:thumbsup
My Journey Through Bond
- Thread starter jcoffman99
- Start date
- Status
:thumbsup
Moonraker
I know this is rated one of the lowest Bond films but I didn't think it was any worse than some of the others. I'd take out the gondola chase as that was just goofy, but the rest, for the time it was made wasn't too bad. I never felt like, "This is horrible, turn it off."
I know this is rated one of the lowest Bond films but I didn't think it was any worse than some of the others. I'd take out the gondola chase as that was just goofy, but the rest, for the time it was made wasn't too bad. I never felt like, "This is horrible, turn it off."
Ugh...
Ya, I suppose if you're already used to Moore it's not that bad but wow. What a stinker.
The gondola scene is a real big low. Lines like "Oh, HE'S available" when Drax is looking for a henchman? The pigtailed girl that all of a sudden falls in love with Jaws with that stereotypical music? Space battle with laser firing astronauts? Follow all that crap up with terrible acting on almost every level and you have a contender for the worst of the franchise.
Moonraker (1979) - Roger Moore
James Bond in space! Ya, it's as bad as it sounds. Star Wars came out to phenomenal success in 1977 and Moonraker tried to capture some of the space craze that surrounded it. Jaws returns in this film and if you thought he was silly before you haven't seen anything yet. Holly Goodhead is terrible as the love interest, the story is weak, and the acting is weak. This is hands down the worst Bond film in my books.
The Good: It's only 126 minutes long.
The Bad: Everything. Not one thing in this film works for me.
James Bond in space! Ya, it's as bad as it sounds. Star Wars came out to phenomenal success in 1977 and Moonraker tried to capture some of the space craze that surrounded it. Jaws returns in this film and if you thought he was silly before you haven't seen anything yet. Holly Goodhead is terrible as the love interest, the story is weak, and the acting is weak. This is hands down the worst Bond film in my books.
The Good: It's only 126 minutes long.
The Bad: Everything. Not one thing in this film works for me.
Solo4114
Master Member
Backtracking a bit, but my take on You Only Live Twice, which I just watched the other night.
I used to LOVE this movie when I was about 12. To me, it was one of the absolute coolest Bond films. Ninjas! Underground lairs! Rocket guns! Blofeld! It was awesome!
As an adult, though, my tastes have changed and I have to say that while it's still a FUN Bond film, it really is the start of the "silly" era. There's still a connection to the vibe they had in Thunderball, but Bond as a franchise begins to trend towards "bigger" as a stand-in for "better." There's a lot of amazing work in this film, on a technical level, but there's a lot of weak stuff on a story level.
Technically, the sets, location work, and model work are all top-notch. The use of Little Nelly is damn impressive as well from a stunt perspective. Story-wise, though, there are a ton of minor plot holes, but also the whole thing just seems...over-the-top, and the execution works that way, too. Connery, also, looks like he's not having anywhere near as much fun with the role as he was even in the last film. My recollection is that it was either during or shortly after this film that he said he was done with the role. I guess it wears you out after a while (it seemed to with Brosnan).
There's also just a lot of sloppiness in the story, which I've mentioned elsewhere. Particularly things like how did Bond get to Tokyo from the shore? Why is he carrying the safe cracker with him? How the hell did the big Osato goon not recognize that his shorter, lighter-weight buddy had suddenly transformed into a hulking 6'2 former body-builder? Are all movie uniforms made of elastic material?! And so on. It's little stuff, yeah, but it's still kinda sloppy. Still, the overall spectacle of the film is just so much damn fun that I find it hard to care, and Connery still pulls off the part, although even in a few years, he's starting to let the pounds stay on a bit more...
Now, as a separate consideration, I had a thought about whether the films would still make sense if viewed in the following order: OHMSS --> YOLT --> DAF. I think they might actually make MORE sense this way. Blofeld in YOLT clearly knows who Bond is. He doesn't go through an elaborate introduction, either. He looks different, however, from his look in the "previous" film (OHMSS), so it would make sense if he announces who he is to Bond, just in case it wasn't clear. The only thing lacking would be an emotional response from Bond, but then we don't really get that in DAF, either. It's all business again, by then, and Connery is again phoning it in. Still, I think the overall Blofeld arc would make more sense when viewed as I've described, even though it would mix-up the release dates slightly.
Anyway, fun film, but kind of like other films in franchises that herald a turn towards the ridiculous.
I used to LOVE this movie when I was about 12. To me, it was one of the absolute coolest Bond films. Ninjas! Underground lairs! Rocket guns! Blofeld! It was awesome!
As an adult, though, my tastes have changed and I have to say that while it's still a FUN Bond film, it really is the start of the "silly" era. There's still a connection to the vibe they had in Thunderball, but Bond as a franchise begins to trend towards "bigger" as a stand-in for "better." There's a lot of amazing work in this film, on a technical level, but there's a lot of weak stuff on a story level.
