Moonraker (1979)

During my foray into the world of James Bond, watching his adventures chronologically from the beginning and seeing the evolution of the series unfold before me while knowing what is to come by the time Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig come along, I have learned a bit about myself. Apparently I am a man who enjoys redheads, a martini without olives, and grit and realism in my 007 movies. I used to think that I liked the outlandish bits of the Bond series but as I've watched them I realize that it's when the films are down-to-earth and not goofy that I find the most enjoyment. It's when the movie winks at us, honking its clown nose while doing a silly jig saying "Look how not-seriously we're taking ourselves! This is such fun!" that I fluctuate between not caring and flipping my television the bird.

You see, there is a fine balancing act that must be done while being outlandish. Don't be mistaken, a film can be over-the-top and still maintain its dignity. Just look at "Goldfinger." That movie is insane. A gold merchant attacks Fort Knox and shoves a nuke in the vault? That's crazy and stupid at the same time. For crying out loud his bodyguard has a hat that can decapitate you. He's got a giant laser and a table with straps that could only exist for the sole purpose of cutting a person in half starting at the groin, clearly possessing it before Bond ever shows up. And he just has it because shut up he does. Is the silliness sinking in yet?

"Scheriously, Goldfinga! Why ish thisch here? Who built it for you? HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU EXSCHECUTE?!?!"

But at the same time, "Goldfinger" was arguably the best the series ever got, and it was taking itself as seriously as a heart attack. It was stone faced despite the absurdity. The only winks Sean Connery gave were to the obnoxiously hot 60's women he was about to sexually assault into loving him. There were zero winks directed at the audience. There were no cheeky segments where the spy caper turned into a Benny Hill skit with zany music. There weren't any goofy sound effects to act like a trombone going "wah-wah-waaaaaah" to remind us we're supposed to be enjoying ourselves and have a good time. Instead, "Goldfinger" let the fun be a byproduct of the action and over-the-topness instead of trying to artificially cram it in by having scenes like James Bond driving a gondola through the streets of Venice while pigeons do a double-take, like we needed constant reminding to enjoy ourselves because we're all stupid.

With that...ugh. Freaking "Moonraker."

I hate this movie so much. So much. No film in the franchise pushes so many of my buttons as this one. It's got Roger Moore, it's overly goofy and campy in that special way that treats us like cats with keys jangling in our faces, the action is stunningly bland, lazy and not edited well at all, the theme song is easily one of the worst of the series, and the main villain is nonthreatening and acts like he's asleep throughout the proceedings. And of course, they're in space.

But why are they in space? There's no reason for them to be in space!

It's pretty common knowledge that the reason that the teaser "James Bond will return in 'For Your Eyes Only'" at the end of the previous film was famously made incorrect by instead having "Moonraker" come next was because of a little movie that came out in 1977 called "Star Wars," the popularity of which convinced the filmmakers to send James Bond into space. And that little factoid is pretty telling of the mindset that seemed to be at work here.

They weren't out to make a good Bond movie with this. They were out to make a Frankenstein monster of everything that people seemed to like, like a movie made entirely by a computer that calculated low common denominator preferences, and damn whether or not it fit the tone of how the series started out. The Bond franchise had become a joke long before this, I am aware of that, but "Moonraker" finally put the last flower on the grave of what used to be its dignity.

Hey check it out. Pressed ham on glass.

This time we find Bond investigating a stolen space shuttle. Before you ask how in the world a space shuttle could go missing, just know that is by far one of the least ridiculous things at work here. His investigation leads him to our villain, Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), a super-rich industrialist who would seem more evil if he weren't so sleepy-eyed and bored sounding. While uncovering Drax's plans, which boils down to "kill everyone on earth and repopulate with my master race," Bond goes around Europe and South America and then finally to Drax's space station, getting captured and escaping more times than I'm pretty sure is psychically possible.

Joining him is Bond girl of the day Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles). Oh I'm sorry - It's DOCTOR Holly Goodhead. There's much to be said about that name, but I guess I can leave it at "Wow." Technically speaking "Pussy Galore" was worse, but that's still pretty egregious. She's alright I suppose, and since she does fly the space shuttle at one point I suppose she's not as useless as Bond girls normally are, but then again since Bond takes over flight duties at the end to save the day because apparently Bond knows how to fly a space shuttle now, I guess useless might indeed be a fitting descriptor for her.

Making history as the only Bond villain to make a return (Blofeld doesn't count since he was like five different actors), Richard Kiel shows up again as the towering henchman, Jaws. This is a good thing since aside from Oddjob he's probably the best side-villain in Bond history. So what do they do in "Moonraker?" Here, he's the comic relief. Yup. The guy who, just one film before, was ripping people's throats out with his teeth is now the subject of goofy gags which have him taking absurd amounts of damage while mugging at the camera like he's Wile E. Coyote. And then he gets a girlfriend and falls in love and becomes a good guy because the filmmakers thought that would be something the audience would like. Ugh.

You're right. Villains shouldn't be bad in action movies. That would be silly.

I think right there is "Moonraker" in a nutshell. They took what was good, or at least passable, and turned it into a mockery of itself. No longer were we allowed to have an explosive, violent, action-packed thrill ride for adults. By the time "Moonraker" came along, the Bond series had turned into a Happy Meal with easily marketable and kid-friendly goofball characters and a little bit of side boob. And this crap had started before Roger Moore had even taken the helm (just look at "Diamonds Are Forever") although he certainly was the first to completely disregard any kind of shame for the character of James Bond.

