Thursday, February 28, 2013

Questionable Bond No. 1

Bond, James Bond. The most important thing in any Bond film is James Bond. And not every actor can do it.

Question: "Rank the Bond Actors."

Scott's Answer:
1. Connery
2. Brosnan
3. Craig
4. Moore
5. Dalton
6. Lazenby
I want to be clear that I like them all. Connery is the man - no doubt about that. My first theatrical Bond experience was GoldenEye so I guess it’s only natural that I would rank Brosnan higher than other people might. The problem is that he got better while his films got worse. I enjoy the hell out of Craig but one wonders what he could do if the producers wanted to go in another direction (i.e. less "edgy"). I like Moore but The Man with the Golden Gun is my least favorite Bond film and I think he stayed on for one film too many. The one actor whose Bond films I enjoy in toto (probably because he only did two) is Dalton. Yes, I like License to Kill. For a first-time actor, Lazenby wasn’t too bad. Unfortunately, he didn’t want to do any more Bond films so we’ll never know how good he could’ve been.

Andrew's Answer:
1. Connery
2. Craig
3. Brosnan
4. Moore
5. Lazenby
6. Dalton
Connery is obvious. Craig has really won me over and has proven to be an excellent Bond. Then it drops off a lot. At one point, I would have ranked Moore next, but in hindsight, his films really just get worse and worse. Brosnan was a better Remington Steele, but he’s solid as Bond. Lazenby was just too flat. And Dalton? Yeah. Bad choice, bad films.


Dave Olson said...

I hate to do this, because I think people pine for him for hipster nostalgia reasons, but Connery has to be at the top. Not because he was a great actor; he became a much better actor after Bond. And not because the stories were better; 50 years on and Goldfinger looks ridiculous to modern eyes. I list Connery first because I pine for the era of Connery as Bond. The other day I was watching "Die Another Day" (because I hate myself and to prove it I sometimes force myself to watch bad movies; my life is MST3K by choice but without the robots). Brosnan's Bond sent everyone out after he discovered the Chinese snoops, including Post-Coital Afterglow (or whatever the hell the masseuse's name was). Connery would have grabbed her by the arm and said "Not yet." Then once everybody left he would have started unbuttoning his shirt and told her to give him a massage. Got that? Not ask for one, demand one. He was a man's man, from a time when that meant more than just coldly shooting his targets.

Craig is an easy pick for second place as the true heir to the throne. Or, in this case, the driver's seat of the Aston Martin DB5. Craig became Bond in the first 5 minutes of Casino Royale with just two words: "Yes, considerably." I got chills just typing that.

Dalton doesn't get the credit he deserves. I think he had a lot of potential that was unrealized. Living Daylights was written with Moore in mind, and the writers of the day didn't seem to know how Bond fit into a world where the cold war was in its death throes. And License to Kill was probably too far ahead of its time with a dark take on 007. Wayne Newton as a henchman didn't help matters much.

Brosnan is next, coasting on all the goodwill he built up with the excellent job he did in Goldeneye. The next two films were OK, but the aforementioned Die Some Other Time (I think) was pretty bad. So Brosnan gets points for bailing early, unlike...

Moore, who had two good outings as Bond: The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only. His other outings were not good at all, and he was too foppish and prissy to be believable as a spy. And he was just too damned old to be believable in View to a Kill.

This leaves the poor, lamented Lazenby to suck at the hind teat. Who knows, he may have grown into the role, as OHMSS was arguably a better film than Diamonds are Forever.

AndrewPrice said...

Dave, my life is MST3K by choice but without the robots LOL! Nice.

When I was growing up, I thought Moore was great. But I very quickly discovered that his films didn't hold up to repeated viewing. Then I began to see all the flaws and I was amazed how much I had forgiven as a child. By now, it's pretty clear that Moore is exactly what you describe. In fact, there are time I have to wonder if he wasn't gay because he really does not come across as liking women.

On Craig, it's amazing to me how quickly he's won the public over. I think they really did a great job picking him.

On Lazenby, I really don't dislike him and I think that he could have been a good Bond if he hadn't been so stiff. I also think that he benefited from a rather solid story until the very end.

K said...

Lazenby wasn't an actor, he was a male model - that's why he was so stiff. Plus, they played him a dirty trick by making the character self aware e.g.- "..that never happened to the other fellow" line. Because of that, the OHMSS story was the worse place in all the Fleming Bond stories to change actors. You have to feel for the James Bond character in losing his only real love but - hey, that's not really James Bond up on the screen.

