Wow, Mr Scott, a bold claim, and excellent headline. I look at it like a sibling numbers game - the 1st is the standard, the 2nd is jinxed. Luckily, George Lazenby took most of the sophomore curse away from Roger Moore, but Moore was still stepping into serious headwinds, and shone. So, I disagree and agree...
For sexual innuendo, no one will ever top “Pussy Galore”. I still can’t believe that it made past the censors.
2
Sean Connery will always be the iconic version of James Bond because the accent on the early Bonds was character, not gadgets.
Watch "Dr. No" and most especially "From Russia, With Love", most definitely the best Bond movie for purists. Note the nuanced simplicity in Connery's movements. Connery imprinted in us all what James Bond was all about: how he entered a room, how he checked into a hotel, the routinized meticulous actions undertaking by the secret agent.
"Goldfinger" was the ultimate Bond, a culmination, a fusion, of character with gadgets, and the enormous profits being generated which allowed for more opulent set designs. The vastly increased budgets that allowed for such extravagance also ensured the sublimation of character development. By the time we get to "Thunderball" and the over-the-top production of "You Only Live Twice", Bond's character has become subsumed in the majesty of the location and the one upping of more outrageous gadgets, which made whomever played Bond almost irrelevant.
Connery is the best because he was the first. He appeared in the first five Bonds and made an indelible mark on what all future Bonds would have to match. Daniel Craig did and admirable job attempting to re-establish that simpler Bond, but the franchise had grown so it could never return to its simple beginnings.
With CGI, anybody can be Bond, and seem to do the impossible. That was not so in 1962. We can never put the genie back in the bottle.
DD
Manhattan
Watch "Dr. No" and most especially "From Russia, With Love", most definitely the best Bond movie for purists. Note the nuanced simplicity in Connery's movements. Connery imprinted in us all what James Bond was all about: how he entered a room, how he checked into a hotel, the routinized meticulous actions undertaking by the secret agent.
"Goldfinger" was the ultimate Bond, a culmination, a fusion, of character with gadgets, and the enormous profits being generated which allowed for more opulent set designs. The vastly increased budgets that allowed for such extravagance also ensured the sublimation of character development. By the time we get to "Thunderball" and the over-the-top production of "You Only Live Twice", Bond's character has become subsumed in the majesty of the location and the one upping of more outrageous gadgets, which made whomever played Bond almost irrelevant.
Connery is the best because he was the first. He appeared in the first five Bonds and made an indelible mark on what all future Bonds would have to match. Daniel Craig did and admirable job attempting to re-establish that simpler Bond, but the franchise had grown so it could never return to its simple beginnings.
With CGI, anybody can be Bond, and seem to do the impossible. That was not so in 1962. We can never put the genie back in the bottle.
DD
Manhattan
7
Not a Bond fan at all (though I'd vote for Connery.) So tell me, which one of them emerged from the sea in a SCUBA suit, then removed it to show the impeccable tuxedo beneath? That'd be my idea of a superspy.
1
A good image. But for me, Craig rising from the sea in his brief trunks, a veritable male Venus, was a stunning, gorgeous and sexy scene that converted me to his Bond. And His acting chops give the character oomph.
I loved Connery's very attractive masculine grace -- his early dance experience was evident. But I got over this attraction when I heard him in an interview say that women "needed" to be slapped around -- something reflected in one or two of his Bond films.
I loved Connery's very attractive masculine grace -- his early dance experience was evident. But I got over this attraction when I heard him in an interview say that women "needed" to be slapped around -- something reflected in one or two of his Bond films.
Every Bond after Connery was, to all intents and purposes, an alternative universe Bond; taken in that spirit, the rest were fine, although still something of a mixed bag.
More fundamentally, the Broccoli family have been making James Bond films for fifty-five years, now; stripped of the irrelevancies of plot contrivances and the name of the villain, the Broccolis have, in essence, been making the same movie over, and over, and over and over, which is, after all, the very definition of the word "formulaic" -- and they wouldn't have done that if the formula hadn't worked as spectacularly as it has.
My cousin, now in his nineties, is a movie producer, one of the most successful independent producers of all time, a producer of great, important, impeccable, honored and well-remembered films. The sheer breadth of the films he's made has encompassed practically every genre, from dramas to musicals to comedies to historical dramas and, though I haven't asked him, I strongly suspect that, were he to be visited by the Devil, and offered the chance to make twice as much money per film as he ever made before, on a single condition -- which wouldn't involve drawing pentagrams and Satan worship, surrendering his immortal soul or handing over his first-born child -- that he could only make the same movie over, and over and over, he'd tell the Devil, thanks, but no thanks.
For the Broccolis, stamping out identical widgets is clearly profitable. I guess they may even find it fulfilling.
More fundamentally, the Broccoli family have been making James Bond films for fifty-five years, now; stripped of the irrelevancies of plot contrivances and the name of the villain, the Broccolis have, in essence, been making the same movie over, and over, and over and over, which is, after all, the very definition of the word "formulaic" -- and they wouldn't have done that if the formula hadn't worked as spectacularly as it has.
My cousin, now in his nineties, is a movie producer, one of the most successful independent producers of all time, a producer of great, important, impeccable, honored and well-remembered films. The sheer breadth of the films he's made has encompassed practically every genre, from dramas to musicals to comedies to historical dramas and, though I haven't asked him, I strongly suspect that, were he to be visited by the Devil, and offered the chance to make twice as much money per film as he ever made before, on a single condition -- which wouldn't involve drawing pentagrams and Satan worship, surrendering his immortal soul or handing over his first-born child -- that he could only make the same movie over, and over and over, he'd tell the Devil, thanks, but no thanks.
For the Broccolis, stamping out identical widgets is clearly profitable. I guess they may even find it fulfilling.
1
I congratulate your cousin for ''doing it all his way.'' That tiredness at the end of the day is the serenest and calmest even if it never paid well.
However, there is never, and has never been, anything wrong with knowing what the marketplace actually WANTS and supplying that need. If your family had been Henry Ford's neighbors a century ago, you could have gone with what you thought people wanted to buy and drive and the market would have rewarded your family and Ford's appropriately.
I am sure that the Rambler, Tucker, Hudson, Kaiser, and Studebaker company people walked away from closed factories convinced that they had the better ideas, but reality is always the best answer. We had a president trying to choose the winners in the green energy giveaways of 2010, but the reason that money was pretty much wasted is because gov't or a circle of conceited elites NEVER knows how the market works.
Thank the Lord we didn't have a socialist president back then determine that the failed car companies of the mid-century had to be propped up no matter how many billions of working people's money went for nothing.
However, there is never, and has never been, anything wrong with knowing what the marketplace actually WANTS and supplying that need. If your family had been Henry Ford's neighbors a century ago, you could have gone with what you thought people wanted to buy and drive and the market would have rewarded your family and Ford's appropriately.
I am sure that the Rambler, Tucker, Hudson, Kaiser, and Studebaker company people walked away from closed factories convinced that they had the better ideas, but reality is always the best answer. We had a president trying to choose the winners in the green energy giveaways of 2010, but the reason that money was pretty much wasted is because gov't or a circle of conceited elites NEVER knows how the market works.
Thank the Lord we didn't have a socialist president back then determine that the failed car companies of the mid-century had to be propped up no matter how many billions of working people's money went for nothing.
1
It may not be Roger Moore himself that determined who was the better bond. The films themselves became slicker and actually poked fun at themselves, unlike the earlier, more earnest films like From Russia With Love and Dr. No. I don't think Roger Moore could have successfully played Bond in those earlier films; I don't think Sean Connery could have played bond in Octopussy or Moonraker.
Also, I think the locations and supporting characters were a bigger part of the Moore films, perhaps because by then Cubby Broccoli had made enough money to afford them. Octopussy? Louis Jourdan was the star. Moonraker, a godawful film, was more interesting because of "Jaws" and the Rio locations than for anything Moore did. And OMG the young Jane Seymour, and the fantastic Geoffrey Holder in Live and Let Die.
More was the best Bond for the Bond films he made.
Connery was the best Bond.
Also, I think the locations and supporting characters were a bigger part of the Moore films, perhaps because by then Cubby Broccoli had made enough money to afford them. Octopussy? Louis Jourdan was the star. Moonraker, a godawful film, was more interesting because of "Jaws" and the Rio locations than for anything Moore did. And OMG the young Jane Seymour, and the fantastic Geoffrey Holder in Live and Let Die.
More was the best Bond for the Bond films he made.
Connery was the best Bond.
2
Roger Moore was such a solid character stabilizing the scenes that he allowed the absolute hottest young women ever to appear in a Bind film.
At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Some of the ''deaths'' were so obviously fake that they actually seemed intentional, thus relieving younger viewers the worry that someone had actually died when they were dumped down a chimney or shot with an exploding dart.
But the man was so cool that it an extra had trespassed onto the set and ''shot'' Moore, I bet he'd have played it as well as if it was in the script.
At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Some of the ''deaths'' were so obviously fake that they actually seemed intentional, thus relieving younger viewers the worry that someone had actually died when they were dumped down a chimney or shot with an exploding dart.
But the man was so cool that it an extra had trespassed onto the set and ''shot'' Moore, I bet he'd have played it as well as if it was in the script.
Roger Moore was my favorite Bond. I loved the way he did everything the others did, but in a tuxedo that was still perfect by the end of the movie. That's class.
4
Roger Moore was an awful Bond. He was so unathletic, that anytime he was "in a fight", or needed to do something that required him to be nimble, he looked so awkward. His role as The Saint never translated into a believable James Bond.
Yes, I am a boomer, but Sean Connery captured the character right out of the books.
Yes, I am a boomer, but Sean Connery captured the character right out of the books.
