18 replies to this topic

[cassidybond]

Yet another review from the National Post in 2002, enjoy.

Roger Moore: The spy who smirked

SOURCE: National Post
BYLINE: Barrett Hooper
SECTION: Arts & Life; Taking Stock of Bond; Pg. AL1
LENGTH: 1419 words

This year marks the 40th anniversary of the James Bond movies, and this Friday's premiere of Die Another Day marks the 20th instalment in the official franchise. All this week, National Post film writers Katrina Onstad and Barrett Hooper assess the legacies of the five men who have played the role.
- - -


Roger Moore is the only Englishman ever to play James Bond, which on the surface appears to be his singular qualification for the role of the suave superspy. That, and perhaps a nice smile.

Because out of all the actors who have been issued 007's licence to kill -- including one-time world-saver George Lazenby and two-time loser Timothy Dalton -- Moore is the least suited to play someone who is essentially an assassin.

He seemed to come at the role as though he'd watched too many episodes of the old Batman TV series. To call his Bond "disarmingly jocular," as Time magazine recently did, is to err on the side of politeness, as Moore brought an exaggerated -- and wholly inappropriate -- comedic attitude to the role. He always seemed smugly self-satisfied and no matter how close the world came to exploding, a smirk was never far from his lips. It's fitting that in Octopussy, he prevented World War III by defusing a nuclear bomb in the middle of a circus tent while dressed as a clown.

But while the dangers on screen remained roughly the same as anything Connery faced (global economy brought to its knees by a power-mad lunatic, etcetera), Moore's Bond faced much more pressing dangers in the real world. Cinema changed drastically during his tenure, with the likes of Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola and Roman Polanski taking popular film to higher artistic levels, while George Lucas and Steven Spielberg defined the modern blockbuster.

Meanwhile, the war in Vietnam made fears of an evil empire much less abstract. As well, Connery was lured back into Bond's tuxedo by a rival studio. Roger Moore's Bond may have been a smirking Cold War relic, but he managed to survive all of this with his smirk intact.

"I don't believe in that sort of serious hero, so I couldn't play it straight," says Moore, whose most recent film roles include Quest with Jean-Claude Van Damme and the Spice Girls movie Spice World.

"I always knew I was going to win the fight. So I had to do it with a lot of tongue and a lot of cheek, from someone who has a lot of cheek."

Despite the fact he couldn't act (Moore studied at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art for all of one day), that he looked as capable of delivering a knockout blow as Montgomery Burns and that he was the farthest from the Bond that Ian Fleming had envisioned when he created the character, Moore was also the most successful in many ways.

He played 007 seven times between 1973 and 1985, more than any of the others. And all but one, 1975's The Man With the Golden Gun, out-performed each of Connery's six films, with only the Brosnan Bonds topping them, thanks in part to higher ticket prices.

Somehow, as bad as he was, Moore still managed to make two Bond films that epitomize everything that fans love about the 40-year-old film franchise: Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only.

Now, many point to 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me as the definitive Bond of the Moore era, perhaps even one of the best of the entire series. But that film merely cannibalizes from previous Bonds, most notably cribbing its plot about a multi-millionaire who steals a British and Soviet nuclear submarine to provoke a war from Connery's You Only Live Twice (which involved kidnapped space capsules). Even the climactic gun battle aboard the villain's ship is tedious in its similarity to a certain volcano lair attack. The only high points were Russian spy Anya Amasova and the introduction of the steel-toothed giant Jaws. Even Carly Simon's theme song is butchered with a Broadway treatment in the closing credits, lacking only Bond and Jaws in a kickline. This was only a taste of the campiness in store for his next adventure -- Moonraker.

That film has a reputation as the worst James Bond movie ever made, and indeed there's a strong case to be made. It ludicrously tried to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon -- the original Star Wars was released two years earlier, in 1977 -- by arming Bond with a laser gun and sending him into space. And it worked -- Moonraker made more than US$250-million at the box office, making it the most successful Bond film until Brosnan's debut in Goldeneye.

