A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Friday, June 10, 2005

Bond, James Bond

Watched part of For Your Eyes Only and was struck quite solidly by how much Roger Moore sucked as Bond. Sean Connery, as many having noted, simply was the quintessential Bond. Pierce Brosnan brings enough panache and understated coolness to be a pretty darn good Bond. Even Timothy Dalton brought a lot of intensity to the role, and made the License to Kill aspect of Bond intriguing. Moore just sucks.

He is stiff, he is unbelievable, and the whole time he is on the screen, his character just tries WAY too hard to try to be cool. Thus failing utterly to be so. Moore is also curiously effiminate, which has to be the ultimate no-no for anybody playing James Bond. In one scene, Bond is reclining at the beachside house of Countess Lisl, in Greece. She's wearing a translucent wrap, he's wearing a robe. First problem, she's getting the champagne for them both while he watches-- Bond was nothing if not a gentleman, or, if you prefer, a chauvanist. No way he lets the girl get the drinks.

Even more egregious, though, is the way Moore is lying there waiting for the girl to bring him his drink. He's on his side, head on his hand, and he looks like he's at a photo shoot. Then he starts rubbing one foot up his other leg. ICKY! His pose, his actions-- they are all feminine. Of course, Moore was handicapped by the late-70s, early 80s sensibilities of disco, Ziggy Stardust, and the like, but still-- this is James Bond!

Moore is also handicapped by the horrible late 70s/early 80s film-making style that drags out nearly every scene long beyond necessary, thus often rendering even good films from this era, for example, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, difficult to watch or prime candidates for the fast forward button. Above and beyond all that, however, Moore just sucked.
I don’t think you’re quite defining the Moore Bond. He didn’t, ‘suck’, as you say, rather, he was playing it like he was too good for the role. He was almost condescending to be James Bond. A smirking elitist, you might say. I liked him in the role, but he appeared one too many times in it.

Connery played Bond as the alpha male. He was a chauvinist, he was a drinker, he could and would beat the flip out of anybody. If he wanted a gal, he took her. Connery always led, always called the shots. He was, is, and probably always will be the best Bond. But boy, I don’t think you could play it like that nowadays.

Lazenby was a hunk of beef. One movie and out.

Dalton just sucked. He was washed out and undefined, no color at all.

Brosnen plays a dark Bond, a spy who has lost the joy of the job that Connery and Moore had, but knows the job still needs to be done. This is a perfect progression for the character. Brosnen is clearly the second-best Bond, and I hope he makes one or two more at least.
I think I defined the Moore Bond pretty clearly. If you prefer, I'll change it to "Sucked out loud." The Moore flicks were not only not as good as the Connery flicks when they were released, they have aged terribly. Though I do agree that Moore played Bond as if he were too good for the role.
The thing is with Roger Moore; he put his own stamp on the role. He veered away from Connery (a wise move, no one can be Connery, not even Connery :->) and created his own James Bond. That makes him a half-way decent actor. Dalton and Lazenby did not accomplish that.

How’d you like to follow Connery? It’d be like being the number one draft pick the year Michael Jordan retires, you’re never going to measure up.

Heck, I still find the Moore Bond lots of fun to watch. Also, Octopussy was the only time Q went into the field. That has to count for something.
Well, to each his own. I find the Moore films tedious and nearly impossible to watch. Well, Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. I haven't seen any of the others in a long time.

But on to more important things-- who are your top 25 most beautiful movie stars?
I think Brosnan is definitely a better Bond than Moore, but I think the writing of the Moore movies was much better than the writing for Brosnan's films. They're just plain stupid IMHO.
By the way that was me. Keep forgetting to register. Sigh. -C.
I don't see how you can blame Moore for not getting the drinks. This was fiction, Moore didn't have a choice of getting the drinks or not - it was written down in the script and he did what the script read. I do agree with Connery as #1 and Brosnan as #2.
You can say what you like about Roger Moore

Back in the day (like, 25-30 years ago) i thought he was, like, totally hot. to die for

that, and pierce brosnan is really (looks wise, anyways, which i understand you hetero males cant wrap your head around) a younger roger moore. I thought he was cuter in 'remington steele', again, back in the day- but then it might have been the chest rug in the last movie that turned me off

Will agree with Nick on one thing-
Sean Connery, with his english/scottish accent and his ironic presentation (not quite harrison ford in the original Indiana Jones, but up there) is the quintessential Bond. Even if he *is* older than my dad - and me being Over the Hill (even older than *gasp* Demi Moore ;-P)

I think maybe the problem with the last Bond movie (AFAIK the last) was that Halle Berry hogged the limelight with James Bond. Oh, for the day that Bond Girls 'Knew their Place'

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (feminist aside ;-)

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?