wm lopez

I agree he just needed the writing to be set for him the way it was for Moore after MWTGG.

MJG87

At first all I saw was Moore as Bond and thought Michael Moore. If that was the case, then count me in.

moonraker

Yay.

I've read through this entire thread, and a lot of the people who are saying "nay" and pointing out scenes they don't like (the tarzan yell, the clown suit, etc) are missing an important point: the actor doesn't write the scripts. Roger had the misfortune of being handed some really bland screenwriting during his 007 era, in particular the 1980's. But when he was given clever, imaginative, and engaging material -- i.e., the 1970's -- his films delivered near endless entertainment. I've probably seen each Bond film twenty times or more (with the exception of Solace because it hasn't hit dvd yet), and I still rank TWMTGG, TSWLM, and MR as three of my all-time favorites. Faithful to Ian Fleming? Of course not. But entertaining motion pictures? You bet. Thanks for keeping the role alive, Roger!

davidh777

albert_m

The Spy who Loved Me is among the best of any Bond films and For Your Eyes Only was very good.

I agree with an earlier comment that he fit for the 70's.

Supermallet

Nay.

Bond, at his best, is suave, sophisticated, and deadly as hell. Moore was a clown, hamming it up and winking about it to the audience. When it came time to hunker down and be serious, I find Moore generally falls flat. The big exception is The Spy Who Loved Me, but one great movie does not forgive a whole run of excess. Live and Let Die is cheesy, and more than annoying for it. The Man With The Golden Gun is the other Moore film I truly enjoy. Moonraker is ridiculous. For Your Eyes Only has the single worst Bond opening ever, and then has Bond running around in a grandpa sweater getting hit on by girls young enough to be his granddaughter. Octopussy is disjointed and Moore was really showing his age. And A View To A Kill is, well, A View To A Kill, the single worst Bond film in the history of the series. At times I can disconnect and enjoy the campy elements of his movies, but only when I look at them as Bond parodies (again, MWTGG and SWLM being the exceptions). He is, to date, the worst Bond in my mind, and they'd really have to screw up the series again to dislodge him from that position.

Also: On Her Majesty's Secret Service is easily one of the best Bond films, and had Lazenby continued with the series, he would have served it far better than Moore ever did.

Lastyear

I've never been a big fan of Roger Moore as Bond. Not as bad as Lazenby. It hurts him that some of the worst/cheesiest Bond films were done with Moore. Moonraker for one. Never found him convincing in action scenes. He was better cast as The Saint on British TV.

Jack Straw

Voted "yay", but for me Pierce Brosnan is Bond.

UAIOE

This is why he gets a "nay".

Plus his "crap to gold" ratio isn't very good.

For me he has two good movies and the rest vary from mediocre to "why god, why?"

Hokeyboy

I'm curious as to what the Lazenby fans/defenders consider admirable about his performance... the flat, quivering vocal delivery of his lines? Lack of on-screen charisma? Weak acting? No romantic chemistry whatsoever with Diana Rigg? And don't get me started on that absolutely retarded "leaping uppercut" move he used in every fight scene...

Make no mistake, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is a good Bond movie, it just happened to have a horrible Bond in it.

Chad

Me too. While I really enjoyed Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig's more serious portrayal, it would be an excruciatingly dull series if every film was drop dead serious and devoid of a sense of humor. So what if a) it got a little cheesy at times and b) it didn't always stay true to the novels ...variety is a good thing.

Supermallet

I think that he did have charisma and his vocal delivery was restrained. It probably would have loosened up had he done more movies. I also think he looks like a fighter, much more so than Moore, who always looked like a stiff breeze could have blown him over.

However, this thread is making me interested enough to revisit For Your Eyes Only since I have it on Blu-ray but haven't watched it yet.

wm lopez

He looked like a young Cary Grant, he was built like a body builder and he had a strong voice. He was o.k. for someone had made his 1st movie.

gmanca

I could never like OHMSS; not sure if it's the "Travels of Europe" feel to it or just Lazenby and Savalas. There's not much action and the intrigue is pretty obvious. The Angels of Death and Lazenby's line were awesome though.

Hokeyboy

OHMSS has an OK first act, then a REALLY saggy, overlong, and badly shot/directed second act, and an EXCELLENT final act. The middle portion of the movie is so stilted and unconvincing, it threatens to derail the interest of the audience until things kick into gear in the final third of the film -- which is excellent.

The problem is that the film was handed over to a first-time director. In a blanket attempt to get away from the "excesses" of the Bond franchise (sound familiar), they needed a strong director at the helm. Instead, the film generally sits when it should captivate (although the action sequences are very well shot). Hunt, a former editor, didn't seem to have a grasp on the pacing of this movie.

"You Only Live Twice" wasn't a bad Bond film, but it was a serious step down from the previous Connery movies. While making "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", the underlying philosophy was to move away from the excesses and larger-than-life elements of YOLT. In retrospect they should have handed the reins to a proven director who had vision and innovation in mind, rather than nickle-and-diming "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" with an unproven director and an unproven former-model with little-to-no acting experience in the lead role.

Which begs the question: who would you have handed OHMSS over to if you could choose the director and star, circa 1969? Imagine what John Frankenheimer and Michael Caine could have done with the film...

doubledown44

He was perfect for the time.

UAIOE

I think its the final act which brings this movie to "alright" status.

That and "Diamonds are Forever" make this movie look as good as "From Russia with Love".

Everything in "Diamonds" just feels off, like everyone wanted to recapture the earlier Bond greatness but they couldn't pull it off. The movie wanted to be "jet-pack/ejector seat/hideout in a volcano" over the top Bond, but they decided to hold back. I watch this movie and marvel at how half of what happens in the movie makes no goddamn sense and how boring it is to see it not make sense.

gmanca

The first time I saw it, I completely tuned out after the festival and didn't come back until the very end, at the marriage. Saw it again the last time AMC did the Bond marathon and still couldn't enjoy it but saw the final battle which was redeeming.

I totally agree with your analysis of the situation because a sure-footed director would have peppered some action/suspense to keep the pacing high.

Torchur317

Roger Moore is my all time favorite Bond....

Ginwen

He's ok, not my favorite, but not terrible. The Spy Who Loved Me is one of my favorite Bond movies, and a few of his others are ok.

wm lopez

I always felt Connery's performance in DAF was his best.
He seemed to be having fun in the role.
Even though he had a pot belly in the movie he came across as super cool.

Hokeyboy

Diamonds Are Forever is a bit underrated. Bond does some *real* espionage in the flick, and it has an underlying storyline that basically holds up. The problem is, the movie is filled with so much hokeyness and fluff that it overwhelms the story. The moon buggy escape sequence? Someone please saw my legs off....

As far as Connery, at least he didn't seem as bored with the movie as he did with "You Only Live Twice"... and he was bangin' Asian tail in THAT one!

UAIOE

Of all the things I don't care for in "Diamonds", it has to be the assassin guys.

Really, those guys are supposed to make us worry about Bond?


But I guess "Diamonds" feels off because Connery as Bond in the 1970's just doesn't feel right. Despite my opinion on Moore and his run as Bond, I have to admit that he kinda works as Bond during the 1970's. Maybe it is because I am used to him doing the part during that time, but it is very hard to picture someone else doing it instead.

duff beer

Best Bond there ever was.

kd5

I voted Yay although Connery is who I most associate with the character. One of my favorite Bond movies is with Moore (Live and Let Die).