41 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

All I can say to myself is "pwnd" tbh.

[Skudor]

Live and Let Die is the best Moore Bond film, IMO. I love it!

It's definitely up there in the top two for me (number one probably has to be Moonraker).

[RJJB]

I don't want to be rude but, do you have to fulfill a quota for how many times you have to make these same points?

That said, I do agree with you that the common defence of "fitting the times", can be easily questioned upon examination.

Point taken. I'll try to remember when I repeat myself. Sometimes the gushing over the Moore movies and the use of words such as "pure genius" and "refreshing different" just sets me off. I may bring up the same points, but at least I do more than just say the movie sucks.

[David_M]

The way I look at it, we still weren't quite totally mired in rigid formula when LALD came out. In 1973, it was still possible to experiment a bit with the structure and content of a Bond film, and LALD does so, not just by including a subtext of the supernatural (which I think works quite well and exists nowhere else in the series), but also by using the PTS to actually set up the story instead of giving us Bond on some side adventure that has little or nothing to do with the rest of the film.

Because we see what happens to the agents in New Orleans and at the Voodoo ritual, some suspense is created later when Bond shows up in the same sites. This is similar to OP, where 009's death in clown make-up adds an edge when 007 later adopts the same disguise.

I don't have a problem with introducing Roger in bed with a girl, though it is a little silly to have him hide her in the closet like it's a teen comedy or something. He's obviously "of age" (and then some), so why can't he sleep with whomever he likes?

Moore in Harlem: when he goes into the Filet of Soul, he slips the waiter money, asking for information. That is far too dandy for my tastes. No threat, just a pretty boy in the wrong part of the city. If he's supposed to have an earned a license to kill, it sure doesn't seem like it here.

I think the whole point is that Roger-Bond is so supremely cock-sure that he walks into the most dangerous part of town, dressed in an expensive suit with a Young Republicans haircut, as if yelling, "Here I am, mug me!" As a kid, I didn't think this made him a dandy, I thought it made him cool. Any moron can beat someone up, but it takes real guts (or madness!) to show up at a Black Panthers meeting looking like Little Lord Fauntleroy.

There's a similar scene in a Dirty Harry movie (I think "The Enforcer"), where Eastwood is standing in a room full of none-too-friendly "Black Power" types and asks to see a particular guy. One man says okay he'll go get him and Harry says, "That's mighty white of you." There is such tension in this scene that when Harry intentionally ADDS to it rather than try to calm people down, it makes him seem very cool. To me, Roger's dialog throughout the Harlem sequence is very much in that same spirit.

However, I will grant you this: it only works if you believe on some level that Roger could actually handle this crowd of heavies should they start in on him. For me, he pulls that off, but I know for some people that's too much of a stretch.

Side characters: The introduction of side characters such as Mrs. Bell, the Chicken Farmer and of course the ridiculous Sheriff Pepper places too much emphasis on peripheral people, whose sole purpose in the movie is low level comedy. The comedy is so broad that it is not indicative of anything worthwhile. And let's add the great scenes of the speedboats landing in a swimming pool and ruining a wedding (complete with the bride wailing...) More garbage.

Again, it's all in how you look at it. I think one of the running gags throughout the film is "what if James Bond came to your town?" By now we all know he leaves a trail of destruction wherever he goes, but so far it's been exploding volcanoes, mountaintop hideaways and bauxite mines out in the middle of nowhere. In LALD, the action happens in rural Louisiana and the cities of New Orleans and New York, and people are just not ready for it; he demolishes their boats, their cars, their planes, their lawns. Personally I think Manckeiwicz was inspired in seeing how the traditional Bond mayhem could be so easily spun into comedy by a simple change of venue. "Secret Agent? On WHOSE SIDE?!?!" This also makes for my favorite representation of Felix Leiter on screen, as the poor guy keeps having to clean up Bond's messes wherever he goes.

In other words, you might not like those characters, but it's not just random comedy bits. Bond's destruction of private and public property is a running gag throughout the film, and thus for my money one of better attempts at humor in the Moore era. At least for once it feels like they're following a real plan, instead of deciding on location "hey wouldn't it be neat if..."

The final fight with Kanaga has to be without argument, the single worst scene in a Bond movie.

It's awful, but it's not the worst. That would go to DAD's para-surfing CGI nightmare. Speaking of which, I'd like to give a big shout out to Pierce and the DAD and TWINE crews for helping move Roger's worst material out of so many "Bottom 5" lists after all these years.

It's Kanaga's death that truly ruined this movie. No human body is going to inflate the way he did.

Tell that to Milton Krest.

The only thing that was lacking in the scene were the Roadrunner and Wile E.Coyote in the background.

Sorry, owned by Warner Bros. But if you slow down the Blu-Ray edition, I think you might spot the Pink Panther.