Speaking of Roger Moore, he's doing his usual hammy schtick here, and I'm so done with it. I don't buy him as Bond, and I never will. And by the time "Moonraker" came about it was clear that this dude is way too old for the role. It was noticeable earlier but by this point it was officially distracting. The rest of the cast is whatever. Michael Lonsdale is one of the least intimidating and most dull villains ever, Lois Chiles is there just to look pretty, and Richard Kiel, like I said, is turned into the missing fourth Stooge. The only person who is kind of compelling is Corinne Clery as the pseudo-Bond girl who gets killed in the first act, a trope which is a requirement of the franchise evidently. But she gets eaten by dogs so I guess that doesn't matter. At least she sold being afraid.

"I'm ever so enraged at Bond foiling my plans. Can't you see the rage on my face? It's palpable."

"Moonraker" has a following, which blows my mind, but I suppose I can understand why. Kind of. The special effects, particularly on the space station, are admittedly pretty good. This is especially so for a 1979 film which isn't even technically a sci-fi film. And while I personally thought the action was tepid and dull, there is an abundance of it, so I'll give it that. Strictly speaking, this is not a dull movie. And the final laser battle in space, as absurd as it is, particularly when one wonders how in the hell the U.S. immediately scrambled the marines into space, is reasonably well-executed and is far better than the strangely similar scene from the climax of "Thunderball."

Pictured above - *Pew* *Pew* *Pew*

However, that abundant action is constantly tainted by the bad comedy. The best bit of the movie, the opening sequence where Bond is thrown from a plane without a parachute (in a scene oddly foreshadowing of "Point Break") is ruined at the very end by Jaws falling into a circus tent while goofy music plays. You know, because clowns are the first thing my mind goes to when I think about James Bond.

Well, I suppose it is now. (Nice rear projection, BTW. Really convincing.)

I am so done with Roger Moore. At least this marks the half-way point for his run as James Bond. And there's nowhere to go but up from here. I don't care what Rotten Tomatoes says: There is no way "A View To A Kill" is worse than "Moonraker." Not possible. It's not in space, it's got a rocking 80's-tastic theme song and it has Christopher Walken. There's no way it won't be an improvement.

Check out the trailer for "Moonraker." If you dare.

THE BOTTOM LINE - In my humble opinion, it's possible that "Moonraker" is the worst Bond film. Ever. It's possible that it's not the worst from a technical level, or even an interest-holding level since I didn't find it as boring as "Thunderball," but terms of eye-rolling and pain it's the reigning champion. I'd rather watch "Austin Powers." And I despise those movies, but at least those had a couple of jokes that worked. This is just painful.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"FOR YOUR EYES ONLY"

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Whereas "The Man With The Golden Gun" was one of the more bi-polar Roger Moore Bond films as far as reception goes, as it was either considered one of the best or one of the weakest depending on whom you asked, the general consensus of its follow-up, "The Spy Who Loved Me," is near universal praise. Most fans and critics consider it Moore's finest outing as far as acting goes, and the actor himself called it his favorite.

To be sure, there are plenty of things about "The Spy Who Loved Me" to enjoy, and like "The Man With The Golden Gun" it's by far an improvement on "Live And Let Die." The sets are frankly stunning, the action is plentiful and reasonably exciting, the end recalls the fantastic climaxes of "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice," and there are some interesting ideas going on with actual character development of the Bond girl.

 It also features the very finest in Shatnerian fight choreography.

Of course those ideas don't pay off and are ultimately unsatisfying and borderline insulting, but later films would do it much better. And while it's unfortunate that those elements failed horribly here, it's nice to see them at least trying something the slightest bit interesting with the Bond girl character, whom is almost always portrayed as an insufferable lump of dumb blandness with a target painted on her butt with the words "INSERT BOND HERE" on the bulls-eye.

I give the film credit for that, and like I said it's still an improvement on the preceding Moore films, but within that statement lies the overlying, inescapable problem: It still stars Roger Moore. And while the man does have his fans, I'll never understand it. Like every Bond movie he did, in "The Spy Who Loved Me" Roger Moore is a boring, stiff cream-puff who gives off the impression that he wouldn't last 3 seconds on "American Gladiators," let alone survive a bullet-riddled pursuit down a mountain while on skis, ending in him leaping off a cliff and parachuting to safety.

Is it even worth it for me to inquire as to how he knew he was going to need that?

I think what I like most about "The Spy Who Loved Me" is the scale of it all. It feels really huge, not only with what is at stake but the sets and locations the characters go to. The villain, Stromberg's huge mobile underwater city Atlantis is an inventive, beautiful set, as well as his massive super-tanker Liparus, which is big enough to swallow 3 submarines. Even the henchmen are gigantic, with Richard Kiel making his first appearance as fan-favorite Jaws. All this makes the film seems more epic like "You Only Live Twice," which had the gigantic base in the crater of a volcano and whatnot.

This was the first Roger Moore Bond film I've seen that I was actually saying to myself "That's cool" on occasion. Atlantis, particularly Stromberg's dining room/lounge with the windows looking out at the water, was a very impressive effect which really did a lot to immerse the viewer in this outlandish underwater base which seemed like something out of "The Abyss." And the famous Esprit that was also a submarine is undoubtedly the coolest Bond car since the Aston Martin from "Goldfinger" - even if leads to one of the stupidest gags in the film.

I hate you, Roger Moore.