Technically, the sets, location work, and model work are all top-notch. The use of Little Nelly is damn impressive as well from a stunt perspective. Story-wise, though, there are a ton of minor plot holes, but also the whole thing just seems...over-the-top, and the execution works that way, too. Connery, also, looks like he's not having anywhere near as much fun with the role as he was even in the last film. My recollection is that it was either during or shortly after this film that he said he was done with the role. I guess it wears you out after a while (it seemed to with Brosnan).
There's also just a lot of sloppiness in the story, which I've mentioned elsewhere. Particularly things like how did Bond get to Tokyo from the shore? Why is he carrying the safe cracker with him? How the hell did the big Osato goon not recognize that his shorter, lighter-weight buddy had suddenly transformed into a hulking 6'2 former body-builder? Are all movie uniforms made of elastic material?! And so on. It's little stuff, yeah, but it's still kinda sloppy. Still, the overall spectacle of the film is just so much damn fun that I find it hard to care, and Connery still pulls off the part, although even in a few years, he's starting to let the pounds stay on a bit more...
Now, as a separate consideration, I had a thought about whether the films would still make sense if viewed in the following order: OHMSS --> YOLT --> DAF. I think they might actually make MORE sense this way. Blofeld in YOLT clearly knows who Bond is. He doesn't go through an elaborate introduction, either. He looks different, however, from his look in the "previous" film (OHMSS), so it would make sense if he announces who he is to Bond, just in case it wasn't clear. The only thing lacking would be an emotional response from Bond, but then we don't really get that in DAF, either. It's all business again, by then, and Connery is again phoning it in. Still, I think the overall Blofeld arc would make more sense when viewed as I've described, even though it would mix-up the release dates slightly.
Anyway, fun film, but kind of like other films in franchises that herald a turn towards the ridiculous.
The books are in that order (even though TOLT bears no resemblance to the novel) and I agree. It would be no more jarring than how non-chalant Connery is in DAF.
As for YOLT, although I like it the film really started the disturbing formula of the plot only being there to string together action sequences. This hurt the runs of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan more than any other as nearly all of their films fell into this trap.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, I'm aware of the book order. My point is more that the film order could probably still work, too, simply because of how the Blofeld/Bond scene in YOLT plays out.
Yeah, definitely. There are so many contrivances and so much emphasis on gadgetry, quips, and stringing together action bits, that the series becomes extremely formulaic.
And with respect to Lewis Gilbert-helmed films within the franchise, it also set a nearly identical formula used for all three of his films, with only subtle variations separating the three. Moonraker is TSWLM in space, and TSWLM is YOLT underwater. With TSWLM and YOLT, it's the EXACT same plot to trigger a world war, coupled with the EXACT same mechanism (bigger vehicle gobbling up little vehicles), coupled with mass extermination of the human species. With Moonraker, it's the EXACT same underlying motivation as TSWLM, that being that the world has become somehow corrupt, and so the only solution is to start a "perfect" colony underwater/in space, and start the human race over again. And all three have the grand commando raid sequence (although, really, that was started in Thunderball, and appears in OHMSS and DAF both). But those three? Basically the same film, in my opinion.
That said, I would argue that it's the formulaic nature of many of the Bond films (which, let's be honest, it still entertaining in many cases) that makes the non-formulaic entries (and even the non-formulaic aspects of the formulaic films) really shine.
So very true. :thumbsup
I've been watching all of the Bond films on the big screen this winter (local theatre playing them all) and today we watched TWINE. Gotta say, it's AWFUL. :lol Going to go see Goldfinger next Sunday, that'll be really nice!
I've also learned a new appreciation for the Moore films. I've been watching them as comedies with the occasional interrupting serious scene thrown in. They're great!
For Your Eyes Only
Not too bad. A bit heavy on the exposition. Really enjoyed the rock climbing segment. Nice to see a tough girl. The ice skater was annoying.
Ona personal note, this movie has a special place in my heart, which I didn't realize until tonight. When I was a kid in the early 80s I remember one night my dad hanging out in my room, which was rare, and we watched a movie on my old black and white tv. All I could ever remember was seeing a guy in a wheelchair picked up by a helicopter and dumped down a smokestack. Now I know what movie that was.
Not too bad. A bit heavy on the exposition. Really enjoyed the rock climbing segment. Nice to see a tough girl. The ice skater was annoying.
Ona personal note, this movie has a special place in my heart, which I didn't realize until tonight. When I was a kid in the early 80s I remember one night my dad hanging out in my room, which was rare, and we watched a movie on my old black and white tv. All I could ever remember was seeing a guy in a wheelchair picked up by a helicopter and dumped down a smokestack. Now I know what movie that was.
For Your Eyes Only
Not too bad. A bit heavy on the exposition. Really enjoyed the rock climbing segment. Nice to see a tough girl. The ice skater was annoying.
Ona personal note, this movie has a special place in my heart, which I didn't realize until tonight. When I was a kid in the early 80s I remember one night my dad hanging out in my room, which was rare, and we watched a movie on my old black and white tv. All I could ever remember was seeing a guy in a wheelchair picked up by a helicopter and dumped down a smokestack. Now I know what movie that was.