AndrewPrice said...

K, In a way, I think they got lucky that Lazenby was the guy who was in the role when he got married and she got killed because it makes it very easy to not think of Bond as married in any of the other versions. In fact, when they mention it in one of the later Bond films, it takes a moment even to realize what they're talking about because it just doesn't fit with the character.

Tennessee Jed said...

For what it is worth, I agree with Dave. The character of James Bond is probably more about the visual than the verbal. I believe that the Bond of Fleming's stories was not particularly a witty wisecracker. That is something that probably developed in the first screenplay, and became de rigor for the role.

Most people, myself included, had very little, if any, experience with Bond before Dr. No hit the big screen. That same year, President Kennedy insured the Bond craze by telling reporters "From Russia With Love" was his favorite summer read. If Fleming is honest, of course, his mental image for Bond was himself as a young man. He claimed he thought Bond looked something like "Hoagy Carmichael" who actually did look a bit like Fleming.

Now those of us who had seen Tarzan's Greatest Adventure or Darby O'Gill & the Little People had actually SEEN Connery before, but we are lying if we pretend we remember him. That leaves us of our first full look at James Bond, in a tux at the chemin du Fer table in Dr. No. Perfect, he becomes the perfect vision of Bond for those of us old enough to have seen it during it's original theatrical release. Anybody else, however good or bad, becomes somebody else "playing" Bond.

Lazenby - it's a good Bond film, but are you kidding me? It was fun to see him in Gettysburg as General Pettigrew, however.

Roger Moore got the dapper part right, but was not cruel enough or tough enough for me.

Brosnan saved the franchise. Not as credible as a tough guy as Connery, butbetter than Moore. Like the others who lasted a while, he did get too old.

Tim Daulton - He could have worked, but he just didn't. Got some weak scripts.

Daniel Craig - he gets the tough guy part down great, but doesn't have the savor f'aire piece as well balanced as Connery.

Understand, I am strictly talking about the actors as the character, not about the overall quality of films. Sure Goldfinger is almost l.o.l. funny at the end. So here we go:

1) Connery 2Connery 3) Brosnan 4) Craig 5) Lazenby & Daulton (get out of here, I don't want to have to even look at you. 5) Moore (I'll never forgive you for Jaws, and playing Bond when you look like your 75 yrs. old.)

tryanmax said...

Oh, this takes me back! Back to November 20, 2011, to be precise. ;-) But time changes all and I've re-ranked the Bonds since then:

1. Connery
1. Craig (tie)
3. Dalton
4. Early Moore
5. Brosnan (there's too much missed Remington Steele opportunity for me to bring him any higher)
6. Late Moore

I still haven't seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service so I still can’t rate Lazenby.

rlaWTX said...

spam and onions for lunch?

anyway... Since I have already admitted to not having seen most Bond movies, I will go with:
[1] Craig (yum)
[2] Connery [very nice]
[3] Brosnan (I had a preteen crush on RSteele - nothing to do with his Bond version)
[4] Moore [because I actually know who he is]
[5] those other guys

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think there's something more to Connery than just being first. My first two Bond films were Moore films, but once I saw Dr. No it was obvious to me that Connery WAS Bond.

On the later guys, I think Craig comes incredibly close to Connery overall. His scripts are a bit darker, but I think that gives the films additional punch which offsets his lack of humor -- something Connery did very well and the others have done poorly. I agree about Brosnan saving the franchise, but his scripts ultimately failed him. Bronsan in Craig's scripts would easily have rivaled Connery.

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, Excellent criteria. LOL!

Yes, we've been under constant spam attack lately.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, All the way back to November 2011 huh? LOL!

It's interesting that a couple years ago I never would have listed Craig as anywhere near Connery, but I think he's very close. I don't put them at a tie yet, but I think he's close.

I don't have favorable view of Dalton at all -- bad scripts, bad concept (a supposedly darker Bond who isn't even as dark as most other films at the time), and an actor who played the role the same way he played Prince Baron from Flash Gordon.

Anonymous said...

1) Connery and Craig: because they best portray the character in the books. Also Thunderball, From Russia with Love, Casino Royale and Skyfall are fine movies.

