Lotus666
06-08-09, 09:29 PM
Yet another review from The Zbu - circa 2004...
Classic Movie Review: "Live and Let Die."
It's hard to see at this late date how close the Bond films came to being shitcanned. As a cinematic institution--or that's what United Artists and MGM want us to believe--the Bond films seem indestructable. Ever since Goldeneye showed that, yes, we can still believe a British Secret Agent can fill a theater outside of the UK, the faith has been renewed in Ian Fleming's favorite agent.
But in reality, the '70s were not kind of James Bond. After Connery bolted the role after 'You Only Live Twice' and deserted a role that would have given him quite a dramatic edge in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' (better known as The One Where Bond Gets Married And She Dies), the future of James Bond was put into considerable doubt. Many believed that Connery was Bond as well as the definitive one. How could the series go on without him?
Many don't give Roger Moore enough credit. While he was the first choice by Fleming himself to be Bond, it's also ignored that Moore (the longest serving Bond if you ignore Never Say Never Again) lead the series through its most turbulent times. Moore is often associated with goofing up the role of Bond by making him more lighthearted, yet they never give him credit for landing two underfunded Bond films and somehow making the agent a more three-dimensional character by the use of humor in amounts. It's hard to say that some of the '70s Bond films are lighter than the darker and more tense Connery ones, it's quite easy to ignore that regardless the change in actor the films would have changed as well, and Connery's Bond would have made that change much more jarring.
Today's subject is Roger Moore's first outing as Bond and honestly, not his best. While he's still gripping for the role (and sadly, seems to be jammed into a Connery mindset by conning the baddie's fortune telling squeeze into bed with the use of a marked Solitaire deck and holding a gun to a leak's head to either obey his commands or go against her Voodoo heritage at her own peril), he does a fine job considering what he has. Honestly, this has to be the worst looking Bond film of the lot: whatever isn't in grimy New York brightened by overly flamboyant blaxpoitation costuming is in a scummy third-world looking paradise or even in New Orleans and making that bland as well. Never before as a film been hurt by brown polyester and (hopefully) bad film stock as this film. The apparent lack of funding due to the change in lead role is even more apparent during the climatic runaway car sequence in which Bond tries to steer a car on a highway that is driving the exact same model of car as he's in: all cheap big ass American Cadillacs. You would think at least being a Bond film they could throw in a bit of variety to mask the cheapness of getting the same model of disposable car. Being in America is no excuse: the previous film Diamonds are Forever at least had the style to pony up for a Mustang Mach 1.
So what saves this film? Talented actors, to start: Jane Seymour, the always excellent Yaphet Kotto as the villain, Julius Harris as Tee Hee the Neglected Bond supervillain--seriously, why isn't he given his due? He's a giant bald dude with a fully articulate metal arm with a claw at the end. Yet Harve Villachaise's Nick Nack is more remembered than him!! But seriously, these people make the film's premise seem believable. Compared to the relative obscurity of the other actors of the Moore Era (okay, exempting Chris Lee and Harve), this is as good as it gets. And it makes the relative cheapness of the movie seem a bit less.
But what this movie brings to the Bond table is a full-blown chase sequence featuring speedboats, pretty risky stunts, and the Louisiana bayou setting. Even today you have to admire what it took to make this stunt sequence. While it's not as dramatic as the invasion sequences of Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, it's quite neat in its own right. In fact, I'm hoping that most of the money for the film went for this: if it did, it was an uneasy payoff but a fulfilling one. Truly one of the best of its ilk and horribly trend setting, as these sort of sequences (especially under the guise of director Guy Hamilton) basically made the Bond flicks for here on out.
BOTTOM LINE: Imperfect but not Moore's fault. Full of good actors and good performances but the money was either spent on the stunts that made the Bond flicks what they are or just not used to due lack of faith in Connery's departure. While this and Man With the Golden Gun were nearly the end for Bond in movie form, it was Moore again who brought back Bond in his own fashion with the fantastic Spy Who Loved Me.
Rated Three Stop-Pivot-And-Fires Out of Four. The production is cheap but what it holds is not. Big it up for Moore!
Classic Movie Review: "Live and Let Die."
It's hard to see at this late date how close the Bond films came to being shitcanned. As a cinematic institution--or that's what United Artists and MGM want us to believe--the Bond films seem indestructable. Ever since Goldeneye showed that, yes, we can still believe a British Secret Agent can fill a theater outside of the UK, the faith has been renewed in Ian Fleming's favorite agent.
But in reality, the '70s were not kind of James Bond. After Connery bolted the role after 'You Only Live Twice' and deserted a role that would have given him quite a dramatic edge in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' (better known as The One Where Bond Gets Married And She Dies), the future of James Bond was put into considerable doubt. Many believed that Connery was Bond as well as the definitive one. How could the series go on without him?
Many don't give Roger Moore enough credit. While he was the first choice by Fleming himself to be Bond, it's also ignored that Moore (the longest serving Bond if you ignore Never Say Never Again) lead the series through its most turbulent times. Moore is often associated with goofing up the role of Bond by making him more lighthearted, yet they never give him credit for landing two underfunded Bond films and somehow making the agent a more three-dimensional character by the use of humor in amounts. It's hard to say that some of the '70s Bond films are lighter than the darker and more tense Connery ones, it's quite easy to ignore that regardless the change in actor the films would have changed as well, and Connery's Bond would have made that change much more jarring.
Today's subject is Roger Moore's first outing as Bond and honestly, not his best. While he's still gripping for the role (and sadly, seems to be jammed into a Connery mindset by conning the baddie's fortune telling squeeze into bed with the use of a marked Solitaire deck and holding a gun to a leak's head to either obey his commands or go against her Voodoo heritage at her own peril), he does a fine job considering what he has. Honestly, this has to be the worst looking Bond film of the lot: whatever isn't in grimy New York brightened by overly flamboyant blaxpoitation costuming is in a scummy third-world looking paradise or even in New Orleans and making that bland as well. Never before as a film been hurt by brown polyester and (hopefully) bad film stock as this film. The apparent lack of funding due to the change in lead role is even more apparent during the climatic runaway car sequence in which Bond tries to steer a car on a highway that is driving the exact same model of car as he's in: all cheap big ass American Cadillacs. You would think at least being a Bond film they could throw in a bit of variety to mask the cheapness of getting the same model of disposable car. Being in America is no excuse: the previous film Diamonds are Forever at least had the style to pony up for a Mustang Mach 1.
So what saves this film? Talented actors, to start: Jane Seymour, the always excellent Yaphet Kotto as the villain, Julius Harris as Tee Hee the Neglected Bond supervillain--seriously, why isn't he given his due? He's a giant bald dude with a fully articulate metal arm with a claw at the end. Yet Harve Villachaise's Nick Nack is more remembered than him!! But seriously, these people make the film's premise seem believable. Compared to the relative obscurity of the other actors of the Moore Era (okay, exempting Chris Lee and Harve), this is as good as it gets. And it makes the relative cheapness of the movie seem a bit less.
But what this movie brings to the Bond table is a full-blown chase sequence featuring speedboats, pretty risky stunts, and the Louisiana bayou setting. Even today you have to admire what it took to make this stunt sequence. While it's not as dramatic as the invasion sequences of Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice, it's quite neat in its own right. In fact, I'm hoping that most of the money for the film went for this: if it did, it was an uneasy payoff but a fulfilling one. Truly one of the best of its ilk and horribly trend setting, as these sort of sequences (especially under the guise of director Guy Hamilton) basically made the Bond flicks for here on out.
BOTTOM LINE: Imperfect but not Moore's fault. Full of good actors and good performances but the money was either spent on the stunts that made the Bond flicks what they are or just not used to due lack of faith in Connery's departure. While this and Man With the Golden Gun were nearly the end for Bond in movie form, it was Moore again who brought back Bond in his own fashion with the fantastic Spy Who Loved Me.
Rated Three Stop-Pivot-And-Fires Out of Four. The production is cheap but what it holds is not. Big it up for Moore!