Ah yes, one of the many times Blofeld is killed in a Bond movie. :lol
FYEO had a lot of good parts in it, with some of them straight out of the books.
Solo4114
Master Member
Ah, FYEO. My favorite Moore film, and actually a favorite Bond film. When I went out to buy the DVDs (before I had the full "Bond 50" blu-ray set), there were two Moore films I knew I wanted: The Spy Who Loved Me (hey, even if it's YOLT Underwater, I still enjoy it), and For Your Eyes Only. I think it's Moore's best outing, personally, although that's primarily because of the plot and the fact that, of the Moore era, it's probably the most serious.
Agreed. However upon a recent viewing it's still laughably comical.
Still my favourite Moore film with TSWLM as a second. :thumbsup
For Your Eyes Only (1981) - Roger Moore
After the stinker that was Moonraker it would take a heck of a film to bring Bond back to reality and thankfully this one hit the mark. My favourite of the Moore films (and the Bond film released the year of my birth) For Your Eyes Only has a good modern cold war story, some great action scenes, and some of the better acting of the era.
The Good: My favourite Moore scene where Bond coldly kicks a car off a cliff. Go figure Moore didn't want to do it...
The Bad: The stuff with the figure skater girl is weak, I don't like seeing Bond as a babysitter.
After the stinker that was Moonraker it would take a heck of a film to bring Bond back to reality and thankfully this one hit the mark. My favourite of the Moore films (and the Bond film released the year of my birth) For Your Eyes Only has a good modern cold war story, some great action scenes, and some of the better acting of the era.
The Good: My favourite Moore scene where Bond coldly kicks a car off a cliff. Go figure Moore didn't want to do it...
The Bad: The stuff with the figure skater girl is weak, I don't like seeing Bond as a babysitter.
Solo4114
Master Member
Not just weird, but creepy. She's supposed to be underage, no? It was just a weird thing to introduce into the film. I just pretend she's an immature 20-year-old.
I'm not remembering a lot of overly comical stuff except for the chase scene with Moore mugging in his nonchalant way.
I'm not remembering a lot of overly comical stuff except for the chase scene with Moore mugging in his nonchalant way.
Ya... :sick
At least he doesn't take advantage.
To be fair we watched it in a marathon with FRWL, TB, YOLT, & OHMSS. By the time FYEO came on we were laughing every second scene.
Don't forget the hockey rink garbage and a lot of the ski stuff.
Solo4114
Master Member
Oh, visually there was a bit of over-the-top stuff to the stuntwork, that I'll give you. But to me, the lack of seriousness is more about slapstick (Which was minimal in that one, and certainly by comparison to his other stuff.) and ruining an otherwise serious moment.
So, yeah, Bond skis on a picnic, but it's a split-second sight gag akin to Craig tugging his cuffs in Skyfall. Not the end of the world. The hockey rink scene was a little doofy, but I guess after Moonraker, and other Moore movies featuring slide whistles and other silliness, it just seems a much more serious film.
So, yeah, Bond skis on a picnic, but it's a split-second sight gag akin to Craig tugging his cuffs in Skyfall. Not the end of the world. The hockey rink scene was a little doofy, but I guess after Moonraker, and other Moore movies featuring slide whistles and other silliness, it just seems a much more serious film.
In comparison to the other Moore films definitely. :thumbsup
In comparison to an actually serious film no. :lol
This particular Blofeld on the other hand is in continuity with what's come before it, such as the brace around his neck from the injury he sustained in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". While not deliberately mentioned, this particular death does bring a sense of closure to the whole Blofeld storyline. I always love continuity.
Now I remember why I didn't like "The Man with the Golden Gun" so much. The film is just... icky. It has a guy with a very fake looking third nipple, a belly dancer who uses a used bullet as a charm, Bond needing to go to the pharmacy to get the charm out (Ty for not showing or detailing anything else), Scaramanga sleeping with Andrea so he can be energized(?) before assassinating someone, Roger Moore sporting a deliberate fake third nipple, Bond fighting with sumo wrestlers and giving one a wedgie (graphically portrayed), J. W. Pepper, Bond sleeping with Andrea while Goodnight is still in the closet, Scaramanga stroking Andrea with his Golden Gun, a henchman who I'm pretty sure was about to rape a bikini clad Agent Goodnight and of course stuffing a midget into a case.
The ONLY thing that I even like about the film is the Golden Gun itself. It's such a cool idea in both form and execution, and it was my favorite game mode in Goldeneye 64. I loved it so much I actually bought the signature edition from Factory Entertainment. Ty Factory Entertainment!
Now onto "A View to a Kill". Is it as bad as everyone says it is? I frankly don't give a dang about old actors in action parts, so we'll see.
The ONLY thing that I even like about the film is the Golden Gun itself. It's such a cool idea in both form and execution, and it was my favorite game mode in Goldeneye 64. I loved it so much I actually bought the signature edition from Factory Entertainment. Ty Factory Entertainment!
Now onto "A View to a Kill". Is it as bad as everyone says it is? I frankly don't give a dang about old actors in action parts, so we'll see.
- Status