2) Lazenby: like Connery's and Craig's Bond, he is tough. Interestingly, he is also believably frightened when Bond should be frightened. He also has the benefit of being in the best pre-Casino Royale Bond movie. He benefits from not being forced to use any silly gadgets. He simply beats people up in some very good fight scenes.

3) Dalton: He is also a tough bond, like the Bond in the books. Problem is that his movies were not particularly good. License to Kill was especially stupid, though I haven't seen it in 20 years or so. I actually think The Living Daylights is not half bad.

4) Moore: I liked him and his movies as a kid. However, that is the opinion of a kid. As an adult, his prissy character and silly movies are awful.

5)Brosnan: Whereas Moore intentionally acted prissy and unserious, Brosnan ranks last because he was naturally prissy but tried to convince the audience that he was cold blooded. It didn't work. His bad tough guy act wasn't good enough to conceal his natural prissy-ness.

Tennessee Jed said...

Andrew - that is a kind of interesting way to think of it. "What if each of these actors could be cast (in their prime) in From Russia With Love, Golden Eye, Casino Royale, etc.?" How might they have handled the role differently. Well, we have clues of course. And my main point, was it's not so much about any of their acting chops as it's about the overall image each projects of "being bond." Cruel, yet gentle enough to kid around with Moss Moneypenny. I am probably being a tad harsh on poor Tim Dalton. The reason is, not too long ago, I saw him as a young, blonde, gay fop in Mary Queen of Scots. After having to endure that, I could never again even imagine him as Bond.

Tennessee Jed said...

Anonymous - are you saying Connery could knock the crap out of Brosnan and Moore together? I'd say yes, ... yes you are. "alright, Trebec, I'll take a pen is mightier for $500.)

AndrewPrice said...

Anon, I agree about Lazenby. I thought he was very stiff, BUT he had a good story and they handled the character well -- more cold-blooded, few gadgets. And I thought the romance was well handled too -- much better than usual. OHMSS is a much better film than it normally gets credit for being.

On Brosnan, I think the problem for Brosnan was that they tried to force the idea of monogamy and "inner-doubt" upon him. I remember them saying they wanted the character to appeal more to women. I think that hurt him.

Moore is beyond a doubt prissy, especially as he got older. Looking back on the films now, it's kind of shocking up not-tough he was in his later movies.

BIG MO said...

(no love for Allen, as in Woody Allen? :)

Pretty much agree with the sentiments. I really liked Brosnan as Bond, but after GoldenEye, the scripts never matched the potential. And I would watch Roger Moore’s hokiest Bond before seeing Die Another Dayzzzzz.

As for Moore, he did have some really great outings, namely The Spy Who Loved Me and For Your Eyes Only, plus my favorite “fun” Bond, To Live and Let Die.

And you have to admit, though, where would Austin Powers be without Moonraker?

By the way, did anyone see the most recent Castle? Turns out what made him want to become a murder mystery writer was a gift by his father when he was 10: A copy of Casino Royale.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I don't think Dalton is a good actor, honestly. He plays the same character in everything he does and the character is better suited to melodrama than other genres.

AndrewPrice said...

Big Mo, Moore had some good outings with Live and Let Die being the best IMO.

As an aside, I wonder how much Austin Powers resulted in Craig being chosen as the next Bond -- to be more brutal and to avoid all the stuff that was ridiculed before?

K said...

Andrew:but once I saw Dr. No it was obvious to me that Connery WAS Bond.

Yeah, the scene where Bond unemotionally shoots the unarmed professor Dent in cold blood (after Dent empties his magazine into a lump he thinks is Bond) sealed the deal for me.

Let's just say it's a good thing that it was Cubbie Broccoli and not George Lucas who was honcho-ing the franchise.

AndrewPrice said...

K, That is my favorite moment of ALL the Bond films. That one moment defines the character to me. Everything about that scene is perfect.

I couldn't imagine Lucas doing a Bond films. Talk about a nightmare. Unarmed Bond... wearing a duck suit... with a kid for a sidekick.

BIG MO said...

Andrew - ... with a short, green, pointy-eared "M" renamed "Y," and fighting the evil forces of Darth Blofeld. Just think of the possibilities Lucas could create around "Messa called Binks. Jar-Jar Binks."

5minutes said...

I'm going to get creamed here, but...

Craig: I feel that Craig really gets Bond, moreso than any other actor before him. He's able to capture the humanity of Bond while maintaining the charade of the suave sophisticate and deadly agent. Casino Royale gave us the early, inexperienced, slightly unsure Bond. Skyfall gave us the shaken orphan desperately trying to protect his mother figure. Even in the fairly underwhelming Quantum of Solace, Craig was as solid as they come.