It's just too bad the actors couldn't have lived up to the scale of the production. Roger Moore is, as I've said, just as bland and obnoxious as ever, but even the villain played by the venerable Curt Jurgens wasn't very memorable. And it wasn't his fault, really. He's slimy enough I suppose but the fact that he's just a crotchety old ocean enthusiast who built an underwater city and wants to blow up the world because he wants to live under the sea (which he already does anyway) makes him fairly hard to care about. I guess his motivation is to force everyone else to do the same, but he's a loner, so even that doesn't make any sense. You'd think he'd just stay underwater and be content without killing everyone.

I mentioned earlier the Bond girl having some interesting elements going on, and that is true. Barbara Bach plays a Russian spy named Agent Triple X, and right off the bat you can tell that any attempt at depth of character is in the septic tank based on her name alone. Her name itself implies porn. What self respecting country would code name their agents that? Did they make her a secret agent strictly for the purposes of having sex? Was she aware of it? Did she go through spy school and all that intense training, only to be given a name like Triple X and was told "Okay, comrade. Now get to screwing" by her superiors? With a name like that it's hard to think otherwise.

More countries should name their secret agents after what they do. James Bond could be code named Agent Kaboom.

The issue is that we're supposed to believe that Triple X is capable of getting through "The Spy Who Loved Me" without banging James Bond, which, like I said earlier, based on her name is a statistical impossibility. Early in the film Bond kills a Russian agent who we find out was Triple X's lover, and she swears vengeance on whoever did it. During the course of the movie Bond and Triple X are forced to partner up, and when she finds out that Bond was the guy who killed her boyfriend, she professes her hatred of James and promises him that as soon as the mission is over she will take him out.

That is not only a load of rubbish, as her name is Triple X and she's a Bond girl, but it also makes her really stupid as well. Letting a guy like James Bond know that you're going to try and kill him and giving him the exact moment when that promise will go into effect is probably not a wise move. Any normal secret agent would probably put a slug between their eyes immediately after they finished shooting the villain. But since it's James Bond he puts something else of his between something else of hers instead, because he's James Bond and her name is Triple X. And naturally she forgives him for no reason other than that the script requires that every single female on the planet has a clinical need to bang him. I guess that overrides the fact that he killed your boyfriend.

 You can go ahead and attempt to make her a deep character, but you still named her Agent Triple X. We're not buying it.

I think more than anything else that's the biggest problem with what could have been the most interesting element of the film. I do like the idea of Bond and a Russian agent needing to work together despite deep hatred and fist-clenched vengeance perpetually making its presence known, but they really don't do anything with it, mostly forgetting about it with the exception of the scene she swears vengeance on him and the scene at the end where she forgives him out of nowhere. She doesn't even shoot him a nasty look in between or anything. If I didn't know better I'd say she was never more than two seconds away from dry-humping his leg. Then again, it may have been because Barbara Bach was a horrendously bad actress in this.

Despite all of that, I can't be too mad at "The Spy Who Loved Me." It's actually a pretty solid movie, even with Roger Moore and the fact that the title doesn't make any sense since I'm pretty sure James Bond does not love Triple X, nor does Triple X love Bond. I'm not sure that I'd call it his best, but at the very least he's going to cool locations which provide plenty of action beats, giving it a brisk pace and making it not boring. And at least he's not in space. Although I sense utter fear and rage on the horizon for me.

I know I've mentioned this before, but man were trailers bad back in the day. I officially apologize to every fade in/fade out I've complained about. At least it provides a tempo.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Spy Who Loved Me" is close to the best you're going to get as far as the Roger Moore Bond movies go. At the very least it's not dull, although the acting is atrocious and the villains lackluster apart from Jaws, who is lackluster himself but is so huge that his presence makes up for it. One of the only Bond outings starring Roger Moore that I'd say is worth checking out. As we see in the next entry...it got far, far worse.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

MOONRAKER

The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)

1973's "Live And Let Die" was one of the weaker Bond outings, and by far the worst of the "New Guy" debuts. With Roger Moore at the helm, the series sank further into a spiral of comedy that had began some time ago, but had previously been kept above water due to the badassery of Sean Connery and even George Lazenby (yeah you heard me, I said Lazenby). Now with the Earl Grey flavored tofu blandness of Mr. Moore, the series continued as if it were slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) becoming a parody of itself.

Its follow-up, "The Man With The Golden Gun" is something of an enigmatic film, as it seems to be a transitional one. The lack of gadgets and inclusion of a sadistic, depraved psychopath of a villain who gets sexual thrills from killing suggests a darker, more gritty entry. However, at the same time it also features third nipples, the return of Sheriff J.W. Pepper, Bond giving a wedgie to a sumo wrestler, and Tattoo from "Fantasy Island." Oh dear. I sense being annoyed by shifts in tone in my future. It's not full blown comedy yet, but we're getting there.

Why is it that nearly every expression Roger Moore makes can be accompanied by a *BOING* sound effect?

"The Man With The Golden Gun" could have been a really solid entry, and I'm saying that while being a HUGE detractor of Roger Moore. I enjoy the initial setup, which finds Bond taken off of active duty when he finds himself the target of Scaramanga, the world's most infamous assassin and the titular character. While officially off-duty, Bond is given the under-the-table go ahead to find Scaramanga and take him out first, so that Bond can get back to his current mission, which involves a new solar power source which could solve the energy crisis. Eventually and conveniently these two plots meet up in an endgame which may seem somewhat contrived, but it does give Christopher Lee a chance to fire a laser cannon, and that's awesome.

Gentlemen, the contest shall be overly large collars at dawn. May the most starched win.