But while the story is the least like a Bond novel or any other Bond film, it's also the most straightforward and logical, at least in a Bondian way. Bond is sent to investigate the hijacking of a Moonraker space shuttle. All signs point to Hugo Drax, a billionaire genius with Aryan ideals and his own space station. As Bond races to stop Drax's evil plot, he teams with beautiful and brainy NASA scientist Holly Goodhead, and their investigation takes them into orbit for the climactic battle. And don't forget the return of Jaws, the deadliest and best-loved Bond nemesis, who survives free fall without a parachute and a mountain gondola crash to find romance with a nerdy schoolgirl.

Inane? Obviously. Fun? Absolutely.

Moonraker is the most tongue-in-cheek of all Bond films, and probably ties with The Man With The Golden Gun and A View to a Kill as the most despised. But in many ways, Moonraker was the You Only Live Twice of the Moore movies.

That Connery outing, which involved stolen space ships, gyrocopters, volcano bases and ninjas is now considered a classic. When it was released in 1967, however, it was as far away as Bond could get from the Fleming novels. It managed to give Bond a Japanese makeover and put him in a space suit before the credits roll. And just as the producers pulled back post-Moonraker with For Your Eyes Only in 1981, You Only Live Twice was followed by the more-serious On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Using the From Russia With Love formula and mixing it with various tidbits from the novels, For Your Eyes Only is one of the most Fleming-esque of all the Bond films, one in which Bond has to rely more on skills and wit than Q's gadgets.

After an amusing pre-credits sequence in which Bond kills SPECTRE head Blofeld by dropping him down a smokestack (a nose-thumbing at Kevin McClory, creator of Blofeld and SPECTRE, who was making his rival Bond film, Never Say Never Again, with Connery), the story kicks in as Bond attempts to recover a missing nuclear submarine control system that was lost aboard a sunken British spy ship. A subplot about a woman's quest for revenge against the man responsible for her parents' deaths -- who is connected to the missing control system -- adds further intrigue and depth lacking in previous Moore efforts.

And Moore's portrayal of Bond is more in keeping with the Bond tradition. He comes off as a more authentic, cold-hearted Bond, a killer.

Moore was 45 when he began his spy career, starting with two of the more forgettable Bond films. In 1973's Live and Let Die Bond battles heroin hoodlums in Harlem and voodoo priests in the Caribbean in one long chase -- producers hoped fans would be so caught up in the excitement they wouldn't notice Connery wasn't behind the wheel of the Aston Martin. Two years later, The Man With the Golden Gun pitted Bond against Tattoo and a three-nippled assassin named Scaramanga and featured a return appearance by goofy Louisiana sheriff J.W. Pepper.

Moore exited the role at age 57 in a similarly goofy fashion with two of the most embarrassing films, Octopussy and A View to a Kill. Octopussy involved the titular smuggler, a villainous Afghan prince, a mad Russian general and a stolen A-bomb in a travelling circus. A View to a Kill, on the other hand, mirrors a Superman movie with Christopher Walken in the Lex Luthor role as he tries to push California into the Pacific by exploding a bomb near a fault line.

But if anything, Moore helped shepherd Bond through the darker film experiences that typified the '70s (The Godfather, Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter) and into the lighter '80s (Tootsie, Top Gun), standing by with a look of bemusement as the series progressed from action thrillers to special effects comedies and on to the brink of irrelevance as heroes with big guns and bigger muscles saved the world at the multiplex.
In the end, though, Roger Moore passed a healthy franchise over to his successor. Despite his other shortcomings, that feat alone gives him the right to wear his smug smirk.

[Spurrier]

A couple of things I'd like to say at this time in response:

1. Roger's portrayal has been criticized because of the humor he brought into the role. Well, he was not alone in that. The other actors, in their own way, including Daniel Craig have interjected humor into the chracter...although probably not as much nor as well. But that was the direction the producers elected to go during the Moore era. To go in that direction with Roger proved to be wise, certainly from a box office perspective. Quite often, in real life, people deal with crises by using humor to lessen the stress. Therefore, Roger's interpretation of the role was not beyond the realm of imagination.

