100 replies to this topic

[Sark2.0]

In my opinion, that is.

Thanks for that clarification. For a second I thought you were giving us someone else's opinion.

Moore probably should have retired after OP. That said, it's hard for me to fairly judge his performance in AVTAK, what with the rest of the film being so dire. At least in OP they had lead women (particularly Maud)who at least came from the same generation as Moore-Bond. Then they hit us with Stacy Sutton...

[Colossus]

Appearance wise Moonraker was the last time Moore had the lithe agent look. With FYEO he definitely assumes his aged persona, he probably lost a bit weight here and his frame looks more frail/more wrinkles. However i'm not ageist, and Moore is my 2nd favorite Bond behind Connery. I don't really care for Moore's lack of physicality and find him using his wits, wiles and professionalism a welcome replacement to brute force. There's one unique thing about Moore that no other Bond actor has, since he is the oldest to play the role and lacks physical stature, he does not have that boyish hotheadedness to him, he seems completely above all that pettyness which is really refreshing. Not that i'm against the other Bonds i do like them but this unique thing to Moore is good and provides variety. Something which is more discussed here
http://debrief.comma...p...c=47411&hl=

His aged look which i don't mind aside, my problem with the 80s Bond movies is actually John Glen who was very bland and lacked the Bond stylistic spark that Hamilton and Gilbert had in the 70s. While there's talk here of either FYEO or OP being his last, i definitely agree that AVTAK was the one that was definitely one too many. FYEO and OP make up a two-parter Moore swansong. FYEO is a sort of somber reflection of his era (personaified by that great grave scene) and OP the fun ride amalgam of his era and ending it with Maude Adams who he's had history before was sweet.

[jaguar007]

I'm sorry, but I really must protest. This is sheer ageism. What are we saying here? That an action hero cannot be older than 50? So, no Cary Grant (55) in North By Northwest, then. Or in Charade (when he was nearly 60 and romancing Audrey Hepburn on screen who was a quarter of a century younger than him).

Surely if an audience buys the premise, numbers don't matter? I had lots of issues with the recent Indy pic; Ford's age wasn't one of them.

The difference, is that Grant was an advertising agent in NBNW, not a secret agent in the field. In Charade is was a treasury agent if I recall. Ford played Indiana Jones as an older Indiana Jones. In AVTAK a 57 year old Moore played it as a 35-40ish James Bond. At least in NSNA they addressed Bond as an older agent who was no longer in the field.

[Safari Suit]

So for me, after FYEO; that's a film that really couldn't be bettered with anyone other than Sir Rog IMHO.

Nah, it would have worked fine with the then Prince Baron. Might have made it marginally more interesting. It's Octopussy which wouldn't work with anyone else. You know this even if you don't.

AVTAK a 57 year old Moore played it as a 35-40ish James Bond.

Not really.

[plankattack]

So for me, after FYEO; that's a film that really couldn't be bettered with anyone other than Sir Rog IMHO.

Nah, it would have worked fine with the then Prince Baron. Might have made it marginally more interesting. It's Octopussy which wouldn't work with anyone else. You know this even if you don't.

Safari, I salute you on your ESP ability! You're right OP only works in its current form with Sir Rog as the lead. Nobody would have done it better, but of course nobody else would have done it. (Dick Van Dyke, maybe, or Michael Crawford, perhaps? OP could really could be the first Bond musical. Let's face it, the baddies in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang are more convincing....) With it's tongue stuck in it's cheek so much that only major surgery can remove it, it's the perfect Sir Rog vehicle. But with a different lead it would have been a different film entirely. And considering I do think OP bordering on the outright silly at times, that wouldn't have been a bad thing IMHO

[Mr_Wint]

After AVTAK.

[Safari Suit]

You're right OP only works in its current form with Sir Rog as the lead. Nobody would have done it better, but of course nobody else would have done it. (Dick Van Dyke, maybe, or Michael Crawford, perhaps? OP could really could be the first Bond musical. Let's face it, the baddies in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang are more convincing....) With it's tongue stuck in it's cheek so much that only major surgery can remove it, it's the perfect Sir Rog vehicle. But with a different lead it would have been a different film entirely. And considering I do think OP bordering on the outright silly at times, that wouldn't have been a bad thing IMHO

It's the sorites parodox; how much can you propose be taken away from Octopussy, before what you're talking out is no longer Octopussy but The Spy With Eight or something? My guess is when you take out Rog and put in Dalton (or whoever), that line has been crossed.

[JimmyBond]

After AVTAK.

This.

In fact I also agree with Loomis, I think Rog could have done "The Living Daylights" and it still would have been an entertaining film.

[QOS007]

After Octopussy.