PS: My favorite scene in all of his movies is the one in Casino Royale where Vesper's in the shower, terrified, and he - in a VERY un-Bond-like moment - warms the water and consoles her. A complex batch of emotions and storytelling told so simply...

Dalton: I know it's going against the flow, but I LIKED Timothy Dalton. A lot, actually. He's more mechanical and emotionless than the other Bonds, but it's so much closer to the original version of Bond than any of the others that I've got to give him cred. I think his ranking is somewhat hampered by the fact that he did one good and one bad movie - and that bad movie was really bad, even though he wasn't.

Connery: I know, I ranked him 2 positions lower than everyone else and so I can't be a trooooooooo Bond fan. Well, I don't care. Connery was the standard, but after Thunderball, his performances became more and more tired. By the time Diamonds Are Forever rolled around, he was as cheesy as Roger Moore. And we shall never speak of Never Say Never Again again. Don't get me wrong - I like Sean Connery in the role - I just think he grew bored with the role, and it showed.

Brosnan: Brosnan was fun and made Bond seem very self-aware of the in-jokes of the Bond world. Everything was a wink and a grin and brought very little real depth to the character. While I enjoyed 3 out of 4 of the movies, he's moved significantly down in the rankings for me as I've gotten older.

Moore: Roger Moore was a clown who finally got to look the part by the time OP rolled around. His best films are the ones where his comedy is kept to a minimum.

Lazenby: He never had a chance. His one movie was solid, but Lazenby has the acting chops of your average side of beef. I'm sure I'd be gentler if he'd had more shots at the role, but he ended up screwing himself out of those.

AndrewPrice said...

Big Mo, Forget the volcano lair, we're talking Death Star.

Ug. This hurts my head.

AndrewPrice said...

5Minutes, Other than the Dalton stuff, I don't disagree with you. I really see nothing good in Dalton. Moore's best movies were definitely those with the least clown in them. Connery is awesome in my book, but I agree that Diamonds Are Forever is almost a parody of the original films. (I don't count Never Say Never Again as a Bond film.)

Anonymous said...

I know I answered above but I'm going to elaborate:

1. Connery - yeah, he set the bar by which all subsequent Bond actors will be judged. It also helps that he had a great script, a great director (Terrence Young) who took him under his wing, and... NO EXPECTATIONS! Like a few people said above, it'd be interesting to see the other actors "plugged into", say, From Russia with Love. I have no doubt Daniel Craig could do it. Moore? Probably not.

2. Brosnan - Bond was off the screen for six years (though Michael Wilson did work on a script for Dalton in the early 90s but it didn't pan out). For those of us who grew up in the 80s and were only vaguely aware of this "James Bond" character, it was a revelation! "Oh, so that's what it's about!" I was 12 - perfect age to be initiated into the club, so to speak. The guns, the gadgets, the women... GoldenEye is and always will be a favorite for nostalgic reasons (and because it's a good movie).

And then Brosnan's subsequent films went downhill. I watched Tomorrow Never Dies recently and it's... okay, I guess. But nothing special, though the car chase in the parking garage is a classic.

It's a shame he went out on a low note - Brosnan deserved one more chance IMHO and, ironically, Skyfall - despite its flaws - would've made a great exit for him.

3. Craig - I'm biased, because I was temping at MGM when this film was released and my fellow temps got to see the film in a theater all to ourselves (long story)! Seriously, the three of us were all alone in this giant room! I became a fan of Craig as Bond before the title sequence...

...however, one wonders what he could do with something lighter. Dalton's films were darker, Moore's films were lighter, etc. and I think this affects our perception of the actors. Could Craig do lighter? I doubt it. Does that mean he's a bad actor? I don't think so. (I'm rambling here.)

Anonymous said...


4. Moore - if Moore left two films earlier, I think he'd be remembered in a much more positive light. But he also couldn't do dark and in his first couple of movies when they had him handling women the way Connery would, it didn't feel right. Moore's other problem was the humor - I suppose there's a right way and a wrong way to do humor in a Bond film but his films are the worst in that regard. And The Man with the Golden Gun is my least favorite Bond, period.