There are plenty of action beats which are perhaps not quite as good as previous entries including "Live And Let Die," due to the fact that they seem rather lackadaisical and too gentle with the smug creampuff that is Roger Moore, but for what they are they serve their purpose acceptably well and tend to not be boring. The editing may be wanting, as some of the numerous chase sequences had an overall lack of reference as to who was where, and on occasion the film flat-out confuses the audience with "How in the world did he get there?" moments which are never explained, but like I said they serve their purpose just fine. And unlike "Live And Let Die" or "Thunderball," I was not bored stiff by "The Man With The Golden Gun."

Scaramanga is a thankful reprieve from Yaphet Kotto's forgettable Mr. Big from the previous outing, and for the first time since "Goldfinger" we get a memorable bad guy who isn't Blofeld. Naturally when you get Christopher Lee to be your villain its extraordinarily unlikely that he won't be the best thing about the movie, and he unsurprisingly manages to steal the show. The film does keep his debauchery to a PG level, but there are scenes with him that could have come right out of an exploitation flick, and could have gotten really, really raw and kinky had they kept going past the point the camera cut to another scene. Part of me is glad they cut away but another part of me wanted to see it, just so his character was made just that much more twisted.

You know, just to take it from an "Oh man he's going to shoot Bond" level to an "Oh man he's going to shoot Bond and then wear his skin" level.

The thing about Scarmanga that makes him so great as a character is the nonchalant manor in which Christopher Lee plays him. Lee can be super intense when needed, as his turns as Dracula showed us, but in "The Man With The Golden Gun" he overall stays icy calm and detached from the violence that he is inflicting, discussing it like it's a golf outing. Normally this would be a point against a performance but it's clear by looking into his eyes that the reason he's detached is because it's no big deal to him. He'll shoot someone in the face with the same emotion as he would have eating a sandwich. And then he'll have sex with his concubine because death puts him in the mood. It's a role fueled by juxtaposition and subtle fire behind Lee's eyes, and it's really a killer performance by one of the masters.

However, I said earlier that "The Man With The Golden Gun" could have been a really solid entry. The issues come up when discussing the aforementioned shifts in tone. While the film starts off with a very promising first act, once Bond arrives in Thailand posing as Scaramanga himself, it quickly devolves into bizarre territory as Bond is attacked by sumo wrestlers, gets forced into a martial arts contest for some reason, and then goes off on prolonged escape and chase sequences featuring the return of J.W. Pepper, who marks the absolute nadir of the film's ups and downs.

I think Rosco Coltrane and Boss Hogg congealed into a tubby, racist mass.

It's this goofy, cornball crap interjecting itself into what is otherwise a fairly dark story involving some really twisted stuff that makes "The Man With The Golden Gun" not work that well. I can't tell you how frustrating it was for me watching this film because of that reason. There are scenes in "The Man With The Golden Gun" that are outright brilliant, but they are sullied by the bad comic relief.

"I claim this land for Oz!"

A pitch perfect example is a scene where Scaramanga and Bond first meet at a mixed martial arts fight. The scene is brilliantly set when Bond sits down next to Andrea (Maud Adams), Scaramanga's consort who recently sold him out to James, only to find that she's quite dead from a gunshot. Scaramanga then sits down next to Bond and tells him in so many words, "Yeah, I killed her. And I know you tried messing with me. That's cute. Don't do it again or I'll kill you like I killed her." This is also one of the few moments where Roger Moore plays Bond in a halfway acceptable manner, making the scene very intense.

Immediately after that Bond girl Goodnight (Britt Ekland) becomes an offensively useless ditz when she gets her dumb ass captured by Scaramanga, and we get a chase scene where Bond and J.W. Pepper follow him through the streets of Thailand while Pepper shouts shockingly racist epithets which I think are supposed to be humorous. This all culminates in Bond jumping a river via a broken bridge, which spins the car in a spiral complete with a slide whistle sound effect (because that's essential to the stunt), and then the case ends when Scaramanga's car turns into a plane. Then I remember the previous scene of dead-serious coldness and I get sad.

It's just not right without the OOOOOOOOOOOOOOWHOOP!

That's really the biggest issue I have with "The Man With The Golden Gun." There are other things that annoyed me, chief amongst those is a rather anti-climatic end to the final showdown, and the utterly worthless character of Goodnight, who is insufferably dumb and pathetic even for Bond girl standards. Keep in mind this is a character whom Bond locks in a closet for hours so he can have sex with another girl in the same room, but when released she's mostly upset because Bond won't plow her immediately. That's an escalation of both Bond's piggishness and a 37-year setback for women in cinema all in one scene! Good job!

And she's supposed to be a secret agent. That's "Glasses on Tara Reid = Ph.D" level stupid.

The rest of it is middling to okay. Despite Roger Moore still choosing to act like he doesn't give a crap, it's surprising how much millage a film can get from a decent villain. Add to the fact that "The Man With The Golden Gun" is actually a very pretty film, and showcases some fantastic scenery and really cool set designs (I was particularly a fan of a secret base made from a slanted, sunken ship) and you've got a Bond flick that manages to be surprisingly not bad considering all the crap that goes along with it. It's still not anywhere close to the best, but it's far from the worst.

I wish I could have been a movie trailer maker back in the day. I wouldn't have had to give a crap.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Man With The Golden Gun" is one of the better Roger Moore entries. Most of that has to do with Christopher Lee, as he drags the movie kicking and screaming into respectability on occasion. His presence alone is enough to override some of the Roger Moore zaniness, but it's still present, which irritates me to no end. A big step up from "Live And Let Die," however.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"THE SPY WHO LOVED ME"

Live And Let Die (1973)

Ugh. You all don't even know how much I've been dreading this. In my quest to go through the entire Bond filmography, I knew I'd have to suffer through a lot of crap. The Bond films aren't exactly known for consistent excellence. But out of all the things that were weird or wacky or wackily weird about the series, nothing can top the mountain of bizarre WTF-ness that is Roger Moore.