2
Moore was the best because we all know the world of Bond is a fantasy. This is not really saving the world in any seriousness. Yet some like to think Bond is serious business, which is for instance the attitude Craig portrayed. I'm totally into this kind of Bond as well: raw, painful and gritty . Yet I overall appreciate how Moore played it up so tongue and cheek. The humor was admitting that the entire portrayal of being a spy such as Bond is so unrealistic to enjoy this make believe world such as it is. This is why Austin Powers was so funny. Yet Sir Rodger Moore knew all this long before Mike Miers ever did.
1
Connery & Craig play Bond as licensed killers in a game where there is no quarter given or asked. Moore took a full step back from that attitude and invited us in through the fourth wall to enjoy two hours of escapism with him as he drove perfect cars and carried out improbably plots with suave finesse if not the heights of drama.
2
Nothing against Sean Connery - I am a fan - but I too found Roger Moore to be the best Bond, and I am a baby boomer! (Though the first bond movie I saw in the theatre was The Spy Who Loved Me. Still enjoy that one, though my favorite may be Live and Let Die).
2
Roger Moore was my Bond, too. Growing up in the 70s, he was my first exposure to the character. Loved him in The Spy Who Loved Me, Live and Let Die, Man With the Golden Gun, et al. I take special pride in loving Moore's movies when those who are "too cool for school" have dismissed him for decades. In addition to not taking the role too seriously and having fun with it, Moore was a debonnaire and commanding Bond as well, much more like the character in the faded, yellowing Ian Fleming paperbacks that I borrowed from my uncle than more of his successors.
RIP, Mr. Moore. You were much loved by many of us.
RIP, Mr. Moore. You were much loved by many of us.
2
As a lifelong Bond fan, I must respectfully disagree. Roger Moore was dreadful as Bond. I suppose it wasn't his fault that the movies became increasingly ridiculous during his tenure, but he was certainly complicit. There's hardly a question that Connery was the best, and it has been a pleasure to see Daniel Craig bring back some of that spirit to the series.
4
Bond shmond. Roger Moore embodied The Saint -- Simon Templar -- the Robin Hood of crime. The debonair thief with a heart of gold. When I was a teenager, I used to rush home to watch him every week. He was right in my living room. I never made the transfer to Bond or the big screen. He will always be The Saint to me.
5
Richard Burton as Alex Leamas in "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold." Now there's a great, gritty, realistic film spy.
2
Agreed. Followed on by Alec Guinness as George Smiley in "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" and "Smiley's People." But, of course, this compares apples and oranges: a more or less realistic portrayal vs. a comic book character.
1
I totally agree with A.O. Scott on this. I never could understand why so many people thought Connery was a better Bond than Moore. Roger Moore just looked the part. He was smooth, and debonair, with a sardonic wit that could turn lethal at a moment's notice. Connery on the other hand, with his hairy back and toupee looked like he would have been a better fit as a haberdasher than a super spy. IMO Live and Let Die was his greatest Bond film and by extension the best in the entire franchise. It had the best Bond girl in Jane Seymour, the best supervillain in Yaphet Kotto, who had the best plan for world domination posing as Dr. Kanaga on the one hand and Mr. Big on the other. Let's not forget that it had the best music as well. Paul McCartney's title track is the biggest song from a Bond film there ever was, hands down. He had the best tech as well, that watch with the spinning saw while facing certain death from that shark was ingenious. So farewell my friend, one day I hope to meet on the other side. That is all.
4
Moore was the best Bond because he was in on the joke. All the others thought they were actually, somehow, saving the world from oblivion.
2
Thank you! My thoughts exactly. For me, he was Bond..and no one did it better.
3
Like Mr. Scott, I am a Gen-Xer who chafes at Baby Boomer smug superiority. They had some great music that I pretty soon got sick of having shoved down my throat -- "It's another great All Beatles - Stones - Who - Zeppelin Weekend!" And all other aspects of culture.
But to be fair, I have to give it to the Baby Boomers and Millennials on the JB front. Roger Moore was always kind of like a cardboard cut out of a guy in a tux, stuck on a movie set while other people did stuff around him.
James Bonds, ranked:
1. Sean Connery. Props to the original.
2. Daniel Craig. Anglophile Jason Bourne, but great to watch.
3. Pierce Brosnan. A little smirky, but a much better actor than Roger Moore. Bonus points for John Cleese as Q.
4. George Lazenby. Terrible, but ranks this high by default.
5. Timothy Dalton. Stiff. Lame. Boring. Nobody seemed to be having any fun at all in these movies.
6. Roger Moore.
But to be fair, I have to give it to the Baby Boomers and Millennials on the JB front. Roger Moore was always kind of like a cardboard cut out of a guy in a tux, stuck on a movie set while other people did stuff around him.
James Bonds, ranked:
1. Sean Connery. Props to the original.
2. Daniel Craig. Anglophile Jason Bourne, but great to watch.
3. Pierce Brosnan. A little smirky, but a much better actor than Roger Moore. Bonus points for John Cleese as Q.
4. George Lazenby. Terrible, but ranks this high by default.
5. Timothy Dalton. Stiff. Lame. Boring. Nobody seemed to be having any fun at all in these movies.
6. Roger Moore.
1
Goldfinger was my first, but Moore was my Bond too. Octopussy, Moonraker, Spy Who Loved Me - in that order, rank as this barely-a-boomer's favorites.
3
Sometimes movies are just movies. The religious disputes about who was/is the best Bond have been going on since Roger Moore's first Bond film. The adolescence of so many people seems to be tied to Sean Connery. I do not dispute Connery's greatness in the role and wish he had made more ("Never Say Never Again" may be my favorite Connery, regardless of being an unofficial Bond film) but his subsequent career ("The Man Who Would be King" notwithstanding) is an anticlimax. But much of Connery's popularity lies in his being the first to play Bond and the Bond films were novel and fresh coming after the 1950's. Feelings for Connery as Bond may also be tied up with remembrances of John Kennedy.
I greatly enjoyed Roger Moore as the "The Saint", the epitome of cool, with very cooperative hair. "The Spy Who Loved Me" is one of my favorite Bonds, and I admit that later Moore Bonds were getting old and tedious. But Bond movies regardless of the lead actor are just movies after all.
I should mention that after seeing a Roger Moore TV spot endorsing UNICEF, I resumed my donations which I had stopped years before.
I greatly enjoyed Roger Moore as the "The Saint", the epitome of cool, with very cooperative hair. "The Spy Who Loved Me" is one of my favorite Bonds, and I admit that later Moore Bonds were getting old and tedious. But Bond movies regardless of the lead actor are just movies after all.
I should mention that after seeing a Roger Moore TV spot endorsing UNICEF, I resumed my donations which I had stopped years before.
2
The series needed a change when Connery left and the producers went for light parody of the character and exaggeration of story. Moore fit the bill perfectly.
Dalton was very effective in his own way, but the stories he was in felt more like crime dramas.
Bresnan got the job done, yes, but he's like the kid who gets an A but shows little real originality.
Craig was fine as a team player in movies with lots of action and effects, and somewhat portentous attempts at commentary on the character of Bond and contemporary times. But unlike all the other Bonds, he never looked like he was having fun. Good riddance, then.
Idris Elba, your Austin Martin is waiting.
Dalton was very effective in his own way, but the stories he was in felt more like crime dramas.
Bresnan got the job done, yes, but he's like the kid who gets an A but shows little real originality.
Craig was fine as a team player in movies with lots of action and effects, and somewhat portentous attempts at commentary on the character of Bond and contemporary times. But unlike all the other Bonds, he never looked like he was having fun. Good riddance, then.
Idris Elba, your Austin Martin is waiting.
2
I liked Moore too -- no one here, mostly guys, has mentioned his great voice.
But I find Craig and new crew very appropriate to the older Bond. Some of us Boomers can appreciate his cynicism and weltschmerz as he has aged. (All of about 45!) Still, he was wonderfully believable as a man in love -- actual emotion -- in Casino Royale (even though the story is out of sequence).
But I find Craig and new crew very appropriate to the older Bond. Some of us Boomers can appreciate his cynicism and weltschmerz as he has aged. (All of about 45!) Still, he was wonderfully believable as a man in love -- actual emotion -- in Casino Royale (even though the story is out of sequence).
1
What is going on???
This is an obit for an actor and humanitarian. UNICEF ambassador. Five TV series and oh yeah he did Bond SEVEN TIMES!
What is it with you guys--and it’s invariably a male who has to dis him! I don’t care of you thought Connery was a better Bond.
Did Sean Connery get the Knighthood? The second highest honor from the Queen? NO! But Roger Moore did! Because he went outside himself and spent the rest of his life helping the less fortunate.
So save your GOAT (Greatest of all time) Bonds for another day!
Today I am mourning, crying for a man whom I LOVED on the screen and the camera loved him. Handsome, suave, oh those blue eyes. Even he didn’t take Bond seriously. He was right. Bond walks into a casino and EVERYONE knows him including the valet but somehow the bad guys don’t know him?
Frankly I get tired of violence and Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig upped the quotient of blood and death.
Roger Moore died at age 89--a full life without a hint of scandal--just playing the guy in “The Saint” and “Maverick” and oh a few Bond films--we women all loved.
Guys? Get a life!
This is an obit for an actor and humanitarian. UNICEF ambassador. Five TV series and oh yeah he did Bond SEVEN TIMES!
What is it with you guys--and it’s invariably a male who has to dis him! I don’t care of you thought Connery was a better Bond.
Did Sean Connery get the Knighthood? The second highest honor from the Queen? NO! But Roger Moore did! Because he went outside himself and spent the rest of his life helping the less fortunate.
So save your GOAT (Greatest of all time) Bonds for another day!
Today I am mourning, crying for a man whom I LOVED on the screen and the camera loved him. Handsome, suave, oh those blue eyes. Even he didn’t take Bond seriously. He was right. Bond walks into a casino and EVERYONE knows him including the valet but somehow the bad guys don’t know him?
Frankly I get tired of violence and Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig upped the quotient of blood and death.
