die had lots of good moments but has a ton in common with Dr. No (plus, the evil lair thing is tacked on for some weird reason). Man with the Golden Gun (and A View to a Kill) were poorly written and ripped off of Goldfinger. Octopussy was well written and ripped off Goldfinger.

They also felt gimmicky. Whereas Connery and Craig era Eon took great detail to make sure every aspect of the films were the best they can be, the Moore era usually focused only a few aspects of it. For example, make the villain really creative but make the lead female role a two-dimensional sex object.

Curious if there's anyone else who absolutely loves Moore but not most of his films.

For many, the title character is the chief aspect of the Bond films. With movies like Casino Royale and Skyfall, Daniel Craig won over millions of people overnight. But what if Craig had 3 Quantum of Solaces? What if Dalton and Brosnan had the same kind of cohesive Eon Craig has now?

M 'n' M

Hi, cart

Interesting thought but I'm a bit confused. If you' ve come to like Moore "through" his bond films (ie not the saint and the persuaders) then his performance and his bond films are a perfect match - light, classy, tongue in cheek. What's the problem?

As I always end up saying its pierce who never quite got the chance to do justice to his bond films

Matt S

I love both Moore and his Bond films. I like Pierce Brosnan but not his films. I like OHMSS but not George Lazenby so much, but I like him more than I like Daniel Craig. With Daniel Craig, I'm not sure if I dislike him or his films more.

I can't see how any of Moore's Bond films other than A View to a Kill are rip-offs of Goldfinger. His 1974 film Gold is also a rip-off of Goldfinger, and A View to a Kill actually seems more like a rip-off of Gold.

Absolutely_Cart

M n M wrote:

Hi, cart

Interesting thought but I'm a bit confused. If you' ve come to like Moore "through" his bond films (ie not the saint and the persuaders) then his performance and his bond films are a perfect match - light, classy, tongue in cheek. What's the problem?

As I always end up saying its pierce who never quite got the chance to do justice to his bond films

I agree with you on Pierce Brosnan.

To answer your question, I didn't dislike the Moore era films. I just didn't feel they were as good as the ones without Moore in them. Despite Moore being my favorite actor.

I like the gags. Moore is my favorite Bond. His films also had the best villains. But the reason why I rank films from Craig, Connery, Dalton and even Lazenby over Moore's films is because they have better stories and more original ideas.

I'll put it simply. Have you ever heard an album with a really talented singer but weak production and bad lyrics? Great singer. But weak album.

Gassy Man

I like Pierce Brosnan. I didn't care much for his Bond films. They were mismatched. Brosnan could have played a very memorable Bond, and the films had the potential to be the second best in the series, but they're not as good even as Moore's, which at least benefited from having some of the same people working on them as the Connery films. Moore brought a presence to his films that Brosnan could also not match.

broadshoulder

Gassy Man wrote:

I like Pierce Brosnan. I didn't care much for his Bond films. They were mismatched. Brosnan could have played a very memorable Bond, and the films had the potential to be the second best in the series, but they're not as good even as Moore's, which at least benefited from having some of the same people working on them as the Connery films. Moore brought a presence to his films that Brosnan could also not match.

I like Pierce Brosnan - but don't care much about his films.

The directors screwed them up. B ut Pierce is an aimiable soul who took the money and ran. I cant help thinking that if he been less Hollywood and more West End he would have taken the directors to task..

Whats this about Daltons films? We get two? And they are both superb? And I enjoy the Moore era immensely..

M 'n' M

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

M n M wrote:

Hi, cart

Interesting thought but I'm a bit confused. If you' ve come to like Moore "through" his bond films (ie not the saint and the persuaders) then his performance and his bond films are a perfect match - light, classy, tongue in cheek. What's the problem?

As I always end up saying its pierce who never quite got the chance to do justice to his bond films

I agree with you on Pierce Brosnan.

To answer your question, I didn't dislike the Moore era films. I just didn't feel they were as good as the ones without Moore in them. Despite Moore being my favorite actor.

I like the gags. Moore is my favorite Bond. His films also had the best villains. But the reason why I rank films from Craig, Connery, Dalton and even Lazenby over Moore's films is because they have better stories and more original ideas.

I'll put it simply. Have you ever heard an album with a really talented singer but weak production and bad lyrics? Great singer. But weak album.

Thanks - that's a good way of putting it. And it makes me think that I don't really "like" singers where only the voice is good. Its a whole package - voice, melody, lyrics, production.

And for me its the same with films. I like Moore most in the films I like (octopussy, tswlm, lald) and least in those I don't (Moonraker particularly)