I can't stand the Roger Moore Bond films. I hate the way Moore plays Bond, I hate the way they are crammed to the brim with goofiness and absurd comic relief, and I hate how boring they are. Now granted, as of my writing this entry I have not seen all of them, and apparently I've missed out on some of the better ones, but I'm not holding my breath. And frankly the fact that I've seen four of the Roger Moore Bond movies and am still only about halfway through them since he was Bond SEVEN DAMN TIMES makes me want to punch a llama. And I don't even know why I'd punch a llama. I like llamas. Moore just takes me there I guess.

Whatever. Let's get this started so I can get this over with and get to Timothy Dalton. I'm pretty sure that's the first time that sentence has ever been typed out.

"Live and Let Die" was the first Bond movie made in the 70's, and more than nearly any of the rest of them is clearly a product of its time. In a change of pace from the usual evil villain out to take over the world plot it focuses on drug trafficking, black gangsters and strange voodoo magic, as if Bond wandered on to the set of a blaxplotation movie being filmed across the way and everybody just kind of rolled with it. This has the side effect of, at least for me, making it seem little like a Bond movie past the twenty minute mark. It feels like I'm watching "Shaft." Only here Shaft is pasty, English and far less intimidating.

God, it's like casting Hugh Grant to play Jules Winnfield.

Obviously this was to capitalize on a fad and attempt to boost numbers in the box office, but I can't tell you what an utter shock it is to hear blaxplotation style dialogue being thrown about in a Bond movie. I had to rewind the movie every time somebody called James "honkey" or "cue-ball," just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind. And I think my jaw literally hit the ground when Felix Leiter said "Get me a make on a white pimpmobile!" The levels of bizarre and "does not fit" are off the charts.

"New for 1973 - The Pontiac Pimpmobile. Starting at the low price of $3,000 or 2 kilos of heroin. Test drive one today."

The plot, much like many of the lesser Bond films, is convoluted and overly-long. It involves agents in the Caribbean/Southern US getting killed, and Bond is sent to investigate (much like "Dr. No"). The trail leads him to Kananga (Yaphet Kotto), a dictator of a small island, whom we find out doubles as a drug lord named "Mr. Big." His plan is to distribute a crap-ton of heroin on the streets for free using his chain of restaurants as a front, driving the competition out of business and creating many new addicts in the process. Then he'll charge jacked-up prices for the drugs once that is accomplished and make lots of money.

Doesn't that just scream "James Bond movie?" True, there may be Bond villainy to be found, as Katanga has henchmen, an underground liar complete with a shark tank (!) and has a tenancy to monologue, but he's still just a jumped up drug dealer when you boil it down. And Yaphet Kotto, as intimidating as he can be, isn't really selling the role very well here. He's really low-key and comes across as kind of sleepy most of the time. He doesn't seem like he cares very much, and I'm just not feeling it. And as we all know, any good action flick hinges on its villain. This is particularly true of Bond movies.

Look out, Jane Seymour! It's an evil medicine man! Quick! Get her a medicine...woman?

Even the henchmen aren't very notable. Julius Harris as the hook-handed Tee-Hee serves as kind of a prototype for Jaws, but Richard Kiel this man was not. Like most of the rest of "Live And Let Die," he's just kind of sleepily floating through the thing. And I don't what we are supposed to make of Whisper, the henchmen whose gimmick is that they can't speak above a whisper, since that's clever. What is he going to do, inaudible me to death?

Every once in a while "Live And Let Die" throws in a relatively decent vehicle segment, the most famous being the boat chase through the bayous of Louisiana. And while that bit is alright and more in line with what we're used to with the franchise, at that point we are also introduced to what is one of the more egregious examples of everything that is wrong with the Roger Moore movies...

Mitchell!? NO!!!

I'm not sure why Clifton James is in this movie as Sheriff J.W. Pepper, but his mere presence alone would be enough to make me write off the entire film, even if the rest hadn't been a snore-fest. There are plenty of problems that I have with the Roger Moore series, but the one thing that I can't see fixing any of it is a tobacco chewing, "Where you goin', boy" spouting, goofball redneck sheriff. Once again, it's something that just does not belong in a Bond flick.

Finally, let's talk about Moore himself. The problem with Roger Moore is that he's way too big of a ham, and he doesn't feel the slightest bit intimidating. Connery's smirk was less of a smile and more representative of a wolf getting ready to eat a small animal. Even Lazenby could throw a convincing punch and scowl when he needed to. And let's not even bring up Dalton's cold eyes, Brosnan's sleek physicality or the muscular wrecking ball that is Daniel Craig. But that raised eyebrow of Moore's always makes me feel like he's one step away from tugging at his collar with his finger and going "Nee-uh-uh-uh" like we're watching Benny Hill or something. There's no badassery with Roger Moore. He doesn't seem like a dangerous guy, he seems like someone you might hire to do your taxes. 

Yes, you're correct. Carnac the Magnificent would be a much better role for you.

And I know I've said this before, but my god is James Bond a creep. It's really getting old with this schtick of Bond being an utter pig, which has the ladies tripping over themselves to strip off their panties quicker. It's not quite as bad here as it was with the later Connery films as far as brute force goes, but here Roger Moore basically tricks and extorts women into having sex with him, which is just another flavor of "creepy border-line rapist."