2. Roger may be the most underrated actor to have played Bond. The fact that he could play roles from one exteme to another...light to serious, testifies to his range and versatility. To do that takes more than luck.

[Safari Suit]

Obviously I disagree, but that's not the point. I think that was a very inane and bitter article.

[LadySylvia]

Moore exited the role at age 57 in a similarly goofy fashion with two of the most embarrassing films, Octopussy and A View to a Kill. Octopussy involved the titular smuggler, a villainous Afghan prince, a mad Russian general and a stolen A-bomb in a travelling circus. A View to a Kill, on the other hand, mirrors a Superman movie with Christopher Walken in the Lex Luthor role as he tries to push California into the Pacific by exploding a bomb near a fault line.

It's interesting that A VIEW TO A KILL is considered goofy or silly, considering that it is more or less a remake of GOLDFINGER. Does that mean GOLDFINGER is goofy, as well? At least AVTAK has a script with less plotholes.

And to be honest, I consider OCTOPUSSY to be one of Moore's best Bond films, despite the occasional silly humor. And I think that it, along with AVTAK are much better than LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

[jaguar007]

The article rather poorly stated that Moore could not act. He actually can act very well. He can go from ligh comedy to the moore dramatic scenes (like when Amasova discovers Bond killed her lover in TSWLM or when he kicks Locque's car off the cliff in FYEO) much better than Brosnan could.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

Again,

Why do people never bring up Sean was the one to bring up "The Camp" of 007.

Diamonds are Forever is probably the most campy. Now think that DAF came out right after Bond's Wife dies and he is cracking jokes and being a goof.

Sean's Career didnt end at Goldfinger, their was allot of Camp & Over Gadget movies in Sean's Era.

[Mr_Wint]

Barrett Hooper is just another Connery-Brosnan fan. You know, that type of critics who just cant accept any Bond-actor between the "old classic Bond" and the "new trendy Bond". Maybe we should set a bounty on them...

[Turn]

It's interesting that A VIEW TO A KILL is considered goofy or silly, considering that it is more or less a remake of GOLDFINGER. Does that mean GOLDFINGER is goofy, as well? At least AVTAK has a script with less plotholes.

And to be honest, I consider OCTOPUSSY to be one of Moore's best Bond films, despite the occasional silly humor. And I think that it, along with AVTAK are much better than LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

AVTAK has a script with less plotholes than Goldfinger? Goldfinger is one of the best scripted films of the series, improving on the book in many ways. There may be a couple of questionable things in it, but to compare the two shouldn't even be done.

Agree on the Octopussy call, though. I find it the best balance of the humor and serious aspects of Bond during that time, although the silly gets really silly in OP, there just seems to be fewer doses when it counts.

[DLibrasnow]

AVTAK has a script with less plotholes than Goldfinger? Goldfinger is one of the best scripted films of the series, improving on the book in many ways. There may be a couple of questionable things in it, but to compare the two shouldn't even be done.

In A View to a Kill Zorin explains his plan with the help of specially constructed model to the businessmen he hopes to enter into an agreement with.

In Goldfinger Goldfinger explains his plan with the help of a specially constructed model to the gangsters. Why exactly? Considering he kills them all immediately afterwards.

[Turn]

AVTAK has a script with less plotholes than Goldfinger? Goldfinger is one of the best scripted films of the series, improving on the book in many ways. There may be a couple of questionable things in it, but to compare the two shouldn't even be done.

In A View to a Kill Zorin explains his plan with the help of specially constructed model to the businessmen he hopes to enter into an agreement with.

In Goldfinger Goldfinger explains his plan with the help of a specially constructed model to the gangsters. Why exactly? Considering he kills them all immediately afterwards.