The producers sold out the audience for the sake of making money. They offered a second rate actor who was never believable as a threat or the type of man for whom women would swoon. They dumbed down the scripts with juvenile sex jokes ("No sense going off half-cocked) and made the Bond character a farce. Action sequences became so obligatory to the movie, that they were thrown in as part of the checklist for the movie. Innovation was thrown out the window for the compfort of follwoing an outline. The Moore era represents not just bad Bond movies, but bad movies in general.

Yep, that's why Moore failed so badly that he was let go after one film. Too bad EON didn't make any money between 1973 and 1985, but at least they finally hit gold again with Timothy Dalton, just in time to keep the bank from foreclosing on Albert Broccoli's trailer home down by the railroad tracks.

[BoogieBond]

The producers sold out the audience for the sake of making money. They offered a second rate actor who was never believable as a threat or the type of man for whom women would swoon. They dumbed down the scripts with juvenile sex jokes ("No sense going off half-cocked) and made the Bond character a farce. Action sequences became so obligatory to the movie, that they were thrown in as part of the checklist for the movie. Innovation was thrown out the window for the compfort of follwoing an outline. The Moore era represents not just bad Bond movies, but bad movies in general.

Yep, that's why Moore failed so badly that he was let go after one film. Too bad EON didn't make any money between 1973 and 1985, but at least they finally hit gold again with Timothy Dalton, just in time to keep the bank from foreclosing on Albert Broccoli's trailer home down by the railroad tracks.

Touche. If a couple of EON films do poor business and pressure is put on the actor. EON normally have to ace a film. Or the actor gets the push.
Moore was never the most physical Bond, but he certainly could handle himself in LALD and Bond was cunning in other ways, not just with his fists, setting the crocodile farm house alight etc. And don't forget Bond is the best shot in the service. The action sequences were always very well thought out and innovative.
For LALD the film, I always think the dangerous and menacing atmosphere and scenes add to the slightly darker quality of the film. If you didn't have humour in it, it would be quite hard going, the humour is a great balance, it really works.

Edited by BoogieBond, 22 August 2008 - 01:29 PM.

[Publius]

Yes, the PTS ends after the voodoo scene and the titles end before Moore is introduced sleeping at home.

Anyway, I think not having Bond in the PTS has the potential to be really cool, and I think LALD is the perfect example of that. The build-up with all these mysterious deaths and then the powerful title song kicking in make for one of the best openings to any Bond film. I'd love to see them do something similar for Bond 23.

What I agree was a letdown, however, was introducing Moore in such a boring way. Maybe they were still shaken by OHMSS, where they did make a big deal out of the change in leads, but would it have killed them to have him revealed under more exciting circumstances?

[Mr. Blofeld]

I remember reading somewhere that, originally the PTS was to end with the proper introduction of Roger's Bond, where, during a mission to Italy, he meets up with another man (played by Michael Sheard) in a garden, only to reveal the garden is on a roof and for Bond to push the man off the roof; cue credits.

[Safari Suit]

I don't want to be rude but, do you have to fulfill a quota for how many times you have to make these same points?

That said, I do agree with you that the common defence of "fitting the times", can be easily questioned upon examination.

Point taken. I'll try to remember when I repeat myself. Sometimes the gushing over the Moore movies and the use of words such as "pure genius" and "refreshing different" just sets me off. I may bring up the same points, but at least I do more than just say the movie sucks.

Fair enough, I apologise.

[SPOTTER]

I'm a big fan of LALD. It's one of my favourite films of the series and in general. Again like some people have said on here, the tone of the movie and the times were a lot different. If you think about that scene it just doesn't make sense. In fact if you think about a lot of scenes in Bond films they don't make sense but it's Bond and it's entertaining. They certainly wouldn't introduce a new Bond like that these days but it was alright in 1973.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

I like LALD a fair bit too, I'd rate it as Moore's third best Bond film. And I like the humour and the silliness too. This and Moonraker [for example] in my view have as much right to exist as From Russia With Love and Casino Royale. They are just two different kinds of Bond films.

I so think LALD tails off seriously in the final third, with at least two of the main villains dispatched pathetically, but up to then it's a great ride, fast, funny and still with an element of menace. Moore is great straight away, he's not Connery, he's his own style of Bond, and it really works. No it wouldn't have worked in, say, OHMSS, but it works perfectly in the films he was in.

[john.steed]

I liked the different way that they brought in the new Bond. With the opening, they established that this is the same Bond with his same friend (Moneypenny) and the same boss. As this was the third straight film with a different Bond, it was important to establish the continuity.

I loved LALD when I saw it when it first came out and I still love. it. Good beginning for my second favorite 007.

[DR76]

I think that the producers had already established the jokey tone they wanted the series to have in the 70s with Diamonds Are Forever, which is basically a Moore film starring Connery. And Moore just fits in with the style of the films perfectly.

I thought they did that with YOLT.