In some ways, I think Moore is perhaps the most important Bond. You see, Connery had such command of the role, I'm guessing that audiences found it difficult to imagine anyone else in the part at that time. Lazenby tried, and failed (although time has been kind to that movie) and after that didn't work - Connery had to be bought back into the fold to put things on the right course again.
However, after he declared that Diamonds Are Forever really WOULD be his last turn as our man, I can imagine that Broccoli and Saltzman were dismayed to find themselves back in the position they were in at the end of You Only Live Twice. From what I understand, Roger Moore was already quite a big name before he got the role as our man, unlike Lazenby who was an unknown. People liked Moore. He probably bought in even more fans, who were perhaps uninterested in these movies before he stepped into the role.
The reason I think Moore was probably the most important Bond is because he so successfully established himself in the role, and put such a unique stamp on it - that he proved that this movie series COULD continue without Connery. He in effect, succeeded where poor old George Lazenby failed, and gave the movie series a new lease of life as he continued in the role for quite a good few more movies. I think that thanks to Moore, audiences were able to accept Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig - and that is key reason why we still have new Bond movies to this day. So whilst Connery originated the role, Moore paved the way for new actors to take it over. In someways I think the latter is a greater legacy.
Anyway without further ado...
Live And Let Die
You know, my opinion changes on this one virtually every time I watch it. Sometimes I enjoy the absolute hell out of it, others I find it mean spirited and a bit stereotyped. My opinion after having just recently watched the blu ray falls somewhat in between those extremes.
I love Moore as Bond. He doesn't fall into the Lazenby trap of trying to imitate Connery. Whilst his performance is a tad foppish, he does have a unique charisma different from Connery's that shines through on its own. Despite any misgivings (the Moore era does have it's fair share of critics) one cannot deny that the man completely made the role his own. Anyone who criticises him for not taking it seriously enough misses the point. Generally speaking those films weren't supposed to be taken seriously and I feel that Moore is just working with what he is being given (many of those same critics have obviously not seen For Your Eyes Only either but we'll get to that in due course).
Moore's victory here is that he makes the role his own despite the screenplay working against him. This was blatantly written for Sean Connery and it really shows (I offer you the scene of our man slapping Rosie Carver about as an example). Moore however does not seem to let this bother him though and does a fine job.
The movie itself isn't bad. Seems to be a fairly straightforward adaptation of Fleming's original, despite a few omissions and added bells and whistles. Yaphet Kotto as Mr Big/Kananga is a fine heavy - and one of the more memorable villains. He's got some great lines (names is for tombstones baby) and it quite witty. Jane Seymour too is lovely to look at although it's a little unbelievable that our man would go for someone who is so naive - so much in fact his seduction of her seems cruel.
So whilst opinion may vary, this film is important because it gave the series a new lease of life that it would ride on for the next 14 years. In that regard, it deserves any serious Bond fans' respect.
Edited by ChickenStu, 21 October 2013 - 08:01 PM.