Well, like the song says, he loves only gold. Goldfinger is greedy, uses them to get what he needs and kills them so he doesn't have to pay them. Not much different than Zorin mowing down innocent miners, is it?

[Spurrier]

Barrett Hooper is just another Connery-Brosnan fan. You know, that type of critics who just cant accept any Bond-actor between the "old classic Bond" and the "new trendy Bond". Maybe we should set a bounty on them...

Having seen Roger's writings and now Hooper's, I suspect that Roger can write better than Hooper can act.

[Odd Job]

I have to say that it's not the contents of that article that I find so distasteful (although I disagree with a number of points the author makes), but the actual tone of it that I dislike. Every actor who performs in the film medium (or TV or Theatre for that matter) must accept criticism. In fact Sir Roger is usually the first person to highlight his limited acting skills (his opinion). However, just because you find an actor's performance to be lacking, there's no need to be so personal and nasty in your critique. The end result is that this article says more about the writer than it does about Sir Roger's performance as Bond (IMHO).

[David_M]

My problem with this article is that it regurgitates the same old cliched criticisms of Roger's tenure that have become "conventional wisdom," earning through mere repetition a sort of "authority" that owes nothing to fact. Sean's the first and thus the best, Roger's the comedian, Laz cocked it up, whoever's got the job now (in this case, Brosnan) is wonderful, yes yes we've heard it all before, and no more thought went into it this time around than all the others.

It might be more instructive to examine why each Bond has been so popular and so perfectly suited for his times, rather than pitting them against each other when in many ways it's apples and oranges. Would Sean's Bond have worked in 1979? Would Dalton's Bond have worked in 1964? Would Brosnan's Bond have worked in 1973? I doubt it, in every case. Did Roger play Bond as Fleming wrote him? By and large, no. Would a literal translation of Fleming have worked in the 70's? Who knows, but I seriously doubt it.

Of course examining the Bonds in the context of their times also requires some objectivity, and most "critics" (i.e. merely fans with a platform) are incapable of it. It's far too easy to dismiss Roger's huge success by dismissing the pop culture of the day in general ("Of course he was a hit in the 70s; people in the 70s loved crappy stuff!") The bottom line is, any "analysis" that can't manage objectivity is, in the end, merely opinion. And there's more than enough of that to go around as it is. No matter how well you may express your opinion (and many are better at it than this clown), in the end opinion pieces offer nothing of lasting value to Bond scholarship. The only thing that sets this guy apart from any random poster on an internet forum is he's getting paid to share his stupid thoughts and the rest of us are doing it gratis. And often better.

[DLibrasnow]

In A View to a Kill Zorin explains his plan with the help of specially constructed model to the businessmen he hopes to enter into an agreement with.

In Goldfinger Goldfinger explains his plan with the help of a specially constructed model to the gangsters. Why exactly? Considering he kills them all immediately afterwards.

Well, like the song says, he loves only gold. Goldfinger is greedy, uses them to get what he needs and kills them so he doesn't have to pay them. Not much different than Zorin mowing down innocent miners, is it?

You are missing the point I was making. Why does he even explain his plot? In A View to a Kill Zorin has a clear reason to do so. In Goldfinger he does not.

It's one of the the most often cited plotholes in Goldfinger which was noted and fixed when they essentially remade the story as A View to a Kill.

[Turn]

In A View to a Kill Zorin explains his plan with the help of specially constructed model to the businessmen he hopes to enter into an agreement with.

In Goldfinger Goldfinger explains his plan with the help of a specially constructed model to the gangsters. Why exactly? Considering he kills them all immediately afterwards.

Well, like the song says, he loves only gold. Goldfinger is greedy, uses them to get what he needs and kills them so he doesn't have to pay them. Not much different than Zorin mowing down innocent miners, is it?

You are missing the point I was making. Why does he even explain his plot? In A View to a Kill Zorin has a clear reason to do so. In Goldfinger he does not.

