In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


Private Hudson -> In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 8:35:36 PM)

Is it just me or is there a total campaign to slag of dear old Roger Moore's Bond years?

Now I don't know about you, but how can you not love Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me?

I like his other ones also, but I know some people don't like the more jokier aspects of Octopussy or the fantasy of Moonraker.

He was too old for A View To A Kill, but that movie is still a lot of fun.

And here's the rub:

Bond is about fun and escapism.

What made Bond great was villain's with white cats, volcano lairs, heroes who flew jet packs, had cars that could go underwater and of course the ladies!

In almost all of these Bond nostalgia programmes they seem to give Roger a hard time, which is unfair. In fact I would argue our vision of Bond as super smooth, suave an debonair is in fact due to Roger Moore's screen incarnation.

Here's my opinion on his movies:

LIVE AND LET DIE
A delicious mix of vodoo and blaxpoitation, with some series high equalling moments: the boat chase, the alligator farm, and the lovely Jane Seymour. An indignified end for the villain though.

"Don't want to go off half-cocked."

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
Perhaps the most underrated Bond of all. This has Karate, boat chases, Nik-Nak and the titular three nippled star, Francisco Scaramanga!

This has the feel of a book adapted adventure, yet it is far removed from Fleming. It even has semi-contemporary stuff in it, with the Solex and the Energy Crisis.

The car roll over the broken bridge is Bond at its best.

Britt Ekland and Maud Adams must be the two lovliest Bond girls in the one movie.

"Goodnight?"
"She's just coming sir."

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
My personal favourite, a re-rerun of You Only Live Twice, but this time updated and with the indestructible Jaws as possibly the best henchman ever.

It also has the best Bond theme song sung by Carly Simon, and has a decent score by Marvin Hamlisch (sorry John Barry!).

This has the coolest car in the series... the Lotus Espirit... it looked futuristic then and still does. Oh and it can go underwater!

Roger Moore looks the part in this movie spending most of his time in a tuxedo or navy uniform (something that helps us define Bond, I feel.)

But it also has my favourite Bond girl, the fragile, beaufiful Barbara Bach as the USSR's answer to OO7, XXX. She is stunning and in fact is a great foil for Bond.

It also has the legendary Rick Sylvester ski-off a cliff (in a hideous banana coloured outfit) only to open a Union Jack parachute. Bad guys all over the world go: "Shit!" and little would be Bonds think it is the coolest moment in cinema history.

"Bond! What do you think you're doing?"
"Keeping the British end up."

MOONRAKER
They had to top The Spy Who Loved Me, and with the success of Star Wars into space Bond went.

It is hugely enjoyable if you buy into the premise.

Jaws is back and becomes a good guy (I never agreed with that, or letting him fall in love, or even letting him talk: "Well... here's to us." Noooooooooooooooooo!)

Venice and Rio make great locations and the climax in space is fun. "Space marines... EVA!"

It also has the funniest line in the Bond movies delivered by Q:

"I think he's attempting re-entry."

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
One of the efforts to produce a low key Bond is actually a decent enough movie, and has all the usual ingredients with snow and water taking centre stage.

This is in the mould of the serious Bonds, but to be honest, Roger Moore is better at the Bond Event Movies.

OCTOPUSSY
Octopussy is always derided, but what a cracking family entertainment it is. It has panache and humour. Yes it is a pantomime, but it rips along at great pace.

India makes a stunning location, and Octopussy's bevvy of beauties are spectacular.

We have a mad Russian general, a golf cart chase through New Delhi, a Train fight in East and then West Germany and then a dramatic sky high climax.

The little mini-jet during the pre-title sequence is cool!

A VIEW TO A KILL
Roger was too old by this time, but we have Grace Jones and the ever brilliant Christopher Walken as strange Bond villains.

The plot is pure hokum, though no more daft than Goldfinger's, with the destruction of Silicon Valley.

We do have a great car chase through Paris and a crazy fight on top of the Golden Gate.

Stacey Sutton played by Tanya Roberts is the type of heroine who gives Bond a bad name, but to be honest I can't think of one as useless as her throughout the series as they all seem to be pretty spunky before and after her.