5. Dalton - okay, maybe I haven't seen him in enough stuff but I like the guy as an actor. He takes his craft seriously and maybe he took Bond a little too seriously, but I won't hold that against him. I'm a fan of The Living Daylights and, even though it's more Joel Silver than Cubby Brocolli, I even like Licence to Kill.

Perhaps Dalton was the right Bond at the wrong time - things were getting more PC, people were starting to question Bond's various sexual exploits (AIDS was the big issue back then - there's a reason his Bond only gets one woman per film instead of two), and the wall was only a year or two from coming down. If Dalton were Bond now (but younger, obviously), the audience might appreciate him more.

6. Lazenby - as K said above, he wasn't an actor and he basically bullshitted his way through the process. He wasn't terrible and I'm glad to see his film get more respect as the years pass, but he made a fatal mistake and listened to people who were convinced Bond was in the past. (This was the time of Easy Rider and hippies, after all).

AndrewPrice said...

Sorry folks, the word verification will need to stay on for a while. The spammers are back.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I like the test about could these guys do From Russia With Love. If you think about it, I think you'll find that Connery could obviously, Craig definitely. I'm 99% sure Brosnan could do it. And I'm 80% sure Lazenby could do it, even if he would have been a little stiff. More most definitely could not have done it, not in any way shape of form -- no one would have bought him in the role. As for Dalton, I think he could have made the film, but I don't think he would have been well received. He would have been out-of-place and felt forced in the role. People wouldn't laugh him off the screen like they would Moore, but they wouldn't have liked him in the role.

shawn said...

I rate my Bonds as
Connery- the one and only.
Craig- looking good so far.
Brosnan- better than the material he had.
Dalton- Underappreciated.
Moore- stayed too long and got too silly.
Lazeby- should have rode it out longer, could have grown into the role.

Also wanted to throw out a thank you to Andrew for recommending Triangle. I finally got around to seeing it and really enjoyed it. I was sure about the ending with about 15 minutes left and was pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

Tennessee Jed said...

congratulations everyone. I think there were a lot of really well thought out comments on this one. Leave it to good old Bond.

Anonymous said...

Jed -

There are many more Questionable Bonds where this came from. Let's hope future discussions are as well-thought out. :-)

Dave Olson said...

Yes, Moore stayed on two films too long. He should have gone out on top (not Onatopp) with FYEO. View to a Kill was just plain silly, with blimp chases and driving half a car through Paris. However, Octopussy is not as bad as people remember. OK, the pre-credits scene was rather pointless, and Moore's facial crags were getting a bit too pronounced, but it had two very strong points in its favour: (see what I did there?)

1) The plot. No under-volcano secret lairs and no silly walks in space. This was written and released when the Cold War was at its frostiest. And one of the main baddies has a plan that is not megalomaniacal, it's Machiavellian as all hell: Blow up a nuke in the middle of a US airbase in (West) Germany, blame it on the Americans, force them out of Europe, and then let the Soviet Union stretch from sea to shining sea, so to speak. If it weren't for all the Moore-era silliness, such as swinging through the jungle with a Tarzan yell and dressing up as a clown, General Orlov's plot would be remembered as the best scheme since Auric Goldfinger's "Grand Slam".

2)The eye candy, and not just the lovely Maud Adams. She runs an island filled with women wearing Lycra and spandex. It's a film near and dear to the heart of any viewer with an appreciation for camel toes.

PikeBishop said...

As someone who grew up in the 70s and only knew Moore films, plus chopped up Connery Bonds on newtwork tv, I have to add to the "Boy did the Moore films go down hill" chorus.

His zenith is "The Spy Who Loved Me" which features one of the few cold-blooded tough guy moves of Moore, the "Where's Fekish?" scene, where he flips the tie and lets the henchman fall to his death from the roof. Watched it recently and just have to add, my God was Barbara Bach awful. Insanely hot to look at but couldn't act. I guess my twelve year old erection (Metaphorically of course) clouding my view of the screen also led to the inability to judge talent.

I think Moore's best film was the much more down to Earth and grounded "For Your Eyes Only." He visits Teresa's grave, even getting blessed by a priest as he leaves. He later refuses an easy score with the young skater.

Anonymous said...

Dave -

I need to see Octopussy again - it's been a while. Steven Berkoff, though, is always fun to watch, especially when he cranks it up to 11 (which would be most of the time). :-)

Anonymous said...

Pike -

I thought Barbara Bach was okay but it was smart of the writers to add that subplot (Bond killing her lover at the beginning which would have to pay off at the end).