Roger Moore died at age 89--a full life without a hint of scandal--just playing the guy in “The Saint” and “Maverick” and oh a few Bond films--we women all loved.
Guys? Get a life!
14
Moore was also a man who never treated himself--or the work--as though he was curing cancer. He was humble, generous, and never failed to acknowledge his great good fortune. His work in his later years elevated him to humanitarian status that is far beyond that of 'movie star.' He is a role model for us all.
4
Yes, Sean Connery did get knighted - somewhat belatedly.
2
I like the Moore films outside of Moonraker and A View to a Kill. But he only played it close to the Fleming version in For Your Eyes Only. As a fan of the books, which I read in a row when I was twenty-five, during the time Moore was on his last movie, I found his Bond depressing. I wanted to put him back in the 50s and see a period piece. So when Dalton took it seriously (although saddled with lousy scripts I was relieved. I was overjoyed when Casino Royal came out. Here was Fleming's Bond and Fleming's story, with the needed tinkering for update and film. I would argue that Craig is the GenX Bond. He was born in '68, and the first theme for his debut was a GenX singer in Chris Cornell. But in truth I have liked all the men who played Bond, sometimes they are silly --most of Moore's and Brosnan's films. But sometimes you see the assassin come through. Connery in Dr. No unloading some extra shots into and informant, or Craig's ruthlessness in all his films. Bond, as written, is an assassin, not a Marvel Comic Book character as one comment claimed. The movies should be taken at face value. Some are cartoons and some are reflections of the various novels creation. Cheers.
2
Generally speaking all of the bond actors, they all did a pretty good job of projecting Ian Fleming,s character. I was able to read them all as a teenager in the sixties courtesy of my older brother. The books themselves were more like pulp versions on Jon Le Carre or Len Deighton spy novels of the era. Everyone always points to Connery as the gold standard. The worst probably George what's his name and Timothy dalton. Moore was great because he had that very British dry wit and stiff upper lip. All in all they were all good.
1
Always the best Bond. Even for Boomers.
1
Hey there, Mr. A.O. Scott. Fellow Gen-Xer here. Roger Moore was not the worst Bond (I think that honor goes to Timothy Dalton) but he was not the best, either. He was awesome in The Spy Who Loved Me and fun in Moonraker. But after that, he moved from cliché to kinda too-old-for-her gross. I rank him third, behind Connery and Craig. This is not a generational thing. It's a matter of substance and style.
Maybe not the best Bond. But the best Saint!
2
I admit I never watched a Roger Moore Bond picture. I did read the books. James Bond was cruel, a womanizer and desirous of the finer things. His chief attribute was tolerance of pain. He got caught in essentially every book. He escaped because of bad guy's elaborate treatment of Bond and his tolerating pain to escape. Roger Moore was a fine Saint in the series but he is too smooth to be a good James Bond. If you liked him, it had nothing to do with his channeling Flemming's Bond. It's okay just understand that.
I certainly think that Daniel Craig's Bond is easily the best simply because he is the most complex. I like that in "A Quantum of Solace" he actually does not have sex with the beautiful woman - both of them are on missions of revenge, in his case for the woman he loved who was murdered in the previous film. Craig's Bond is insecure, almost psychotic, but trying not to be. There is actually a bit of credible psychology - Bond is an orphan boy whose family was murdered and whose loyalties/familial feelings are expertly engineered to be transferred onto his country and even his female controller, M.
Connery's Bond was just thuggish and, sometimes, a rapist. Changing times.
Connery's Bond was just thuggish and, sometimes, a rapist. Changing times.
2
Sorry, I am sure Roger Moore was a nice guy but he was not the best Bond.
He was never convincing as a "00" assassin. He just didn't look badass enough. And the Bond movies he starred in had really silly plots with comic book villains and car chases out of Smokey and the Bandit.
Basically the only two decent Bonds were Sean and Daniel.
He was never convincing as a "00" assassin. He just didn't look badass enough. And the Bond movies he starred in had really silly plots with comic book villains and car chases out of Smokey and the Bandit.
Basically the only two decent Bonds were Sean and Daniel.
3
I so enjoy your reviews, but this one seems... well, maybe perfect to mirror the middling quality and reputation of 007's portrayal by Mr. Moore, however lovely a person he may well have been.
Writing here as a 60-ish Gay man, my vote for Best Bond clearly must go to Daniel Craig. Quite unlike Moore's premier in "Live and Let Die" -- only memorable for his cringe-worthy "no need to go off half-cocked," Craig's Bond laid a new focus on physical endurance in Casino Royale (e.g., his remarkable foot race to catch and foil a gas truck hurtling toward an airliner), introduced with an opening theme refreshingly devoid of sexualized female figures (played to the brilliant grunge of Chris Cornell, who tragically passed this month). Although the franchise apparently felt compelled to retrain its focus on disrobed female forms in Quantum of Solace, Craig's Bond did at least fleeting penance for Connery's dead golden girl, with Judi Dench's M rubbing Craig's face in an oil drenched diplomat to shame him for treating women as meat (if Brosnan did anything like that, I'm sorry I didn't know... I can't imagine staying awake to see him as Bond). Did any Bond other than Craig (in Skyfall) ever secure the confidence to respond to a Gay villain's invitation to initiate him by saying "What makes you think this would be the first time?"
Connery's fury body helped me know who I am, but Craig is the real adult (all the more so in light of his plea to leave the role).
Writing here as a 60-ish Gay man, my vote for Best Bond clearly must go to Daniel Craig. Quite unlike Moore's premier in "Live and Let Die" -- only memorable for his cringe-worthy "no need to go off half-cocked," Craig's Bond laid a new focus on physical endurance in Casino Royale (e.g., his remarkable foot race to catch and foil a gas truck hurtling toward an airliner), introduced with an opening theme refreshingly devoid of sexualized female figures (played to the brilliant grunge of Chris Cornell, who tragically passed this month). Although the franchise apparently felt compelled to retrain its focus on disrobed female forms in Quantum of Solace, Craig's Bond did at least fleeting penance for Connery's dead golden girl, with Judi Dench's M rubbing Craig's face in an oil drenched diplomat to shame him for treating women as meat (if Brosnan did anything like that, I'm sorry I didn't know... I can't imagine staying awake to see him as Bond). Did any Bond other than Craig (in Skyfall) ever secure the confidence to respond to a Gay villain's invitation to initiate him by saying "What makes you think this would be the first time?"
Connery's fury body helped me know who I am, but Craig is the real adult (all the more so in light of his plea to leave the role).
1
Naturally, your preference for Craig seems predicated on your sexuality. Daniel Craig is essentially an androgynous type; therefore, it seems that he can go either way, not the prototype for Bond. Connery exuded an extremely masculine sexual magnetism, and his seductive qualities with women are what made him the iconic true James Bond.
Craig androgynous?! The meaning of that word must have changed very dramatically and I didn't notice. As a friend once said, Craig is 100% Grade A English beef. Most yummy! As for Bond, Connery first and forever; Craig second.
1
I'm a Gen Xer and I can't say Moore was my favorite. The campiness was just a little too over the top for me. Like many, I'll have to go with Connery. I've liked Craig in the role and have been surprised how polarized folks seem to be about his performances.
2
I sensed no "lightness," as Mr. Scott suggests, in the Bond that Mr. Moore brought to the role of 007. Instead, I sensed a stiff misogyny and callous coldness that wasn't nearly as evident (if at all) in the previous or future Bonds. I thought then and still think that he was seriously miscast in the role. I wished Mr. Moore no ill but his departure from the role was accepted if not celebrated by me. That he has passed and had spent a great part of his life doing "good works" for children says much for his character as a citizen of the world.
1
To me the best Bond was....the music.
2
Seriously? Moore was absolutely the worst Bond ever, and I say so even without having seen the Dalton iteration. Yes, it's a popular franchise for mass consumption, but the bad, smirky, shallow acting is unacceptable even in this sort of pop confection.
Please don't inflict your generation-centric perspective on the rest of us. I cut my teeth on Connery but have immensely enjoyed Brosnan and Craig precisely because of the shadings they brought to what many assumed was an exhausted franchise that Moore so severely undermined with his mugging. Indeed, the main reason I've never seen Dalton in the role is because Moore totally turned me off the Bond movies, which had been for me required viewing. Since there seems to be a burgeoning move to reconsider Dalton's interpretation, I've in mind to redress my lapse accordingly.
But Moore? Nope!
Please don't inflict your generation-centric perspective on the rest of us. I cut my teeth on Connery but have immensely enjoyed Brosnan and Craig precisely because of the shadings they brought to what many assumed was an exhausted franchise that Moore so severely undermined with his mugging. Indeed, the main reason I've never seen Dalton in the role is because Moore totally turned me off the Bond movies, which had been for me required viewing. Since there seems to be a burgeoning move to reconsider Dalton's interpretation, I've in mind to redress my lapse accordingly.
But Moore? Nope!
4
I was sad to hear Roger Moore died. He started as Bond when I was a baby so he was also the Bond I grew up. He was always the epitome of suave British coolness. (Probably where I got my love of posh Brits) I love his role in Cannonball Run too, pretty much playing a slightly tongue in cheek Bond or Simon Templar. I still find Pierce Brosnan to be my favorite Bond. I think the writing and movie making got better by then. Timothy Dalton's Bond probably wouldn't have existed if Pierce had been able to get out of his Remington Steele contract. People criticizing Roger's performances have to realize the scripts and direction drove the movies. I find the Daniel Craig Bond flicks to be less fun and almost a different movie series. RIP Roger, heaven just got a lot classier.
As a younger baby-boomer who read all the Fleming books, in order, before seeing a James Bond film, I like the actors who portrayed Fleming's Bond. Bond had a license to kill human beings which he didn't like to do. Fleming never connected that to his behavior, but I believe being a professional killer caused him to numb himself by drinking and smoking to excess. Bond is a damaged man. In my opinion, the best portrayals of James Bond are Timothy Dalton and Daniel Craig. I love the old movies with Sean Connery largely because they more closely followed the books. Roger Moore, on the other hand, played a wonderful Simon Templar, but as much as I like The Saint, Simon Templar is not James Bond.