There's little chemistry going on between the actors, either. Roger Moore and Bond girl de jour Solitaire (Jane Seymour) together are rather luke-warm at best, with the more intense but far more ill-fated and mean-spirited relationship being between Bond and Rosie (Gloria Hendry), a double agent working for both the CIA and Kananga whom Bond basically lets die without much concern. Of course that's immediately after he has sex with her, since he's a nice guy like that. And while there is a decent scene between Roger Moore and Yaphet Kotto where Kananga reveals he is Mr. Big, I was honestly hoping that it was going to be Hank Hill under the mask.

"I sell heroin and heroin accessories."

I also find it rather strange that his introduction is so underwhelming. Usually when a new Bond is paraded out in his debut it's with a dramatic reveal, usually involving a slow buildup or a flashy action sequence culminating with a one-liner to showcase what the new guy can do. But here we just see Roger Moore lying in bed with a woman way too hot for a dude like him. Then the doorbell rings and he gets up, answers it, and makes coffee for his boss while trying to keep the girl out of sight. Thrill as he attempts to hide the fact that he just had sex!!!

And that really sets the stage for the entire affair. "Live And Let Die" is just not trying very hard. And it's really about as exciting as watching James Bond get out of bed and hide a chick in his closet. I honestly don't have too much more to say about "Live And Let Die." I didn't care for it. It was actually a struggle for me to stay awake during most of it, much like "Thunderball." And, much like that film, I really don't like it.

But hey, good news. I've only got six more Roger Moore films left to go! ::shoots myself::

Man, that trailer makes me wish I hadn't nearly slept through most of this movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Live And Let Die" isn't the worst Bond movie, but man is it bad. It's a boring introduction to my least favorite Bond actor, and the tone, setting and themes are a radical departure which simply do not fit. About the only good thing I can say about it is that it doesn't take place in outer space, but don't worry. We'll get to that soon enough.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

While making my way through the Bond franchise, it sometimes becomes difficult to care about the gentlemen whose time as 007 was limited to one or two goes. This is especially true for poor George Lazenby. He's the only official James Bond who had but a single turn at playing the World's Most Famous Secret Agent. Nobody really laughs at Timothy Dalton, but Lazenby is something of a punchline. I guess two films and you're set, but a one-off is enough to get you mocked.

I've always found that a bit unfair. George Lazenby was actually not a bad choice for the part. And I damn well prefer him over Roger Moore. The dude had style, swagger, a strong physical presence, was decently good looking, and while he wasn't great at the one liners, you could tell he was at least trying. I think he was actually attempting a Sean Connery impression, and you know what? If he was, it wasn't that bad. He wasn't doing the voice, but that would have been silly.

To be honest the biggest problem with George Lazenby wasn't his performance. I think it was the poofy shirt. That was out of control.

Well, that and the screenwriters having him quip to the camera, "This never happened to the other fella." Ugh. That was bad.

"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is somewhat of an enigma. On one hand, it's considered by many to be one of the best entries in the entire series. On the other hand, this is one of those Bond movies nobody you ask seems to have ever seen. I think the reason for that is twofold.

The first reason is that, like I mentioned above, I think the fact that this is the sole outing for Lazenby grants a certain stigma to the film. Almost like it's announcing that it's unnecessary to care about this one because the dude didn't come back for another. We all moved on after Lazenby. In fact we went straight back to Connery for another go around with him, almost like an apology.

The second reason is that this movie is a weird one. And it may have earned that reputation enough over the years to make it so that people generally avoid it out of principle. I can't fault them too much for that, because "OHMSS" is a strange entry in the Bond franchise, the strangest aspect of it being the utterly black downer of an ending that is so contrary to the tone of the rest of the film and the series as a whole that it's actually a work of outright genius.

Are those reasons to not see it? No, because it's not a bad film. It's alright. I don't consider it among the best like some do, but it's better than a lot of the others that came later.

The plot this time finds Bond getting acquainted with a mob boss named Draco (Gabrielle Ferzetti). The mob boss promises Bond information as to the location of Blofeld, whom MI-6 has considered a lost cause not worth pursuing, much to Bond's rage. Draco promises Bond the location of Blofeld on the condition that Bond tame his wild daughter, Tracy (Diana Rigg) by, and I'm quoting here, "dominating her." For this, Draco promises Blofeld's location, his daughter's hand, and 1 million British pounds. And James accepts, much to the ire of Tracy, who wants nothing to do with any of it. Eventually she comes to love James, despite not really knowing anything about him besides how good he is in the sack.

You know, I just realized that these movies are ever so slightly misogynistic.

True to his word, Draco tells Bond that Blofeld is in hiding in Switzerland under a new identity, and wants receive the title of Count for some reason, most likely because being called Count would be badass. Going undercover as Sir Hilary Bray, a genealogist who will verify Blofeld's claim, Bond infiltrates his mountaintop stronghold to uncover what he's up to this time. And he'll do it wearing a kilt.

Have I mentioned Lazenby's wardrobe is kind of out of control?

What Blofeld is up to involves allergy research, brainwashing, and lots of pretty ladies for James to plow, since you know, he cares about Tracy and is totally monogamous now (LOL). What it all comes down to is that Blofeld has created a chemical that will utterly destroy a very specific crop, and prevent it from ever growing again. The aforementioned ladies, who were there under the impression they were getting their severe food allergies treated, will be the ones to unknowingly release it after they've been sent back out into the world. Blofeld's asking price to not go through with it is a full pardon for his past crimes. This seems like an odd choice, as it seems to me that he's not really planning on retiring from crime, but whatever.