I was biased against For Your Eyes Only for a while only because, any time there was a Bond movie marathon, this particular one ALWAYS seemed to be on whenever I turned on the TV. It got old after a while... but that was years ago and I've since come around. :-)

The visit to Teresa's grave was a nice nod to continuity.

AndrewPrice said...

Shawn, You're welcome! Always glad to let people know about great films I encounter and I thought that one was really inspired -- especially compared to what I was expecting.

As for the ending, yeah, I was impressed. That's a heck of a dramatic ending!

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I agree. I'm glad to hear that people are enjoying the series. I guess we'll see if that continues as we keep going through the rankings.

AndrewPrice said...

Dave, I do like For Your Eyes Only a lot and Octopussy was good too, but even in those films, Moore was already getting too old. In the scenes with the young skater, he seems more like an uncomfortable grandfather than a secret agent.

AndrewPrice said...

PikeBishop, I tend to see Moore's high point as Live and Let Die and the rest is a slow downward spiral with a few positive bumps. For Your Eyes Only and Spy Who Loved Me were positives, but both has bad elements that should have been stripped out.

Backthrow said...

1.) Connery - still the gold standard, at least in the first four films, then he started to get bored, as the films started their turn towards the silly (begun in some aspects of GOLDFINGER, but that was silliness done correctly). And, even though YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was a mess, and a bored Connery wanted out, it's still a fun watch. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is pretty borderline, though.

2.) Craig - I've yet to see SKYFALL, which I should remedy in a couple of weeks, but he nailed it with CASINO ROYALE, and was fine in QUANTUM OF SOLACE (despite its flaws).

3.) Lazenby - inexperienced, a bit stiff/flat at times, but very convincing in action scenes, and actually performs the vulnerable, emotional moments quite well, and overall he does a decent job, I think. I'm not relegating him to the bottom of the list just because he only did one film, as I think it happens to be one of the very best in the series, and he didn't screw it up. Too bad he took bad advice off-screen, as I'd have liked to see him continue as Bond into the 1970s.

4.) Dalton - I actually don't mind Dalton, or his two films (both have equal measures of good and bad in them, so I'd put them in the middle of the pack of ranking the series), that much... but his Bond is wound a bit too tight, and he pretty much does play characters the same from role to role, whether he's Bond, Prince Baron, the Nazi-sympathizing actor in THE ROCKETEER, etc.

5.) Brosnan - He okay. A bit lightweight... able to pull off some toughness convincingly, but not always. I always get the feeling that he's trying to be all-Bonds-to-all-people hybrid 007, some Connery here, some Moore there, maybe even a little Lazenby or Dalton. This was probably caused as much by the producers as the actor himself, as he was a better Bond in THOMAS CROWN and THE MATADOR than he ever was in the series. His best was GOLDENEYE, but I still have some problems with it, and each subsequent film was another step down, or else he might've ranked higher for me here. He's neck-and-neck with Dalton, really.

6.) Moore - way too light, urbane and clownish. His best were THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (about as good as a silly, disco-era Bond film can be) and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (which still has some problems), but even his coldest moment in the latter, kicking the car off the cliff, doesn't have a fraction of the impact it might if any of the others were playing the part.

AndrewPrice said...

Backthrow, Let me second what you say about Brosnan being a better Bond in some of his other roles. It was mentioned above, but the reason he seemed so perfect was Remington Steele, but then he didn't bring what he brought to that role to Bond. He could have done it, as you see in Thomas Crown, but for whatever reason they stripped out key parts of him when he did Bond.

On Moore, I can't think of a single moment where I actually believed Moore was a killer. And do you know a moment that actually made me laugh out loud? When he's seducing the black chick (can't remember he name, sorry) in the field after their picnic in Live And Let Die and he finally reveals that he knows she's a double agent, he points his gun at her and threatens her... but there is no believability in how he points the gun at her -- it's foppish, it just doesn't feel like anyway a real killer would hold a gun. That was a bad sign for things to come.

PikeBishop said...

Andrew : the actress was Blaxploitation veteran Gloria Hendry.

AndrewPrice said...

PikeBishop, That's her (I couldn't remember and I was too lazy to look it up). That scene really strikes me as something wrong with Moore. There is no menace whatsoever in how he's threatening her. It's like knew he was holding a squirt gun or something.

Post a Comment