It's one of the the most often cited plotholes in Goldfinger which was noted and fixed when they essentially remade the story as A View to a Kill.

Ah. I was a bit tired when I wrote this and admittedly missed your point.

Others have said, though, that explaining things before killing them is Goldfinger's ego talking. That and they had to explain it to the audience somehow. The model was probably something he used in planning all along.

Bravo that AVTAK didn't repeat what GF did, but you'd be hard pressed to say it bettered G in any other way. I still believe Zorin mowing down the innocent miners is something that made little sense as they would have died anyway after the explosion if they hadn't already drowned or met some other fate first. Seems a bit mean spirited to show this after the looney car chase, or having the drunk with the bottle watching Bond carry Stacey down the ladder escaping city hall.

[Turn]

My problem with this article is that it regurgitates the same old cliched criticisms of Roger's tenure that have become "conventional wisdom," earning through mere repetition a sort of "authority" that owes nothing to fact. Sean's the first and thus the best, Roger's the comedian, Laz cocked it up, whoever's got the job now (in this case, Brosnan) is wonderful, yes yes we've heard it all before, and no more thought went into it this time around than all the others.

It might be more instructive to examine why each Bond has been so popular and so perfectly suited for his times, rather than pitting them against each other when in many ways it's apples and oranges. Would Sean's Bond have worked in 1979? Would Dalton's Bond have worked in 1964? Would Brosnan's Bond have worked in 1973? I doubt it, in every case. Did Roger play Bond as Fleming wrote him? By and large, no. Would a literal translation of Fleming have worked in the 70's? Who knows, but I seriously doubt it.

Of course examining the Bonds in the context of their times also requires some objectivity, and most "critics" (i.e. merely fans with a platform) are incapable of it. It's far too easy to dismiss Roger's huge success by dismissing the pop culture of the day in general ("Of course he was a hit in the 70s; people in the 70s loved crappy stuff!") The bottom line is, any "analysis" that can't manage objectivity is, in the end, merely opinion. And there's more than enough of that to go around as it is. No matter how well you may express your opinion (and many are better at it than this clown), in the end opinion pieces offer nothing of lasting value to Bond scholarship. The only thing that sets this guy apart from any random poster on an internet forum is he's getting paid to share his stupid thoughts and the rest of us are doing it gratis. And often better.

Nice post.

It's interesting to see the way Roger's Bond is seen these days. He seems to have won more respect over the years for his Bond and rightly so. The fact that he's a great ambassador to the series helps as well as his being a real gentleman and dedicated to making a better world.

[triviachamp]

Bravo that AVTAK didn't repeat what GF did, but you'd be hard pressed to say it bettered G in any other way. I still believe Zorin mowing down the innocent miners is something that made little sense as they would have died anyway after the explosion if they hadn't already drowned or met some other fate first. Seems a bit mean spirited to show this after the looney car chase, or having the drunk with the bottle watching Bond carry Stacey down the ladder escaping city hall.

The big problem with AVTAK is that microchips have no intrinsic value while gold does. So his evil plot does not make a lot of sense.

[LadySylvia]

Bravo that AVTAK didn't repeat what GF did, but you'd be hard pressed to say it bettered G in any other way. I still believe Zorin mowing down the innocent miners is something that made little sense as they would have died anyway after the explosion if they hadn't already drowned or met some other fate first. Seems a bit mean spirited to show this after the looney car chase, or having the drunk with the bottle watching Bond carry Stacey down the ladder escaping city hall.

The big problem with AVTAK is that microchips have no intrinsic value while gold does. So his evil plot does not make a lot of sense.

Silicon Valley has no intrinsic value? Huh?

[triviachamp]

Silicon Valley has no intrinsic value? Huh?

I didn't say that. Microchips are a manufactured product with no intrinsic value whatsoever. Gold is a precious metal that is traded on stock exchanges and has been used as currency and backing of currency. Microchips are not and become obsolete very quickly. Very different items to be obssessed over no?