He looks great through Moonraker, begins to show some age in For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy--but is still very acceptable and credible, and definitely shows his age in A View To A Kill. While Roger Moore is great and a terrific 007, he looks a little too old for the iconic role in his last film and probably should have quit after Octopussy. Still, I can take him in AVTAK.

Agreed 100%. despite his age he looks pretty good through For Your Eyes Only, but it is noticeable that he is getting older. Octpussy comes along and he really ages out, so he should have stopped there. I think he made AVTAK less than what it could have been

And if we can have a 64 year old Indiana Jones, I sure as hell don't have a problem with a 57 year old James Bond.

The only problem with this is that the 64 Indiana Jones was bad, and James Bond does not need to be 57 years old ever again, not even 50. bond must stay between 37 and 47 that seems bout right

I'm sorry, but I really must protest. This is sheer ageism. What are we saying here? That an action hero cannot be older than 50? So, no Cary Grant (55) in North By Northwest, then. Or in Charade (when he was nearly 60 and romancing Audrey Hepburn on screen who was a quarter of a century younger than him).

Surely if an audience buys the premise, numbers don't matter? I had lots of issues with the recent Indy pic; Ford's age wasn't one of them.

Well im just sayin he didn't look like he could actually run around a ruin in south america maybe 20 years younger and it would be believable but 60, come on

[tdalton]

I think that he left at the right time. AVTAK, while flawed, is infinitely more entertaining than quite a few films that preceded it, and I'd certainly take it over films such as GOLDFINGER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and MOONRAKER.

[JimmyBond]

I think that he left at the right time. AVTAK, while flawed, is infinitely more entertaining than quite a few films that preceded it, and I'd certainly take it over films such as GOLDFINGER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and MOONRAKER.

Take Moonraker out of that list and I agree with you

[coco1997]

I think that he left at the right time. AVTAK, while flawed, is infinitely more entertaining than quite a few films that preceded it, and I'd certainly take it over films such as GOLDFINGER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and MOONRAKER.

I respect your opinion, t, but wow...

Even though I'd take ANY of those films over AVTAK any day, I don't see how you can like "AVTAK" and not like "Goldfinger." "AVTAK" is essentially a poorly-done remake of "GF" but lacking in all of the qualities which made "GF" a classic.

But do carry on.

[Mr_Wint]

"AVTAK" is essentially a poorly-done remake of "GF" (...)

That's getting really old. Zorin's caper has a few similarities to GF. But it is not enough to call it a "remake". They are two totally different Bondfilms.

[Harry Fawkes]

I think he was great till the very end.

[Colossus]

I think that he left at the right time. AVTAK, while flawed, is infinitely more entertaining than quite a few films that preceded it, and I'd certainly take it over films such as GOLDFINGER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and MOONRAKER.

Wow that's a reall bold one. Every one of those you named (except DAF) i rank pretty highly over AVTAK.

Also i agree AVTAK was a Goldfingoid, but it's really ntohing to be a shamed of. DAF, TSWLM, AVTAK, GE all have some spirit of Goldfinger.

[JimmyBond]

I think that he left at the right time. AVTAK, while flawed, is infinitely more entertaining than quite a few films that preceded it, and I'd certainly take it over films such as GOLDFINGER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and MOONRAKER.

I respect your opinion, t, but wow...

Even though I'd take ANY of those films over AVTAK any day, I don't see how you can like "AVTAK" and not like "Goldfinger." "AVTAK" is essentially a poorly-done remake of "GF" but lacking in all of the qualities which made "GF" a classic.

But do carry on.

What qualities are those exactly that made it a classic? I'm not saying you're wrong I just know I'm going to disagree with what you think makes Goldfinger a classic.

[Cruiserweight]

1985
Whenever i watch AVTAK it feels like it was a end to a era.It was but you know what i mean.Maybe not to non Roger fans but i think about it like wow this guy played bond for 12 years & now it's over.His bond films has a different feel to them & i miss that feel.

[tdalton]

I think that he left at the right time. AVTAK, while flawed, is infinitely more entertaining than quite a few films that preceded it, and I'd certainly take it over films such as GOLDFINGER, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, and MOONRAKER.

I respect your opinion, t, but wow...

Even though I'd take ANY of those films over AVTAK any day, I don't see how you can like "AVTAK" and not like "Goldfinger." "AVTAK" is essentially a poorly-done remake of "GF" but lacking in all of the qualities which made "GF" a classic.

But do carry on.

I've always despised GOLDFINGER. It's just one of the worst films in the franchise and it's just excessively dull. I'd also go as far as to say that it's one of the most overrated films of all-time.