Blofeld is played this time (ugh CONSISTENCY please) by legendary tough guy Telly Savalas, and while I did think that his portrayal was acceptable and surprisingly refined, like Charles Grey he's just not slimy enough. I just don't think anyone can top Donald Pleasence. Telly Savalas is also slightly difficult to take seriously when his ear lobes are taped back. It's just a bit distracting.

Not as much as the freaking weird way he smokes his cigarettes, though.

And a rather large plot hole pops up in the fact that in "OHMSS" it's portrayed as the first meeting of Bond and Blofeld, which is egregiously and demonstrably incorrect. Unless of course we go into the theory that 007 is not a single man but merely a position in MI-6 (something I subscribe to as a pretty reasonable theory), but that just makes less sense when you consider that at the beginning of the next film, Sean Connery is seeking vengeance on Blofeld, implying it's the same person. Whatever. It doesn't matter that much in reality, but it is a pretty big WTF.

But seldom is the plot what we come to Bond movies for, right? We're here for the action, and while "OHMSS" does boast a good amount of it, there's just enough lack of it to make the 2 hour and 20 minute run-time feel a bit overly long. In addition to that a few of the sequences tend to go on a bit long, most notably the final confrontation between Bond and Blofeld in a bobsled chase (okay, point for originality). And it's not that the bobsled chase wasn't exciting. It's just that there are only so many things you can do with two people fighting in a bobsled. And the film runs out of things for them to do about a minute into what feels like a 5 minute long sequence.

What's that?! You like skiing!? WELL GOOD! Here. Have ALL THE SKIING EVER.

(So much skiing in this movie...)

And from a technical standpoint, while "OHMSS" is actually well edited, a significant amount of the action is slightly sped up in post, which is very obvious and makes it come off as exceedingly cheap. I know they did it for Connery too, but they didn't do it all that often. With this film it seemed like every other action beat was from a Benny Hill skit.

The only aspect of "OHMSS" that stood out to me as something that was really noteworthy is the ending, because it's so nuts that it's amazing. But it's also really sad. So yeah, spoiler alert here on a 40+ year old film, but at the end, after James and Tracy get married, the assumed-dead Blofeld drives by with his henchmen and guns down Tracy in the car as they drive away from their wedding. The movie ends with James cradling his dead wife of less than a few hours in his arms, as he tells a police officer "It's quite alright. She's having a rest. There's no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world."

Um...cue John Barry?

Man, that's just mean. That's mean, man. Far be it from me to criticize a movie for having guts, but what exactly was the point of all that? Was it to establish that James has now been turned into a distant, uncaring, sociopath who can never form attachments to people because they'll just get hurt? That would be great if James Bond hadn't been THAT EXACT CHARACTER THE WHOLE TIME TO BEGIN WITH. That's kind of his thing. Essentially, "OHMSS" just dangled the carrot of character change in front of both James and the audience before yanking it back, stabbing us in the eye with it, and then eating it.

I kind of like it.

So Lazenby wasn't a bad Bond, and his movie wasn't worth the obscurity it possesses. Like I mentioned before I'm slightly neutral on it apart from the ending, which is so bad it's brilliant. And of course I have Roger Moore to look forward to now, which will make good old Georgy Boy look even better in comparison.

If didn't know any better, based on the trailer I'd assume the name of this movie was "Different!"

THE BOTTOM LINE - "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" is a mixed bag which some might find more agreeable than others. If you like your Bond movies less gadgety this one might be a good one for you. I thought it was alright. Too much damn skiing, though.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

 

"LIVE AND LET DIE"

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Welcome to the final installment of my "Bond - Sean Connery, Part II" Trilogy. We're looking at the final three Eon films that starred Sean Connery as Agent 007 in an official capacity. I didn't care much for "Thunderball" at all, while "You Only Live Twice" I found to be an admittedly sillier but far more entertaining venture. Now let's check out Connery's final certified outing as the world's most famous secret agent in "Diamonds Are Forever."

But before we go any further, one thing must be addressed. And this is, to the dread of some, the acknowledgment of the existence of one Mr. George Lazenby.

1971's "Diamonds Are Forever" was not the next Bond film after 1967's "You Only Live Twice." You notice the 5 year gap in between? In 1969 there was another movie and another Bond, with Australian model George Lazenby starring in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Both Lazenby and the movie met with mixed reactions, and didn't do as well as they wanted. So, by paying Connery an unheard of salary, some $1.2 million dollars (in 1971 money), they got the original article back for one more go around.

I'll get to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" sometime later, but suffice to say that the only thing you really need to know about what happens in it (since you can extrapolate they are related based on the intro) is that Bond really, really, really wants Blofeld dead. I mean, you could have assumed that based on the crap Blofeld put him through earlier, but yeah, if you watched "OHMSS" you know that saying "This time it's personal" really doesn't do the situation enough justice.

Well, that's cheerful.

And the beginning of the movie pretty much settles that. The opening scene has Bond strong-arming people all over the world looking for Blofeld, and he's not above choking a women with her own bikini-top to find out where he is. At least we know he can still be a pig even when he's raging. The whole thing is played up to keep his face hidden so that his reveal is all the more dramatic, and I suppose if you had been a big Connery fan and hated Lazenby it would have been quite effective, especially if they had kept it going just a little longer. But I must wonder if anyone back then didn't know Connery was back when every single poster always started with "Sean Connery IS James Bond in..." Oh well. It's just fan-service. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, Bond does in fact find Blofeld in the process of creating a double using the powers of both mud and science. Not really sure how giving a guy a spa treatment for a few days is supposed to change his face, but then again, I'm not a megalomaniacal evil genius. And he does kill both the double and the real Blofeld.