She does look good though, but far too young for dirty old Roge!


So come on, let's embrace Roger Moore as THE definitive screen Bond.




zombiemaster -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 8:40:17 PM)

I liked the roger moore years as bond he was a good bond plus he had the best villan in his Jaws




Private Hudson -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 8:49:55 PM)

He seems to be getting a raw deal just now.

People forget how popular the films were when he was Bond.




Rhubarb -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 8:56:15 PM)

I know exactly what you mean, and its just because 'dark' and 'gritty' are in, and Roger Moore is not percieved as theese. His first three Bonds are among the best in the series. There are good moments in his later ones, but with the possible exception of A View To A Kill, they are all just Formulaic Bond Movies, which have thier moments. He is, however my favourite Bond, lightyears ahead of Connery and Brosnan. He went on for a a couple of films too long - but then so did Connery.




KennyM -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 9:15:07 PM)

He's the worst Bond for me! [:D]
The thing is he's too suave and he just comes across as a slime ball. He can't deliver a one-liner like Connery, isn't rugged or hard enough for my liking like Dalton (does that sound gay?) and he isn't as cool as Brosnan was imo.
BUT! and I'll agree with you Hudson on a few of your points

The Live and Let Die alligator run was/is my favourite Bond moment in my favourite Bond film.
The Man With the Golden Gun is under-rated big time.
The Lotus Esprit is one of the coolest Bond cars
Jaws is probably the best Bond baddie


Moonraker and Octopussy are shit though [:D]




directorscut -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 9:24:46 PM)

Roger Moore doesn't need any defending.
 
  1. He's a Sir. I don't hear the Queen knocking down Dalton or Craig's doors.
  2. He played Bond seven times, which is the total number his successors have played Bond COMBINED.
  3. He recorded commentaries for his Bond films which is more than you can say for the rest.




UTB -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 9:26:55 PM)

As a child Moore was my favourite Bond, who has now been replaced by Brosnan.

Moore's Bond was a victim of the 70's, and while he may not be the best of the Bonds, shouldn't be punished just because of it.

Live & Let Die is a brilliant Bond film.




KennyM -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 9:32:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Roger Moore doesn't need any defending.
 
  1. He's a Sir. I don't hear the Queen knocking down Dalton or Craig's doors.
  2. He played Bond seven times, which is the total number his successors have played Bond COMBINED.
  3. He recorded commentaries for his Bond films which is more than you can say for the rest.





Point 1: He's a sir, automatically makes him a good Bond (what this thread is about incidentally) [sm=33.gif]

Point 2: He's played Bond seven times, including some of the worst Bond films, Moonraker, Octopussy, View to a Kill

Point 3: I don't see how recording commentaries makes him a good Bond either.

I think Hudson was trying to defend his performances as James Bond, not Roger Moore as a person.
Though I'm sure he's a nice chap.




Mason Verger -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 9:33:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rhubarb

I know exactly what you mean, and its just because 'dark' and 'gritty' are in, and Roger Moore is not percieved as theese. His first three Bonds are among the best in the series. There are good moments in his later ones, but with the possible exception of A View To A Kill, they are all just Formulaic Bond Movies, which have thier moments. He is, however my favourite Bond, lightyears ahead of Connery and Brosnan. He went on for a a couple of films too long - but then so did Connery.


That's when roger mortis began to set in.
[sm=893confused27-thumb.gif]




bozo -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 9:44:24 PM)

Moore is my favourite Bond - he portrayed the character with just the right amount of self-irony and easy charm, as well as with some criminally underrated physicality. If you own the special editions you'd know that Moore executed more of Bond's stunts that anyone, while Connery was famously reluctant to do anything dangerous whatsoever. He was one big hairy chicken, basically. 
And together with Dalton Moore actually looked intelligent enough to be a secret agent.
A View to a Kill is my favourite Bond movie, and to all of you for whom it's crap - [sm=fighting01.gif]
Why?
Best villain. Best bond girl.
Octopussy - close second. Why? Best action. Most exotic.




Timon -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (20/11/2006 11:24:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Is it just me or is there a total campaign to slag of dear old Roger Moore's Bond years?

Now I don't know about you, but how can you not love Live and Let Die, The Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me?

I like his other ones also, but I know some people don't like the more jokier aspects of Octopussy or the fantasy of Moonraker.

He was too old for A View To A Kill, but that movie is still a lot of fun.

And here's the rub:

Bond is about fun and escapism.

What made Bond great was villain's with white cats, volcano lairs, heroes who flew jet packs, had cars that could go underwater and of course the ladies!



Ok, first off. For me Bond isn't about fun and escapism. Yes, the films descended into that but look at the first two. It's dark, serious and threatening....with lovely ladies. The films made hollowed out volcanoes and jet packs the stample and with it the serious tones disappeared.

Now I love Bond. I love the various tones of Bond. I love the fantasy and gradeur of You Only Live Twice and The Spy Who Loved Me as armies storm giant superstructures threatening world peace but I also love the smaller, grittier films like From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only. There are two sides to Bond and this shouldn't be forgotten. It all depends on the filmmaker over what Bond will turn out to be - overblown and fantasical or grounded and serious.......and I like both, within reason - Die Another Day was just inexcusable though.

Roger Moore wasn't a bad Bond but he wasn't a serious Bond. There was campery and buffoonery (what was with the double taking pigeon in Moonraker?!) and he had the role for too long. Post For Your Eyes Only, he just looks haggard.
He's great in For Your Eyes Only and The Spy Who Loved Me but he is too....smooth. Where's the grittiness (except for where he kicks the henchman down the cliff in FYEO), where's the gravitas, where's the man who has a licence to kill? Yes, he can charm the ladies but do you really believe this man is a killer? Not really. He's a playboy, a charmer, a buffoon and that's where Moore fell down.

He let his eyebrows do the acting.

Now his films are entertaining but I've always prefered serious Bond and I don't like the idea of Bond simply becoming farcical - it's this element that Austin Powers et co have exploited and unfortunatly this is Moore's legacy more than anything else. The one liners, the eyebrows, the non threatening Bond. Yes, he has his moments but he'll always be, for me, the Bond that could have been more.




Private Hudson -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:00:18 AM)

Timon, I think a lot of people seem to miss the point.

The Bond films didn't descend into escapism...

Dr No (the FIRST Bond movie) had it all right there from the off! Bond was so different to anything else with its own world of gadgets and macabre ways of disposing of people (sharks are always a favourite of meglomaniacs).

There is room for the odd gritty Bond, but in general the public flock to see the escapist ones.

In fact when we think of Bond do we think of gritty fight scenes? No! That's EVERY other spy/thriller etc.

When we think of Bond we think of beautiful women, exotic locations, silly character names, ingenious gadgets and a man living a playboy lifestyle who just happens to be brilliant at almost everything.

THAT is James Bond, 007.

In fact I'll argue that even though I love Licence to Kill, it failed because at the time films like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard were trying to becoming more Bond-like!

GoldenEye was a superb return to form, and it had the right mix of danger and escapism.

The books are great to read, but they are not the James Bond we know and love. In the books Bond is much of a brute, and even though he lives a playboy lifestyle, he's not very charming.

Connery and more so Moore brought the charm and charisma to the fore.

It really fecking annoys me when people just open their mouths and fall onto the bandwagon (that's not a go at you Timon, by the way, as you ae a knowledgeable Bond fan) and if people can't see that to strip Bond to the bare bones of a thriller is actually making a film that is not Bond.

As I said earlier, every few films or so we can deal with something different (liek From Russia With Love, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only, Licence to Kill and now Casino Royale)... but we need our You Only Live Twice's, Spy Who Loved Me's etc.

The world of Bond is really the movie world of Bond. It has long since overtaken the books.

For people to keep harking back to the books is actually gonna end up killing the franchise. People love Bond because it is so different to any other thriller!




Rhubarb -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:04:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Roger Moore doesn't need any defending.
 
  1. He's a Sir. I don't hear the Queen knocking down Dalton or Craig's doors.
  2. He played Bond seven times, which is the total number his successors have played Bond COMBINED.
  3. He recorded commentaries for his Bond films which is more than you can say for the rest.




i have to say, the Roger Moore ones are the ones i want to get on DVD to hear his commentries. Would it have been so much for Lazenby (one!) Dalton (Two!) or even Brosnan (4) to record commentries? i think not.




bozo -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:04:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Private Hudson

Timon, I think a lot of people seem to miss the point.

The Bond films didn't descend into escapism...

Dr No (the FIRST Bond movie) had it all right there from the off! Bond was so different to anything else with its own world of gadgets and macabre ways of disposing of people (sharks are always a favourite of meglomaniacs).

There is room for the odd gritty Bond, but in general the public flock to see the escapist ones.

In fact when we think of Bond do we think of gritty fight scenes? No! That's EVERY other spy/thriller etc.

When we think of Bond we think of beautiful women, exotic locations, silly character names, ingenious gadgets and a man living a playboy lifestyle who just happens to be brilliant at almost everything.

THAT is James Bond, 007.

In fact I'll argue that even though I love Licence to Kill, it failed because at the time films like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard were trying to becoming more Bond-like!

GoldenEye was a superb return to form, and it had the right mix of danger and escapism.

The books are great to read, but they are not the James Bond we know and love. In the books Bond is much of a brute, and even though he lives a playboy lifestyle, he's not very charming.

Connery and more so Moore brought the charm and charisma to the fore.

It really fecking annoys me when people just open their mouths and fall onto the bandwagon (that's not a go at you Timon, by the way, as you ae a knowledgeable Bond fan) and if people can't see that to strip Bond to the bare bones of a thriller is actually making a film that is not Bond.

As I said earlier, every few films or so we can deal with something different (liek From Russia With Love, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only, Licence to Kill and now Casino Royale)... but we need our You Only Live Twice's, Spy Who Loved Me's etc.

The world of Bond is really the movie world of Bond. It has long since overtaken the books.

For people to keep harking back to the books is actually gonna end up killing the franchise. People love Bond because it is so different to any other thriller!


[sm=happy34.gif][sm=happy34.gif][sm=happy34.gif]




Private Hudson -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:09:50 AM)

As for Roger Moore as Bond, he is pretty nasty in his earlier films, threatening the gunmaker in Macao, bitch slapping Andrea Anders, and killing Sandor in cold blood in Cairo.

In fact his Bond could be summed up by the moment Scaramanga offers him a duel at lunch. Bond is unruffled by facing the world's top hit man and says: "I accept. After we have finished this delightful lunch prepared by Nik-Nak".

Or the scene where he's shooting with Drax and as the birds fly over he shoots and misses... "You missed, Mr Bond." A Drax henchman falls out of a tree. "Did I?".

He was also 'tough' in For Your Eyes Only when he kicks the car over the cliff.

I think he was just more charming. You could imagine him being suave and debonair.

Hey, I am a Scot and to suggest Connery is not the best (I think he is brilliant also) is treason!

But the way I look at it, I always remember my dear old mother (who loved Connery) admitting that Roger Moore was dashing, especially in The Spy Who Loved Me, when he has the tuxedo on for a good bit of the film and indeed when he had the navy stuff on.

Put it this way, if Britain ever needed a guy to go and shag some foreign bird for secrets, Roger is the man for the job!




unhingedmoviepigeon -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 7:57:49 AM)

Roger Moore *raises an eyebrow*  is brilliant as Bond! He made the role his own and adapted it completely from Connery's character! (Which was a good thing)
He is getting a raw deal at present but just cause everyone's gone Bond Crazy!

Roger Moore will always be remembered as a cool 007. [:)]




matty_b -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 8:20:56 AM)

Too sleazy, too lazy, too lightweight. When he put the effort into the role - Live and Let Die, The Spy Who Loved Me, For Your Eyes Only - he could be great, but as someone else mentioned the rest of the time he just let his eyeborws and wrinkles do the acting. Of course, it didn't help that he probably had the biggest batch of silly scripts to work with.

The Man with the Golden is terribly dull and cheap, utterly wasting Christopher Lee and ironically, one of Moore's better Bond performances.




Marvel_79 -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 8:30:24 AM)

I grew up during Roger Moore era, and watched them fondly as a young kid, however watching them back now they are fairly poor, although I do still like the Man with the Golden Gun




Indio -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 10:52:05 AM)

Moore all the way for me too, the only Bond film he made that I don't like is For Your Eyes Only. He was certainly better than Brosnan, Dalton or Lazenby, and even the strongest Connery fans would have to admit that his last few Bond movies dipped severely in quality.




Heywood -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 11:21:21 AM)

Although he is not my favourite Bond, I enjoyed Moore's first 3 films immensely, especially Live and Let Die. After that, the quality dropped off quite a bit (particularly Moonraker and View to a Kill) and latterly Moore just looked too old for the role (doddery Roger, as the Empire article said).




the_equalizer -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 11:27:48 AM)

People, including myself, often mention the ridiculous qualities of the Moore era. The whole space sequence, fine it was shite, but when I was 4 years old watching it I was in awe! It pressed the right buttons for me then, and I'll always have a soft spot for it, but it was shite.

But as far as these ridiculous Moore qualities go, people tend to forget that in the book of Dr No, Ian Fleming had James Bond facing off against a Giant Squid in a cage. I mean, not entirely realistic is it?





Workshed -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 11:32:03 AM)

[image]http://www.ianfleming.org/mkkbb/guide/rogermoore-bio.jpg[/image]




great_badir -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 12:45:49 PM)

I generally can't stand Bond, but I think Live & Let Die is a brilliant film in itself and Rog's on-set diary is an excellent read.




TonySoprano -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 12:55:09 PM)

Roger Moore is brilliant.  when you're 10.

I watched Live and Let Die last week for the first time in years, and had really fond memories of, but frankly it's a bit embarrassing to watch now.  The script in particular is dire, and the level of quality is pretty low all round, bar a couple of great scenes.  His last few are completely awful, and his others are patchy, at best.

To be honest, most Bond films don't hold up that well bar the early Connery films, Tomorrow Never Dies and License to Kill.  Moore is not what I'd look for in a Bond, too smooth, not physical enough and far too smug looking.

Having said that, no-one wears a Safari suit with quite the same degree of casuality.




Monkeyshaver -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:04:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

I generally can't stand Bond, but I think Live & Let Die is a brilliant film in itself and Rog's on-set diary is an excellent read.

Just been lent a copy of that very diary!![sm=happy34.gif]

It is extremely fashionable to slag of Sir Roger Moore, the Empire Bondathon article being a case in point, not only is it tired & lazy but it is wrong. Moore saved the series!! Bond was an instant success in the 60s but was subject to imitation & parody (the Flint movies & the revamped Bulldog Drummond films to name but a few) & needed to get bigger & better. The bland Diamonds Are Forever showed that, with Connery looking disinterested & too old to play 007, even though Moore was older he stepped into the role & made it his own. It was a tougher assignment to replace Connery who had become so established in the role than it was for Connery to please fans of the books when he became 007. If Moore had played the part exactly the same as Connery he would have been slated, so he brought his own unique take on the role...& still gets slated! He brought humour & a greater sense of fun but also got the chance to play the role with a darker edge in For Your Eyes Only, a 007 film that like Casino Royale takes thinks back to basics with a more realistic mission & no gadgets, but the unique humour is still there. In fact on the rare occassions that Moore acted more like the Bond of the novels it had far more impact. Sir Roger Moore was my introduction to the wonderful world of 007 in Octopussy which was perfectly pitched for a kid (far better than Never Say Never Again, the pointless remake of Thunderball released the same year) I even remember collecting the picture cards given away free with Shredded Wheat.
There is always the clamour to return Bond to his gritty roots but the books have always had their fantastical elements like Dr No for example with a millionaire crimelord with pincers for hands living in a subterranean base on his own island creating elaborate deaths for Bond (a torturous assault course ending up in a duel with a giant squid!) & Honey Ryder (stripped naked & pegged out on the beach to await death at the hands of an army of crabs!) Not to mention his dragonmobile! Bond himself is more flawed in the novels, takes a few beatings etc but is still a man capable of feats of superhuman endurance. I think all those critics banging on about Bond returning to his gritty roots have never read the books!! Also what was fresh on the page 50 years ago has now been so influential that to remove all the fantastical elements of Bond that have become the hallmarks of the movies & make adventures more faithful to Flemings original novels results in a film that is too similar to every other espionage thriller film around. As good as Daniel Craig is in Casino Royale its a flawed film because of this, it is not unique enough from its contemporaries, there are no signature stunts that mark it out from the rest & regardless of the quality of the films Bond always brought a never before seen stunt to the screen.
At the end of the day the song in The Spy Who Loved Me sums up my feelings about the one & only Sir Roger Moore, Nobody Does It Better.[sm=893confused27-thumb.gif][sm=happy34.gif]

[image]http://www.superchefblog.com/images/rogermoore_dining360x360.png[/image]




thedaywalker -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:45:10 PM)

Moore is full a cheese but he was good !!




MartinBlank76 -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 1:46:33 PM)

That line out of golden gun, "I accept. After we have finished this delightful lunch prepared by Nik-Nak"  is pure moore and reminds me of why I love him so much. The Spy who loved me is also non stop hilarity from start to finish (fave line is, 'when in egypt one must sample its treasures'). Personally I dont think there is such a thing as a bad bond film, sure they differ in quality but I enjoy them all from the more hard edged ones to the sillier ones they all have stuff to recommend them. And I find it difficult picking between connery, moore, brosnan and now craig. It depends what mood I'm in. I have to give dalton and lazenby another go and as all the ultimate editions are winging their way to me now, I'll be able to see how they measure up.




Rebel scum -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 4:12:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MartinBlank76

That line out of golden gun, "I accept. After we have finished this delightful lunch prepared by Nik-Nak"


I'm sorry to be pedantic but it's Nick-Nack.

Anyways, I always liked Roger Moore because his films are what Bond is about-pure fun you can disengage your brain for. He is sometimes harsh, as befits a man who has a license to kill (He shoots Stromberg four times) but he is also capable of being flippant and suave even if he's in a tough situation. The Moore era had the greatest villain (Scaramanga) the greatest henchman (Jaws) the greatest car (Lotus Esprit) the greatest stunt (Bond skiing off a cliff) the greatest pre-credits sequence (Bond skiing off a cliff) the greatest theme song (A View To A Kill) and the greatest Bond girl (Anya Amasova). What's wrong with the Roger Moore films?
Even if my favourite is Moonraker...




bozo -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 5:43:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebel scum

quote:

ORIGINAL: MartinBlank76

That line out of golden gun, "I accept. After we have finished this delightful lunch prepared by Nik-Nak"


I'm sorry to be pedantic but it's Nick-Nack.

Anyways, I always liked Roger Moore because his films are what Bond is about-pure fun you can disengage your brain for. He is sometimes harsh, as befits a man who has a license to kill (He shoots Stromberg four times) but he is also capable of being flippant and suave even if he's in a tough situation. The Moore era had the greatest villain (Scaramanga) the greatest henchman (Jaws) the greatest car (Lotus Esprit) the greatest stunt (Bond skiing off a cliff) the greatest pre-credits sequence (Bond skiing off a cliff) the greatest theme song (A View To A Kill) and the greatest Bond girl (Anya Amasova). What's wrong with the Roger Moore films?
Even if my favourite is Moonraker...


snob!
[sm=biggrin.gif]




darth silas -> RE: In Defence of Roger Moore, OO7! (21/11/2006 5:55:00 PM)

good to see people defending sir roger.i think the people who slag off moore are the ones who take their bond movies WAY too seriously and fail to see what a great portrayal moore brought to 007.he played it to his strengths which is of course light comedy.the spy who loved me is the first bond flick i ever saw and it made me a fan for life.i enjoy all his bond flicks(yes,even moonraker.its really silly,but its fun)




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875