Everything about GOLDFINGER is just dull. The locations, the performances, etc. A VIEW TO A KILL, while not a "good" film, at least avoids being as dull as GOLDFINGER. Christopher Walken is infinitely more entertaining as the villain that Gert Frobe, and Roger Moore helps to make the film watchable, because he's far more entertaining than Connery.

Like GOLDFINGER, the rest of those films that I listed I just do not like, and the only time that I watch them is if I do a Bond marathon. I doubt that I even buy them on Blu-ray when they come out, and will instead rent them when I plan to do my Bond Blu-ray marathon once all of the films are released on the format.

[Jose]

I'd say FYEO should have been Rog's last Bond film. He could have gone out on a pretty high note. Watching him in OP and AVTAK is just painful sometimes.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Moore went at the right time at the time.
I often think he should have quit after OP, and there is a lot to be said for this but I think some of that opinion is based on the 'benefit' of looking back some twenty years on.

Ever since Brosnan left after doing four I have detected a comparison of the two actors tenures and thus MR is often quoted as the film that should have been Moore's last. This aint necessarily so.

IMO its too simplistic to say in 2009 that he hung around too long. Moore was hugely loved by audiences, and they kept coming back to him every two years in droves (OK there was a downturn by the time AVTAK was released, but his films made the money). I have said this before but with Moore as Bond the series held its own against Indiana Jones, Star Wars and even the original Bond as 007. I think this is an incredible achievment for an actor in a role over a twelve year period. I doubt we will ever see a lead actor capture an audience every two years playing the same character again. Moore was a big big star in 007 role with gravitas. The fact that Cubby and MGM were happy to have him back at the time comes as no surprise to me.

I also think when it comes to casting Bond the right actor is always thin on the ground. There are not droves of actors who are 'right' for the part at any given time.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 23 July 2009 - 03:03 PM.

[Safari Suit]

I quite agree, hindsight is a pisser.

[Martini]

Though I've come to terms with OP and AVTAK, I'd say after FYEO. I always felt that OP without the silly jokes would've been a better film, more a gritty suspense thriller like The Fourth Protocol with Brosnan.

[Tybre]

Though I've come to terms with OP and AVTAK, I'd say after FYEO. I always felt that OP without the silly jokes would've been a better film, more a gritty suspense thriller like The Fourth Protocol with Brosnan.

And yet the jokes are what make it so endearing.

[Safari Suit]

Not the jokes so much, I would say, as the light-hearted sense of escapism and adventure.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

"Octopussy" is a fun romp because of its everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach, but it's a pretty clunky film overall.

My favorite review of it comes from Pauline Kael:

This is probably the most casual of the JAMES BOND series, and in some ways it's more like the Bob Hope and Bing Crosby Road comedies than it is like the Bonds...And among the disguises that BOND-Roger Moore-uses are a gorilla suit and an alligator outfit that doubles as a boat...It's not the latest-model Cadillac; it's a beat-out old Cadillac, kept running with junkyard parts. But it rattles along agreeably, even though the director, John Glen, seems to lose track of the story, and neither he nor the writers (George MacDonald Fraser, with Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson) appear to have thought out the women's roles...As Octopussy, the beautiful amazon Maud Adams is disappointingly warm and maternal--she's rather mooshy. (At one moment, she's a leader, and the next moment she's a dupe who doesn't know what's going on around her.)

Edited by Rufus Ffolkes, 23 July 2009 - 04:59 PM.

[Colossus]

In fact I also agree with Loomis, I think Rog could have done "The Living Daylights" and it still would have been an entertaining film.

A TLD Moore would have been excellent definitely.

[DR76]

This is probably the most casual of the JAMES BOND series, and in some ways it's more like the Bob Hope and Bing Crosby Road comedies than it is like the Bonds...And among the disguises that BOND-Roger Moore-uses are a gorilla suit and an alligator outfit that doubles as a boat...It's not the latest-model Cadillac; it's a beat-out old Cadillac, kept running with junkyard parts. But it rattles along agreeably, even though the director, John Glen, seems to lose track of the story, and neither he nor the writers (George MacDonald Fraser, with Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson) appear to have thought out the women's roles...As Octopussy, the beautiful amazon Maud Adams is disappointingly warm and maternal--she's rather mooshy. (At one moment, she's a leader, and the next moment she's a dupe who doesn't know what's going on around her.)

Pauline Kael can go **** herself. Is it any wonder I hardly pay attention to her reviews? She really is full of herself. I can't believe that this woman got her panties in a twist over Bond hiding inside an alligator-shaped boat and later, a gorilla suit . . . all for a few seconds. God, how shallow is she?

[Safari Suit]

Not that shallow these days, because she's been dead for 10 years.

[David_M]

Yep, six feet's pretty deep.

[john.steed]

He stayed just the right time.