OR DOES HE?!?!

Ahem. No. You find out later that was merely another double. There's a lot of Blofelds running around in this movie. And hey, one of them is actually the real one. And no, he isn't played by either Donald Pleasence or Telly Salavas. This time it's Charles Gray, who is pretty good, but he isn't as slimy as Pleasence was, and it's annoying that the character keeps changing actors. I guess consistency isn't a priority in Bond movies. Except for Desmond Llewelyn (17 movies), Bernard Lee (11 movies) and Lois Maxwell (14 movies). What, was Bond's arch nemesis just not an important enough character or something? We had to save the consistency for the secretary who's in one scene every movie in which she's the one person on the planet who is hornier than James?

And why doesn't he ever go after Moneypenny? Dude would bang a toaster if he thought the damage wouldn't go beyond 1st degree burns...

The plot of "Diamonds Are Forever" is shockingly about diamonds. Specifically it's about diamond smuggling, which turns into a plot to blow up nuclear weapons unless they get a lot of money. I know, SPECTRE's plots are ever changing. At the outset, though, Bond is trying to get to the bottom of a South African diamond smuggling operation by taking on the identity of a professional smuggler. He does this a bit before winding up in Las Vegas, where Blofeld is discovered to be behind the whole thing.

I said before that Charles Gray makes a passable Blofeld, and it's true that he does. He has a bit more of a sense of humor than earlier, which also goes along with the lighter overall tone of the film. "Diamonds Are Forever" is the closest the Connery series ever got to the zaniness of the Roger Moore era (*shudder*) but it still keeps it mostly within the realms of not being annoying or overly weird.

I said "mostly."

Yeah, the very special assassins Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Hoo boy. These two guys. I'm not quite sure what to say about them. They're either one of the best or worst things about "Diamonds Are Forever," I can't tell for sure, but I'm leaning towards the later theory. I guess it depends on who you ask. On one hand, they're pretty creepy with how utterly soulless and blasé they are about the many, many people they kill throughout the movie. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what they were going for with these guys.

Mr. Kidd, played by jazz bassist Putter Smith is the more subdued one, and of the two acts most like an actual human being. A cold blooded killer, but still human. It's Mr. Wint, played by Bruce Glover (father of Crispin) who comes off more as a psychopathic murder-bot from Outer Space loaded up with Quaaludes and the personality quirks of Peter Lorre doing Bronson Pinchot. All while being played by Crispin Glover's dad. Who acts just like Crispin Glover. A strange character is Mr. Wint.

I think it's possible to also get a little riled up at the fact that they're obviously gay. And having the only gay characters in the series be psychopathic killers could easily be looked at as kind of a jerk thing to do. So one could be offended by all that if they were really sensitive, but at the same time it's never implied that they are evil because of "The Gay," so that's a point in it's favor. They're just sick, twisted psychos with a penchant for debauchery. Being gay doesn't factor into it. It's probably not something to get worked up over, but it's still an odd character trait to have because it really doesn't add anything.

Besides this very dignified moment. *facepalm*

Aside from very strange hitmen, "Diamonds Are Forever" includes two lady henchmen, Bambi and Thumper, who wind up being basically useless despite all their overly elaborate and unnecessary flipping and tumbling. Or maybe it's because of it. But there's also a really good car chase through the Vegas strip, a reasonably passable final climax on an oil-rig, and a decent confrontation between Bond and Blofeld (for reals this time).

All of this is done while keeping the wackiness to a somewhat reasonable minimum.

I said "somewhat."

And I must admit to there being a line or two that did get a good chuckle out of me. It's nothing close to the dry wit of "Goldfinger," but when given a decent one-liner, Connery is still the man. Then again, I did laugh at Bond saying "Sorry, old boy" to a rat. I have no explanation for why I do what I do.

It's worth mentioning that Bruce Cabot makes an appearance as one of Blofeld's villains. He famously played Jack Driscoll in my favorite movie of all time, the original "King Kong." Also, Jimmy Dean (yes, that one) plays a Howard Hughes-style recluse. Who is also a cowboy. That's awesome. 

"I'm just amazed there's been no mention of sausages yet."

"Your mother wash mentioning them lasht night, Dean!"

But finally, and this must be addressed one last time, because it just blows my mind every time it happens, but Connery's Bond is absolutely insane with the epic, disgusting pig lengths he will go to in order to get laid. I thought it was bad in "Thunderball" where he grabbed that poor woman in the spa, shoved his tongue down her throat, and then proceeded to follow her into the next room as she tried her hardest to set the world land-speed record for stripping. I thought I'd seen everything, but in "Diamonds Are Forever" Bond makes history with the first recorded attempt of The Naked Man Maneuver. AND IT WORKS.

"Two out of every three times, man."

You know what? At this point, I ain't even mad. Props, James. The Naked Man takes guts to pull off. You do lose points because of the fact she's a total whore, though. And you pulled it off with probably the weakest of the Bond girls you had to choose from throughout your career. But hey, Barney Stinson would be proud.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Diamonds Are Forever," much like its predecessor, is a fun romp that's sprinkled with a fair amount of camp. Fortunately it's not enough to distract from the movie as much as the Roger Moore films did. Bond hasn't gone full-blown comedy. Not yet. In terms of quality it's about middle of the road for the Connery series. And it does get props for having a somewhat decent ending for freaking once.

THE END OF THE

"BOND - SEAN CONNERY, PART II" TRILOGY

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE"