Private Hudson
Posts: 1106
Joined: 30/9/2005
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mightyhypnotoad It never ceases to amaize me how many people are still clamouring for a return to the gadget driven, innuendo laden Roger Moore era Bond movies. These same people don't seem to realise that Moore's teniorship as Bond relied so heavily on those tired plot contrivances because he was already too old (and sleasy for my liking) to be Bond by the time he got his Debut in Live and Let Die in '73. Roger Moore single handedly reduced the spy thriller genre to a bad joke. What gaulls me even more was the reaction when Tim Dalton tried to embue Bonds flagging popularity with some much needed respectability. By reintroducing grit and a general ruthless bastardness to Bond (a road that Craig has pretty much followed) he got eaten alive (rather unjustly) by the fans who had become so placated by ridiculous special effects and bimbo's with bed me names, they had no idea what Bond was supposed to represent anymore. Bring on the darkness bring on the gloom and keep us yearning for our Quantum of Solace. WTF are you talking about? PANTS that's what. First of all Bond is not a spy thriller!!! As someone mentioned in a review for Goldfinger which sums up Bond for me, Bond is a genre of its own. Even though Roger Moore was older than Connery people thought he brought a youthful charm to his early movies and in my opinion The Man With the Golden Gun is one of the very best Bonds as it has the right balance of wit, gadgets, beautiful locations, fab women and a great villain. Also it is the last Bond movie that the henchman turns up after the main villain has been despatched to fight 007. Something that we used to look forward to as tradition, so perhaps they could bring that back. Roger Moore was a great Bond. He had the style, debonair and was suave. Yes it was fun but for feck's sake it is entertainment. Octopussy is often slagged but for me it is a pantomime-like movie that actually is hugely enjoyable if you let yourself into the FILM world of Bond. I believe as someone else did here that the books and films are two different incarnations and the films are far superior to anything Fleming ever wrote. Bond is not Bourne and thank God for that. When I was a wee lad I didn't dream of being a spy in a John Le Carre novel. I wanted to be driving cars that went underwater and romanced lovelies on a beach in the Bahamas, drinking martinis in the afternoon, while wearing a tux in 100 degree heat. THAT is Bond. BTW Moore did go back to basics with For Your Eyes Only and that was quite good but the best Bond movie and surely the template to follow is The Spy Who Loved Me. Total first class hokum and entertainment. Also Dalton's Living Daylights is one of the very worst Bond movies, yet Licence to Kill is actually one of the very best. I liked Dalton, but I think they have went further with Craig. Casino Royale was okay but it was all over the place and was pretty anti-climactic. FFS Bond didn't even get to kill Le Chiffre (take liberties with the books lads). I put it to you that the criticisms you have levelled at the old Bonds (gadgets, funny female names etc) are actually the strengths of 007 and the elements that make Bond so very different from anything else in cinema. C'mon 007 we ARE expecting the real Bond to turn up.
_____________________________
In Glasgow? Want to make movies? Click HERE Visit my blog! That's an order! Click HERE
|