3
Moore was the first Bond I saw in theatrical release: I was kind of young when the Connery movies came out. I don't blame Moore for how some of his films came out; the actor can do a great job but if the material is sub-par...
But if I had to rank the Bonds:
Connery
Brosnan
Moore
Dalton
Craig
and...well, Lazenby only did the one, which was good, but it doesn't seem fair to grade him against the others.
But if I had to rank the Bonds:
Connery
Brosnan
Moore
Dalton
Craig
and...well, Lazenby only did the one, which was good, but it doesn't seem fair to grade him against the others.
I always felt the same: the peak of pre-adolescent cinematic thrills was seeing Spy Who Loved Me, after standing in line for an hour (anticipation!) at the long-defunct movie theater at the shopping center where Rockaway Tpk meets Brookville Blvd (Lowe's is there now). If it wasn't Roger Moore himself, certainly Roger Moore-in-context. In Spy Who Loved Me, the gadget-laden thrills and fantasy build and build, with Freudian undertones no more subtle than the title sequence/title song, the imagery created by Jean Renoir's son, August Renoir's grandson; Hamlisch title song sung by Carly Simon.
Anyway: the opinion is ratified in "Lost in Translation" (which incidentally features a karaoke-type cover of the song, once voted rightly the sexist pop song ever written); the photographer (winning, opting for Moore) debates this question with Bill Murray, who wrongly insists on Connery. Clearly the photographer's view (agreeing w/ Scott), is the subtler, artist's view.
Anyway: the opinion is ratified in "Lost in Translation" (which incidentally features a karaoke-type cover of the song, once voted rightly the sexist pop song ever written); the photographer (winning, opting for Moore) debates this question with Bill Murray, who wrongly insists on Connery. Clearly the photographer's view (agreeing w/ Scott), is the subtler, artist's view.
1
Curious how a. o. capitalizes Gen-Xers but puts baby boomers in lower case. Biased or what? Of course his thoughts on why Roger Moore was better than Sean Connery as Bond, James Bond are bunk. Moore would have been the first to admit that Connery was the better actor for the role. And he would have been right.
1
Two two words: Sean Connery
3
.
no chance - Connery is KING
plus, consider this; if Moore had preceded Connery, would there even BE a Bond franchise?
maybe not
it was Connery who put the Bond franchise firmly on the map, and set the standard
Long Live Sean!
.
no chance - Connery is KING
plus, consider this; if Moore had preceded Connery, would there even BE a Bond franchise?
maybe not
it was Connery who put the Bond franchise firmly on the map, and set the standard
Long Live Sean!
.
5
Ah, yes--the golden age of science fiction is 13.....
1
They are all the best in their own way appearing in high quality movies.
The character James Bond (as laid out by Ian Fleming) was a coldly calculating killer. Not a smirky, cartoonish buffoon. Roger Moore may have been fine in the trashy movies he starred in, but he certainly was never "James Bond".
8
Much commentary in the press about the lightness Moore brought to the 007 movies. One thing is certain: had the producers filmed Moore's debut, Live and Let Die, as Ian Fleming wrote it, we'd have seen massive protests and boycotts across the land. Read the book, and you will see why. Any film that was true to the book would have been way out of step with the growing trend of African-American themed films. Later, in The Man With The Golden Gun, the producers inserted scenes to cash in on the then-current Hong Kong "chop-socky" trend. And that is when the Bond films slid. It was not because of Moore (who was hugely popular) and his lightness. The fault lies with the producers. Rather than setting cinematic trends, they started following them. Oh well... Nothing Lasts Forever, Mr. Bond.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
As typical of troll discussions, everyone has to make a decision about who was better and why. Let's be honest-anyone in this role gets stale after too long including Connery. Looks like Craig got wise and left before he was really bored. And let's also thanks Pierce Brosnan for saving the franchise . He seemed to have the joy and gadgetry of Moore but with some more range. I generally like them all-day they are all part of the time capsule of the age plus it's nice to have favorites from each actor. Moore's Spy Who Loved Me is far better than Connery's later efforts(he was bored stiff.) Brosnan's Tomorrow Never Dies is a lot better than Craig's Quantum of Solace and Spectre. It's all great stuff. Moore's movies were crack cocaine for a 13 year old like me
1
Sean Connery, without a doubt, captured the suave, intelligent, and somewhat rebellious bon vivant character that Ian Fleming so brilliantly brought to life. Those movies also stayed truer to the books than the later films with Lazenby and Moore.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and favorite Bond actor, but for me, the Bond movies began and ended with Sean Connery. But he was an actor capable of portraying many different characters. My other favorite is his part in 'The Man Who Would Be King; with Michael Caine, another brilliant movie,
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and favorite Bond actor, but for me, the Bond movies began and ended with Sean Connery. But he was an actor capable of portraying many different characters. My other favorite is his part in 'The Man Who Would Be King; with Michael Caine, another brilliant movie,
6
Sean Connery was the best bond. Moore is bland by comparison.
4
Ever since I saw "Dr. No" and "From Russia With Love" as a double feature in 1963, Sean Connery has been the only real Bond for me.
6
I like Moore best. There is an upper and lowr register to acting just like singing. And no one other than Connery and better than Moorr knew how to hit those low notes. Just look at the range of subtle facial expressions -- it's downright sophisticated and stimulating. And the action choreography in his films was pulsating and artistic -- unlike any other action film they delivered with both excitement and amusement. The swimming pool/car chase /ski chase in For Your Eyes Only -- the "follow that parachute" scene in A View to a Kill -- and the train scene in Octopussy were the best of the best save the inflight fight to end the Living Daylights. Connery's films were a snooze and Craig's are contrived. And the best climax / most tense moment award goes to the showdown between Moore and Lee in The Man with the Golden Gun. This is why Moore was voted Best Bond by Hollywood peers.
AND the dialogue -- credit Tom Mentkiewicz -- has that same vibrant and humorous rhythm.
"Mr. Bond, a 70-year-old can take 3 Gs. // "Trouble is there's never a 70-year-old around when you need one."
And the greatest villian belongs to Christopher Lee. He could make any Bond nervous.
AND the dialogue -- credit Tom Mentkiewicz -- has that same vibrant and humorous rhythm.
"Mr. Bond, a 70-year-old can take 3 Gs. // "Trouble is there's never a 70-year-old around when you need one."
And the greatest villian belongs to Christopher Lee. He could make any Bond nervous.
4
And Harold Sakata as Oddjob was the best henchman. Didn't say much, but got the job done.
Mr. Moore the best Bond ever!
2
It's comparing apples to oranges between Moore and Connery. Moor infiltrated the elite from above, like he was truly one of them (why were all the bad guys filthy rich?), whereas Connery simmered witn a bitter working class resentment toward the casino crowd, like he'd swiped a tuxedo and sneaked in under the fence.
3
His death has saddened me beyond belief
2
Listen Sonny, Sean Connery was the best bond, because he and those scripts were closest to the cold war ethos of the 007 books. Could you have imagined Roger Moore in Her Majesty's Secret Service cradling his dying wife? George Lazenby covered it well, and Connery could have pulled it off. Remember Robin and Marian?
Moore as Bond jumped the shark, the moon and the stars. But not my Bond.
Moore as Bond jumped the shark, the moon and the stars. But not my Bond.
3
Roger Moore was the best Bond, the way Adam West was the best Batman.
They had fun, and they didn't take it seriously. They let you in on the joke.
They were different then the rest. They were great.
They had fun, and they didn't take it seriously. They let you in on the joke.
They were different then the rest. They were great.
8
As I've said ad infinitum: Sean Connery set a standard that has never been equaled by any of the actors who have portrayed the iconic spy.
Connery, at only 32 years of age, introduces Bond for the first time to millions of viewers. His screen magnetism, and overt masculine sexuality was overwhelming; there was no ambiguity to his sexuality, nor were there any signs of weakness in his demeanor; there was not a scintilla of doubt that he was the one in charge. He had a cat-like walk, a confident seductive approach with women, a savior faire manner and a suave appearance, which was in
contrast to his diamond-in-the-rough good looks. He was very graceful and comfortable in his Savile Row tailored suits, although Roger Moore had a more elegant look his walk was stiffer and he seemed more self conscious in his clothes.
Many of the actors have some of Connery's qualities, but not all of them;ergo, it's not who is the better Bond; it's who is the better Connery.
Connery, at only 32 years of age, introduces Bond for the first time to millions of viewers. His screen magnetism, and overt masculine sexuality was overwhelming; there was no ambiguity to his sexuality, nor were there any signs of weakness in his demeanor; there was not a scintilla of doubt that he was the one in charge. He had a cat-like walk, a confident seductive approach with women, a savior faire manner and a suave appearance, which was in
contrast to his diamond-in-the-rough good looks. He was very graceful and comfortable in his Savile Row tailored suits, although Roger Moore had a more elegant look his walk was stiffer and he seemed more self conscious in his clothes.
Many of the actors have some of Connery's qualities, but not all of them;ergo, it's not who is the better Bond; it's who is the better Connery.
1
I think you need to watch For Your Eyes Only again if you still see it as breezy and not grittier and darker than the other three. As for sexual innuendo, Moore's Bond rejects the young figure skater in his bed with "get dressed and I'll buy you an ice cream."
'... the sublime, ridiculous thrill of seeing “The Spy Who Loved Me,” “Moonraker,” “For Your Eyes Only” and “Octopussy” on the big screen. Those movies were heavenly trash, with plots you didn’t really need to follow and sexual innuendo that struck my young eyes and ears as deliciously risqué."'
'... the sublime, ridiculous thrill of seeing “The Spy Who Loved Me,” “Moonraker,” “For Your Eyes Only” and “Octopussy” on the big screen. Those movies were heavenly trash, with plots you didn’t really need to follow and sexual innuendo that struck my young eyes and ears as deliciously risqué."'
The Roger Moore Bond movies were the ones contemporary with me. Connery's were a few years before my time. I worshipped Moore for awhile as a teenager, and watched "The Saint" and "The Persuaders" in late-night reruns. All that said, I have to come down in favor of Connery as the "real" Bond. I say this because I wrote a thesis on Ian Fleming after having researched his background and methods. Fleming actually worked in British intelligence and lived somewhat of a "Bond" life. Interestingly, Connery most closely resembles Fleming's own sketch of the Bond he imagined. The films were, for the most part, over-the-top exaggerations of the novels, more so as the years went on. By the end of Moore's era, the movies bore little or no resemblance to the books. In that sense, Moore's ability to go with the caricatures, the crazy plots, and the outlandish machinery did serve his films better than perhaps Connery's portrayal would have. But if you've read the books and studied Fleming, and therefore you're a Bond purist, Connery is the man.
5
I would place Roger Moore ahead of only the disastrous Timothy Dalton in ranking Bonds. Moore came across as stiff instead of sly when delivering one-liners, and was completely unconvincing in action scenes. None of that should be a surprise -- he was basically reprising his role in The Saint but with increasingly poor writing.
It should be noted that the writing behind each incarnation of 007 is at least as important as the actor on the screen. Dalton was bad because his films were joyless. Craig is hard-edged not because of his biceps but because of the circumstances and the way in which his actions are scripted.
So, when I think of Roger Moore, I think of how completely out of place he was dealing with redneck sheriff comic relief in Live and Let Die. Or how an over the top villain Jaws went from fun in one movie to ridiculous in Moonraker. Compare anything Moore did to Brosnan in Goldeneye or even to Lazenby's underrated turn in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Sir Moore's iteration of Bond just doesn't stack up. He did, however, get all the best theme songs.
It should be noted that the writing behind each incarnation of 007 is at least as important as the actor on the screen. Dalton was bad because his films were joyless. Craig is hard-edged not because of his biceps but because of the circumstances and the way in which his actions are scripted.
So, when I think of Roger Moore, I think of how completely out of place he was dealing with redneck sheriff comic relief in Live and Let Die. Or how an over the top villain Jaws went from fun in one movie to ridiculous in Moonraker. Compare anything Moore did to Brosnan in Goldeneye or even to Lazenby's underrated turn in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Sir Moore's iteration of Bond just doesn't stack up. He did, however, get all the best theme songs.
2
That's Sir Roger. You should get that right when discussing/explicating James Bond movies and books.
Fleming's Bond was unlike either Sean Connery or Roger Moore, so what's the point of debating which was the better role assumption. For me, it will always be Connery's, because beneath the charm, sex and danger, there is also a sense of 'gravitas' lurking about, something one could never say about Moore's version of the character. Connery's Bond was a character quite divorced from his other film roles, whereas Moore's version seemed a very good carryover from his successful TV interpretation of The Saint. Anyway, Fleming did not see Bond in terms of either actor, but imagined him initially as looking something like Hoagy Carmichael and being a rather dull fellow in an interesting line of work. One might want to remember that the first actor to ever essay James Bond wasn't even English, but the excellent-if-uncharismatic (mainly) stage actor, Barry Nelson, who was vaguely leading-manish, but hardly either sexy or swashbuckling. Why Mr. Scott saw a necessity to write this piece, beyond just paying tribute to the always enjoyable Roger Moore, I cannot imagine, but I do hope the Times gives him or another critic equal time to praise the myriad accomplishments of Sean Connery when he shuffles off this mortal coin (hopefully, not for decades).
2
Fleming himself had said that he envisioned Bond as someone like the late David Niven, suave and upper class.
So true. Bond as a character and as a reductive depiction of villains and heroes is simple fantasy.
Connery was entertaining enough, yet ultimately a 2 dimensional testosterone fueled cardboard blow up from the back of the Bond paperback novels, playing in films that are also fun enough as far as they go, but lacking the tension required to bridge the boredom of the uneven plots, not to mention the weak special effects of the time.
Moore simply camped Bond like no other, in fims that knew they existed as pure entertainment. Pierce Brosnan was a pale copy in comparison, like switching to a diet version of a cola.
Daniel Craig's depiction of Bond is flat out boring. I'm astounded Broccoli killed off the camp and went for "the serious". Seriously ? Replaying train roof scenes minus the humour, injecting yourself in the heart at the last second with adrenaline when you've been poisoned? Puleeeze dahling. Dump the chump and stick with the script, cause "gravitas" ain't working for this Bond fan.
Connery was entertaining enough, yet ultimately a 2 dimensional testosterone fueled cardboard blow up from the back of the Bond paperback novels, playing in films that are also fun enough as far as they go, but lacking the tension required to bridge the boredom of the uneven plots, not to mention the weak special effects of the time.
Moore simply camped Bond like no other, in fims that knew they existed as pure entertainment. Pierce Brosnan was a pale copy in comparison, like switching to a diet version of a cola.
Daniel Craig's depiction of Bond is flat out boring. I'm astounded Broccoli killed off the camp and went for "the serious". Seriously ? Replaying train roof scenes minus the humour, injecting yourself in the heart at the last second with adrenaline when you've been poisoned? Puleeeze dahling. Dump the chump and stick with the script, cause "gravitas" ain't working for this Bond fan.
This time, Mr. Scott is so wrong it hurts.
Roger Moore was too pretty and harmless as James Bond. The character includes some menace, in order to dispatch the villains. That was Sean Connery in spades. You knew he could tear someone apart if he had to.
Roger Moore was too pretty and harmless as James Bond. The character includes some menace, in order to dispatch the villains. That was Sean Connery in spades. You knew he could tear someone apart if he had to.
7
Ask anyone who has read Ian Fleming's novels, hands down, Sean Connery is the man. But so what? Johnny Depp was so much closer to Willy Wonka as Ronald Dahl had intended, and I hated that movie. Mr. Wonka will always been Gene Wilder to me.
The Bond movies span such a wide range of themes over the years (campiness to intrigue to torture to politics to misogyny) that listing any one Bond as "the best" does a disservice to the other movies.
The Bond movies span such a wide range of themes over the years (campiness to intrigue to torture to politics to misogyny) that listing any one Bond as "the best" does a disservice to the other movies.
7
Oh here we go--who’s the best Bond!
Have you ever actually READ the Ian Fleming novels? Bond was NOT good looking and had a scar that disfigured his face.
Who cares!! This is an obit on Roger Moore. He not only did Bond which was a SMALL part of his life, he spent more time raising money for UNICEF which is why he has his KBE a Knight of the British Empire. (Not even an MBE, OBE, or CBE for the other actors.)
Sir Roger Moore was “more” of a man than any actor who played at Bond.
Have you ever actually READ the Ian Fleming novels? Bond was NOT good looking and had a scar that disfigured his face.
Who cares!! This is an obit on Roger Moore. He not only did Bond which was a SMALL part of his life, he spent more time raising money for UNICEF which is why he has his KBE a Knight of the British Empire. (Not even an MBE, OBE, or CBE for the other actors.)
Sir Roger Moore was “more” of a man than any actor who played at Bond.
1
Scott is stating Moore was more Bond than Sean -- not so much an obit piece -- geeeeshc. Sean is Bond Forever -- Dr. No changed moviedom and Sean was/is d'Man.
Sorry, Nuschler, but Sean Connery was long ago (in 2000) made a Knight of the British Empire, and for his acting, not for his peripheral activities (outside their Bond endeavors, Sir Sean's film career still consists of a fairly glorious series of performances, while Sir Roger's is most accurately described as being highly inconsequential).
I am a little older than boomers (b. 1944), and I enjoyed Roger Moore's Bond far more than Connery, altho overall Connery was a bigger talent and much better actor. Moore made 007 fun and likable -- perhaps not what Fleming or true 007 fans wanted -- but for sheer cinematic pleasure I enjoyed Moore's iteration more than any other, including Craig. The 007 stories are ridiculous, over the top adventure, and 007 himself is a parody of classic British heroism; Moore was both funny and dignified.
3
Not so, Sean Connery was the ultimate Bond, Brosnan and Craig tie for second!
5
Sean Connery was believable in the role. Roger Moore, not so much.
4
He was the CLASSIEST of all the Bonds! By far! What other Bond could cook up a PERFECT quiche in a nearly abandoned house while saving the world again!
His work with charities especially UNICEF continued up to a few months ago in his 90th year. His knighthood was well deserved.
Good “Knight” dear Sir! What a shock. Pure class!
His work with charities especially UNICEF continued up to a few months ago in his 90th year. His knighthood was well deserved.
Good “Knight” dear Sir! What a shock. Pure class!
5
As a James Bond fanatic and as one who believes that Sean Connery was the best on-screen 007, I always felt that Roger Moore was a victim of his Bond movies. He had the misfortune to star in among the flat-out silliest and most far-fetched 007 films ever ("Live and Let Die," "The Man with the Golden Gun" and "Moonraker," for starters). These movies frankly required Bond to be ridiculous, and Moore gamely complied, to the point where it hurt his reputation a bit. In the two movies which asked Bond to be at least somewhat serious and credible ("The Spy Who Loved Me" and "For Your Eyes Only"), he showed the full range of the character (humor mixed with gravitas and even some hints of sensitivity) and portrayed 007 as well as anyone ever has.
6
If Generation X wants a fop as a hero, so be it. I doubt it though. The question is: what do you want the Bond movies to be? A politically correct diversity romp with heroes who are sensitive? A semi realistic look at a hyped up genre of espionage with a suave hero who can kill as easily as he can sip martinis? I'm 76 and I'll take the latter. Give me Connery/Craig over Moore any day.
2
They were all good for different reasons, different times and different fantasies.
I wish we had a real James Bond right now to take care of evil the world over.
We have a perfect Bond villain right here in America.
I wish we had a real James Bond right now to take care of evil the world over.
We have a perfect Bond villain right here in America.
15
You nailed it for me. Totally agree. I have a signed Moonraker framed picture which Roger Moore signed right by the crotch. I grew up with my parents telling me all about Sean Connery. The opening scene of "The Spy Who Loved Me" totally transports me to a happy place. The kitsch is awesome. Roger Moore- "baby your the best"
2
Sean Connery is the only genuine James Bond. No one else comes close.
3
Nice try. But surely all reviewers should recuse themselves from writing about anything they saw as adolescents.
2
So, Mr. Scott's argument for Roger Moore as "the best 007" boils down to this: he was the best because I'm wielding the pen, and this pen resents Baby Boomers and Millennials who don't respect my opinions.
A less-wounded essayist might offer that Roger Moore stood out in the role because he could turn on a dime in response to multiple threats, could enjoy the trappings of luxury and technology without obsessing over them, and could bring himself to converse with females rather than plot how to bed them.
Sean Connery always looked like he had been projected ten years into the future in his performances; he was uncomfortable with Q's inventions and irritated that women had somehow acquired voices. Daniel Craig moved through the endless duties of 007 as though he was a technician plotting out stunts for the real 007 to perform.
Rather than generational pride, one could rest on the insight that Mr. Moore inhabited the role as a perfect fit. His portrayal of James Bond was light and animated. It allowed story to trump hormones and Cold War stirrings.
A less-wounded essayist might offer that Roger Moore stood out in the role because he could turn on a dime in response to multiple threats, could enjoy the trappings of luxury and technology without obsessing over them, and could bring himself to converse with females rather than plot how to bed them.
Sean Connery always looked like he had been projected ten years into the future in his performances; he was uncomfortable with Q's inventions and irritated that women had somehow acquired voices. Daniel Craig moved through the endless duties of 007 as though he was a technician plotting out stunts for the real 007 to perform.
Rather than generational pride, one could rest on the insight that Mr. Moore inhabited the role as a perfect fit. His portrayal of James Bond was light and animated. It allowed story to trump hormones and Cold War stirrings.
3
Maybe you're taking the review too seriously. I do believe that, like Moore's Bond, some of Scott's anyalysis is tongue-in-cheek.
Sean Connery is the only Bond.
Everyone else just played the role.
Everyone else just played the role.
13
Except for Daniel Craig...
1
Oh Mr. Scott! Need you make it a generational thing? We older guys (balding and arthritic) turning up our well-worn noses at you dewy-eyed young folks? We got nothing against you, Mr. Scott. Well--not much.
Now sir--just a quick word Sean Connery is--for all time--the superlative James Bond. And Mr. Moore--may he rest in peace!--ISN'T. No offense. I too was a young man when "Live and Let Die", "Spy Who Loved Me"--all those--came out. Oh yeah--they were fun. I enjoyed them.
But they haven't worn well. I don't think they have. Years ago (when my kids were small) we sat down before the TV and saw "Man With The Golden Gun." Oh Mr. Scott--it creaked. Just a bit. Like my knees and elbows nowadays. The years have not been kind to "Man With The Golden Gun." Nor (for my money) most of the Roger Moore 007 pictures.
Why Sean Connery? I have heard--when first seeing him in "Doctor No"--Ian Fleming exclaimed, "Why he's a navvy!" (Blue collar, working class Brit.) But he came round. He really did. Why, you ask.
Because there was something menacing, incalculable about Sean Connery. Jovial, personable, good-looking! and he would kill you at the drop of a hat. That scene in "Diamonds Are Forever" (at the very start) when some thug gets strapped to a gurney and sent flying into a vat of molten mud (struggling in vain to shield his face). Oh my! Scary stuff.
Now THAT, Mr. Scott--THAT is James Bond. License to kill. Oh yeah!
Now sir--just a quick word Sean Connery is--for all time--the superlative James Bond. And Mr. Moore--may he rest in peace!--ISN'T. No offense. I too was a young man when "Live and Let Die", "Spy Who Loved Me"--all those--came out. Oh yeah--they were fun. I enjoyed them.
But they haven't worn well. I don't think they have. Years ago (when my kids were small) we sat down before the TV and saw "Man With The Golden Gun." Oh Mr. Scott--it creaked. Just a bit. Like my knees and elbows nowadays. The years have not been kind to "Man With The Golden Gun." Nor (for my money) most of the Roger Moore 007 pictures.
Why Sean Connery? I have heard--when first seeing him in "Doctor No"--Ian Fleming exclaimed, "Why he's a navvy!" (Blue collar, working class Brit.) But he came round. He really did. Why, you ask.
Because there was something menacing, incalculable about Sean Connery. Jovial, personable, good-looking! and he would kill you at the drop of a hat. That scene in "Diamonds Are Forever" (at the very start) when some thug gets strapped to a gurney and sent flying into a vat of molten mud (struggling in vain to shield his face). Oh my! Scary stuff.
Now THAT, Mr. Scott--THAT is James Bond. License to kill. Oh yeah!
21
Licensed to kill. Only Connery made this believable and at the same time darkly humorous.
Enjoyed Moore. Considered him a distant second best Bond. But Connery will always be Fleming's authentic 007.
Enjoyed Moore. Considered him a distant second best Bond. But Connery will always be Fleming's authentic 007.
5
The best description in this excellent article is "ironic." How many times did Moore pull off well-written lines such as the one after a fight or a fall; when asked if anything was broken he arched that eyebrow and said, "Only my tailor's heart." His autobiography, "My Word is My Bond," is worth haunting a few used bookstores for. A true gentleman and, as the article expresses, the right Bond for his generation. One can admire him without enjoying the other actors who made the character their own, especially Sean Connery.
3
You could not have summed it up better. He was my version of Bond (I never watched a 007 movie again after his ones) and I also enjoyed watching him in The Saint and The Persuaders. It was hilarious to watch how he never seemed out of composure in the midst of all the action. May he Rest In Peace.
2
Thank you Mr. Scott. Moore is my favorite Bond as well, if only to take a stand against the tired chauvinism exuded by Connery. Octopus remains my favorite Bond film (that seduction scene with the balcony exit!). There's no way Connery could have pulled off the clown bit.
Agree 100%. The Bond franchise was pure camp from the get-go, so anyone touting Connery as some kind of serious, hairier, Bond is just being ridiculous. The only ppl who wd do that are people who were born then and so Connery seemed immediate and cool, or people born way after, who find the analog technology and cro-magnon sexual mores cool.
I wanted to like the Craig ones, but did anyone see how ludicrous they got? The Craig ppl were maybe the first who actually _could_ have made Bond serious, but they backed way, way off in the end. And if you think the films are trash, try reading Fleming. No, Moore was the only one who got it, who realized what a joke and a ruse it all was, while still satisfying all our vicarious notions of what life as a glamorous spy could or might be.
He's my Bond. Not saying I'd ever watch any of his films again--but then, I'd never watch any of the others again, ever. By default, therefore, Moore is my man. Besides, Moore, though he was far from me politically, at least made good use of himself with charitable works; Connery just ended up a lout trying to get poorer people out of his apartment building.
There's a larger topic here: Fleming, and all the Bond men, are utter cartoons. I imagine some will point out movies in which there is a convincing spy, but all these decades down the road, I think the Bond-makers missed something in not trying to make a somewhat plausible, non-risible film. But again, until they do, it's Moore for me.
I wanted to like the Craig ones, but did anyone see how ludicrous they got? The Craig ppl were maybe the first who actually _could_ have made Bond serious, but they backed way, way off in the end. And if you think the films are trash, try reading Fleming. No, Moore was the only one who got it, who realized what a joke and a ruse it all was, while still satisfying all our vicarious notions of what life as a glamorous spy could or might be.
He's my Bond. Not saying I'd ever watch any of his films again--but then, I'd never watch any of the others again, ever. By default, therefore, Moore is my man. Besides, Moore, though he was far from me politically, at least made good use of himself with charitable works; Connery just ended up a lout trying to get poorer people out of his apartment building.
There's a larger topic here: Fleming, and all the Bond men, are utter cartoons. I imagine some will point out movies in which there is a convincing spy, but all these decades down the road, I think the Bond-makers missed something in not trying to make a somewhat plausible, non-risible film. But again, until they do, it's Moore for me.
My affinity for Roger Moore is simply for he is part of the nostalgia of my youth.
All of the actors who took on the role made it enjoyable in their own way. All the writers and directors made the movies fit with the times.
And, still today, all women want Bond, and all men want to be him, as they say.
All of the actors who took on the role made it enjoyable in their own way. All the writers and directors made the movies fit with the times.
And, still today, all women want Bond, and all men want to be him, as they say.
2
Connery started off like gangbusters but over time he got bored and wanted out, and you can see it in his performances in his later pictures. In contrast, Moore got better over time so that late Moore, especially For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy, is actually much better than late Connery.
3
having watched all of the Bond movies more times than i care to admit , i think Pierce Bronson was by far the best Bond and his movies were the best also. Roger Moore's films turned the character into a joke and the clothes he wore were an abomination .
1
"My James Bond ... is a cartoon superhero in evening wear, a man whose mission is to embody — and, therefore, to transcend — a secondhand, second-rate age, to be cool and clever in a world determined to be as lame and dumb as possible."
I'm not quite sure what that all means, it sounds like there's an insult in there somewhere but I can't pin it down.
The Bond of Flemings novels was anything but cartoonish, and is perfectly embodied by the bet Bond ever...Daniel Craig. And, btw, in 53 and far from being a millennial.
I'm not quite sure what that all means, it sounds like there's an insult in there somewhere but I can't pin it down.
The Bond of Flemings novels was anything but cartoonish, and is perfectly embodied by the bet Bond ever...Daniel Craig. And, btw, in 53 and far from being a millennial.
1
No, Sean Connery was the best... hands down. Daniel Craig is also very good.
3
I respectfully disagree about Mr. Moore's Bond. He turned the franchise into a joke and took it far, far away from the word and spirit of the Fleming novels. When asked in an interview what he thought of other Bonds, Moore said, admiringly and somewhat wistfully, that both Connery and Craig looked like men who could actually kill someone...as in licensed to kill, the premise of the Bond character.
3
This is just such nonsense. RIP Roger Moore in all respect, but you were unwatchable in that role.
2
For You Eyes Only was my first Bond film I got to see in the theatre, I still remember the experience as if it was yesterday. Roger Moore was the best bond. His whimsical style and one liners, especially with Money Penny, M and Q are hilarious and perfectly balances the era. Thank you for everything Roger.
3
You can't blame Moore for the sins of the cheesy 70's. 007 was always a reflection of his time. Roger Moore did outstanding work in a great many things too numerous to list. Goodnight, Sir Roger.
5
Having read Flemings' books repeatedly Connerys' portrayals of Bond were far truer to the authors' intent then any other attempts perhaps because Fleming himself had limited input on the original movie productions. The 'original' is not always the best but, in this case, the original set a mark that hasn't been equalled.
6
I may (!!) be dating myself, but the Bonds -- all of them -- provided a measure of enjoyably watchable fantasy without resorting to the banal sci-fi gimmickry of vampires, zombies, or artificially intelligent robots.
1
Could not agree more - while the debate over who was the "best" Bond may be purely subjective, the ease with which Moore portrayed the character with just the right balance of suave, sophistication and self-deprication is what made him the most enjoyable in my opinion. What's more - nobody could deliver one-liners with better deadpan comedic timing. I, for one, will truly miss Sir Roger.
1
This article is spot on. This is the Bond I grew up with and watched endlessly on HBO. I could not get enough of The Spy Who Loved Me and still till this day think the Lotus Esprit is one of the best looking sports cars ever. For my 12th birthday we went to see Octopussy.
Did anyone else get those die cast toys? The Esprit that shot the little red torpedo's or the Aston where the bulletproof plate popped up from the trunk!
Thanks for the great memories Sir Moore, RIP.
Did anyone else get those die cast toys? The Esprit that shot the little red torpedo's or the Aston where the bulletproof plate popped up from the trunk!
Thanks for the great memories Sir Moore, RIP.
3
For anyone living in the UK at the time, it was obvious that Moore was, above all, the Establishment's Bond. After a Scot and an Australian, he was English. He embodied English Establishment values that were under siege from both the official and the more rabid left wing of politics. Women were back in their place in his movies. Power was where it belonged.
1
Salient points all, but part of what's great about Gen-X is that we don't need to rebut Millennials.
We had Roger Moore by accident of birth, the same way that Boomers had Connery, who, for my money, was the quintessential 007. Had the roles been reversed I think we'd be the one's opining on the lame lampoon Moore's Bond was compared to "our" more canonical protagonist.
I'd point to Moore as being the best 007 off camera, as tales of his kind heart seem to be all over social media as he is eulogized by a thankful fandom. If you'll forgive the play on words, to his fans, Moore was a Saint.
We had Roger Moore by accident of birth, the same way that Boomers had Connery, who, for my money, was the quintessential 007. Had the roles been reversed I think we'd be the one's opining on the lame lampoon Moore's Bond was compared to "our" more canonical protagonist.
I'd point to Moore as being the best 007 off camera, as tales of his kind heart seem to be all over social media as he is eulogized by a thankful fandom. If you'll forgive the play on words, to his fans, Moore was a Saint.
9
I like all of the Bonds. Lately, I find myself appreciating the "overlooked" Bonds more and more: Lazenby, whose only installment is one of the, maybe even the best single Bond film ever, and Dalton, whose more grim and down to earth take on Bond seemed really refreshing after the last films of the Moore era. Dalton's second film was the first one I saw in a theater, so there will always be that nostalgia for me too.
Moore was in the first Bond film I remember seeing. I was about seven, and I saw Moonraker shown on network TV. I was already pretty fascinated by NASA and the space shuttle, so I was amazed by the whole spectacle of it. My dad decided I should see the "real" 007, so we started watching all of the films on VHS, starting with Dr. No. I enjoyed Dr. No, but I was a little too young to really understand why my dad might find the sight of Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean in her bikini more exciting than space shuttles with laser beams!
It is true that Moore starred in some of the worst films in the series. However, a lot of the bad tendencies of the Moore films - over reliance on gadgetry, juvenile sexual innuendo, a tendency towards self-parody - were already on display in the final two Connery installments. Also, in our presently crude age there's much to be said for Moore's interpretation of Bond as a gentleman of manners who opts for wits before violence.
Moore was in the first Bond film I remember seeing. I was about seven, and I saw Moonraker shown on network TV. I was already pretty fascinated by NASA and the space shuttle, so I was amazed by the whole spectacle of it. My dad decided I should see the "real" 007, so we started watching all of the films on VHS, starting with Dr. No. I enjoyed Dr. No, but I was a little too young to really understand why my dad might find the sight of Ursula Andress emerging from the ocean in her bikini more exciting than space shuttles with laser beams!
It is true that Moore starred in some of the worst films in the series. However, a lot of the bad tendencies of the Moore films - over reliance on gadgetry, juvenile sexual innuendo, a tendency towards self-parody - were already on display in the final two Connery installments. Also, in our presently crude age there's much to be said for Moore's interpretation of Bond as a gentleman of manners who opts for wits before violence.
12
If it wasn't for Roger Moore's Bond, we'd never have Austin Powers.
3
I felt very much the same as a kid. Modern Bond. I dug the gadgets, too. I think I didn't get the gags, in particular in/by Moonraker. Regardless, the core of Moore's stint in Bond was 'slick', which is still my favorite Bond style, the one I identify most with. As for silly stories, especially into the last Brosnan Bond, eww. Skyfall went there, too. I haven't even seen Spectre.....
Octopussy is underrated and one of his best films.
Not by a long shot Sean Connery was and is the best James Bond.
3
A Blofeld-inspired piece. All hail Sean Connery.
5
Thanks to an Author for refreshing perspective on Bond's incarnations! Love the last paragraphs of the text. How about Timothy Dalton? What a cultural values he has embodied? If any:-)
Interestingly enough, Roger Moore felt that the actor who replaced him in the role, Timothy Dalton, was the best Bond.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_filmography#cite_note-129
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond_filmography#cite_note-129
2
While we mourn the passing of Roger Moore---who was iconic as "The Saint", it is obvious that the writer doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the James Bond movies. Moore's portrayal of Bond nearly ruined the franchise--crossing over into parody. Connery was the quintessential Bond and Moore's successors all played the role in a grittier manner--for a reason.
3
Roger Moore is to James Bond what Adam West is to Batman.
3
Indeed, the best Bond -- smooth sophistication as an actor which superseded the common character in action films of just another bureaucrat with a weapon.
Look, Moore was the perfect Saint — and if you'd read Fleming's novels from back to front many times over before the first rather silly film was even made, as I had as an impressionable preadolescent, then Connery whilst imperfect was the far more realistic Bond.
Moreover, unlike the latest incarnation, Connery didn't pout.
Moreover, unlike the latest incarnation, Connery didn't pout.
3
Connery was the best. Craig is too earnest and dumb looking and dresses like a continental gigolo who might split his pants. Moore was ironical and detached.Definitely the second best.
1
This article expresses my experience exactly. It was such a thrill to be sotting in the theater watching the wild opening sequence for a new Roger Moore Bond movie, just anticipating the fun craziness to cone. Sean Connery was an overly 'adult' Bond; Daniel Craig's Bond takes himself way too seriously. Moore got it right. He fit roght into the era, like a Norman Lear sotcom.
We all know that Roger was just a good-looking softie - very difficult for impersonators to mimic. Too old to start with, didn't move like a tough guy, acted like a man acting, and trembled if you said 'Boo' at him. Sean, however, moved like a panther, with rugged good looks, definitely a tough guy, and much more role-fitting.
Nice guy, Roger, but a sharp-end athletic secret agent - never.
Nice guy, Roger, but a sharp-end athletic secret agent - never.
6
The guy was a shallow and poor actor, making Bond a boring clown.
2
Moore, Connery, Craig (et al) are testaments to how a single character can be interpreted in different ways and still live on. Moore's tongue-in-cheek, wink-this-is-truly-preposterous manner will be remembered through all his memorable Bond moments. The Citroen 2CV chase scene in For Your Eyes Only, for one ...
Roger Moore did a fine job, but all of those who came after Sean Connery will always been second tier. Connery was the original...all the rest were fill ins.
5
The modern Bonds are the worst. Bond is a comic book hero and Moore understood that. Pathos in a superhero is an oxymoron.
Jaws was the best villain ever and Moore was able to share screen time with him.
Quick, can you even remember a villain from the Daniel Craig era? Or a car? I recall watching a 90 minute commercial for laptops and BMWs. I stopped watching the series with Craig.
Moore deserves much greater respect. He was fun, what you go to the movies for.
Jaws was the best villain ever and Moore was able to share screen time with him.
Quick, can you even remember a villain from the Daniel Craig era? Or a car? I recall watching a 90 minute commercial for laptops and BMWs. I stopped watching the series with Craig.
Moore deserves much greater respect. He was fun, what you go to the movies for.
12
Quick? Um Javier Barden in Skyfall, and the modern Aston Martin Daniel Craig swirled into oblivion to avoid running over Vespa. What I can't get out of my mind is the BEIGE flying American Motors Matador run through fake clouds in Man With the Golden Pee-Shooter. Now there was a Lulu!
Spectre got Moore, but not Connery. So there!
1
WRONG!
Roger Moore was too smooth, oily even, lacking inner grit. Like a tv star. Sean Connery was on a much higher level, and a better actor by far, much more nuanced and interesting. These are not alternative facts!!
Roger Moore was too smooth, oily even, lacking inner grit. Like a tv star. Sean Connery was on a much higher level, and a better actor by far, much more nuanced and interesting. These are not alternative facts!!
6
"This is all a tad silly, but isn't it fun?" In a way he trusted movie goers to get it. Bond was just a roller coaster ride.
There was always something fun about Moore's Bond - you could read that twinkle in his eye as his admission that he knew this was all a bit ridiculous but he was going to play the game anyway.
The newest Craigian incarnation is no fun at all. We are meant to genuflect at the monumental competence and calculatedness of it all, but it is all very tiring.
The newest Craigian incarnation is no fun at all. We are meant to genuflect at the monumental competence and calculatedness of it all, but it is all very tiring.
1
Moore, absolutely! He brought more class and humor to the role than any other Bond. I'll miss him.
2
Such articles are always bemusing. As the "best" is a matter of opinion, perhaps this article should have been published in that section of the newspaper.
Sorry Mr. Scott, even though my first Bond film was the execrable 'Diamonds Are Forever' and I more or less grew up with the Roger Moore outings that followed, Connery was simply the best Bond ever. That said, 'The Spy Who Loved Me' is one of my favourite 007 movies.
3
So, Roger's doing his first Bond film, Live and Let Die. Scene has him clamped down to a chair. Character named Tee Hee is instructed to get his gun, using a pincher claw (because he has one arm). During shooting, the actor, Julius Harris couldn't get the pincher to grab the gun. Moore looked up at him and said, "Butterhook." It wasn't in the script. It is in the film.
Because Moore wasn't an imitation of Connery, but still could make audiences feel like they were watching a James Bond film, the Bond series survived and prospered. A lesser, less certain actor would have very likely ended the series with a flop. Moore kept James Bond alive.
RIP Roger.
Because Moore wasn't an imitation of Connery, but still could make audiences feel like they were watching a James Bond film, the Bond series survived and prospered. A lesser, less certain actor would have very likely ended the series with a flop. Moore kept James Bond alive.
RIP Roger.
2
Has some horrid Russian Super-Spy hacked M's files and deleted the sublimely sullen Timothy Dalton, who so perfectly captured 007's distaste for his dirty work?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
Sean Connery had the writers of Goldfinger (which included Richard Maibuam), director Guy Hamilton, production designer Ken Adam, and composer John Barry. Roger Moore had the writers of Octopussy (which included Richard Maibaum), director John Glenn, production designer Peter Lamont, and composer John Barry.
Until Michael Kamen, James Bond films that had a composer other than John Barry didn't stand a chance. No one understood what John Barry was doing, with his long music lines to score many of the action sequences that made it seem the whole world was at stake, not just this fight.
Sean Connery was perfect for Goldfinger and Roger Moore was perfect for Octopussy. And both had perfect teams supporting them. Roger Moore had the advantage of showing a bit of love behind the mind and grit. Hats off to both.
(Pierce Brosnan brought a bit of the love thing too.)
Until Michael Kamen, James Bond films that had a composer other than John Barry didn't stand a chance. No one understood what John Barry was doing, with his long music lines to score many of the action sequences that made it seem the whole world was at stake, not just this fight.
Sean Connery was perfect for Goldfinger and Roger Moore was perfect for Octopussy. And both had perfect teams supporting them. Roger Moore had the advantage of showing a bit of love behind the mind and grit. Hats off to both.
(Pierce Brosnan brought a bit of the love thing too.)
2
Silly article, Mr Scott. " Bond. James Bond." Will always conjure images of Sean Connery."
2
My goodness, I have liked all of the James Bonds, which probably ruins any credibility I have to post anything ever again on The NY Times site. From sitting in a car at a drive-in theater in the mid-60s to watching the current Bond movies at home on pay-per-view, I have enjoyed them all over the last 50 or so years. Yeah, a lot of the movies were, theatrically speaking, awful. But the opening scenes, the bold music, the chase scenes, the beautiful girls, James Bond having unseen sex with the beautiful girls in quantities mere mortals could only dream about... is this not Hollywood, or Pinewood studios, at its' very unrealistic and escapist best?
I hope I'm still alive, kicking and watching Bond films in 25 years when I turn 90.
Rest in peace, Roger Moore. You've left us all with a "Bond" who was a "Saint."
I hope I'm still alive, kicking and watching Bond films in 25 years when I turn 90.
Rest in peace, Roger Moore. You've left us all with a "Bond" who was a "Saint."
13
Connery was the best Bond. Want some sexual innuendo? Look no farther than Pussy Galore.
2
Absolutely!! I am a baby boomer and for me, even if Connery was the original Bond, and a very good one, and Daniel Craig the best actor to play Bond, Sir Roger was the best James Bond. Goldfinger was probably the best Bond movie, and Pussy Galore the most memorable Bond-girl name. But Sir Roger was the best Bond. Nobody did British understatement like him. Nobody else was capable, with a straight face, of wrecking a wedding party with a jet boat, or driving a gondola out of a Venetian canal, or driving the front end of a Renault around Paris.
3
And I will definitely be having whatever you're drinking...don't tell me....it's bolly? King Bollinger. And you must have had several bottles of it to come up with the Roger Moore assertion.
1
I agree wholeheartedly with the premise of this article. Thank you for reframing Moore's Bond for me so well.
I was in the midst of adolescence during his movies, and Moore was a comical indulgence for my demographic at the time. He was a fantasy Bond versus Craig's reality Bond.
I always preferred Connery overall, but thank you for your homage to Moore. It's spot on.
I have one disagreement about Moore's scripts however. I believe, "For Your Eyes Only," is one of the best Bond movies story-wise. It's got it all.
R.I.P. Sir Roger Moore. Thanks for the fun ride.
P.S. The motorcycle with the exploding side car was from "Thunderball," not "Moonraker."
I was in the midst of adolescence during his movies, and Moore was a comical indulgence for my demographic at the time. He was a fantasy Bond versus Craig's reality Bond.
I always preferred Connery overall, but thank you for your homage to Moore. It's spot on.
I have one disagreement about Moore's scripts however. I believe, "For Your Eyes Only," is one of the best Bond movies story-wise. It's got it all.
R.I.P. Sir Roger Moore. Thanks for the fun ride.
P.S. The motorcycle with the exploding side car was from "Thunderball," not "Moonraker."
3
@CLIV For Your Eyes Only is still my favorite Bond movie. I think they realized they had gotten too ridiculous with Moonraker and started dialing it back. Octopussy was good too although a bit of that cheese started coming back. By A View to a Kill, it was fully back. But none of this is Moore's fault; he doesn't write these scripts.
By all means, let's argue about this. Everything else is so calm and we're all so free of conflict right now why not? Surely there's room to manufacture another conflict.
You like Connery? Great! You like Moore? Great! That's all it is.
You like Connery? Great! You like Moore? Great! That's all it is.
You could not be more wrong. Connery defined it and still does.
2
As a Roger Moore partisan, I will invoke what Roger Ebert memorably (a beautiful remark on the DVD commentary) said about Casablanca: If you ask me which is the best movie of all time, I might say "Citizen Kane"; however, if you ask me my *favorite* movie of all time, I just might respond 'Casablanca."
RIP Roger Moore and Roger Ebert both.
RIP Roger Moore and Roger Ebert both.
1
I totally agree, Moore´s Bond was great because he didn´t seem to take himself too seriously. As a cinema lover, I admired masterworks by Tarkoski, Kurosawa and Bergman, but no one drinks Chateau Petrus every evening.
Moore was to cinema what heineken to drinking.
Thank you for so many evenings of pure entertainment.
Rest in peace at last
Bond, James Bond
Moore was to cinema what heineken to drinking.
Thank you for so many evenings of pure entertainment.
Rest in peace at last
Bond, James Bond
3
Daniel Craig's Bond is 'woke'? Hardly. He's played as an anachronism in a world that has changed without him keeping up. It's not what Fleming wrote and you are at liberty to hate what it does to the Bond character but there's no reason to misinterpret it.
I had an odd relationship with Bond altogether as a teenager in the early 80s- I didn't have access to the films but I owned all the books, gleaned from second hand bookshops so Bond to me will always be the one on the page first and foremost. Moore came second though, once I'd seen him. He was certainly the closest to Fleming's Bond.
I had an odd relationship with Bond altogether as a teenager in the early 80s- I didn't have access to the films but I owned all the books, gleaned from second hand bookshops so Bond to me will always be the one on the page first and foremost. Moore came second though, once I'd seen him. He was certainly the closest to Fleming's Bond.
I'd never argue against Sean Connery being the best Bond, but I can understand someone choosing Roger Moore, for the humorous take.
It's a bit like choosing Adam West as your favourite Batman. I wouldn't argue with that either.
It's a bit like choosing Adam West as your favourite Batman. I wouldn't argue with that either.
16
For Your Eyes Only was a good back-to-basics Bond film. A fairly believable story with no megalomaniac villain with a space station, underwater lair, or stealth ship in sight. OK, Blofeld makes an appearance in the pre-credits sequence but in those pre-CGI days, you have to admire the helicopter acrobatics.
Plus, it had Sheena Easton - my dream girl from the early 1980's!
If only Cubby Broccoli had continued in that vein.
Plus, it had Sheena Easton - my dream girl from the early 1980's!
If only Cubby Broccoli had continued in that vein.
2
As someone only a year younger than Paul McCartney, I'm actually a pre-baby-boomer. And I do like the actor Sean Connery. But it always struck me that the best Roger Moore Bond movies were better. Mr. Scott (ironic name under the circumstances) is the first critic I've read to agree with me. Bravo to him (or me).
2
If you read the Fleming books, in my opinion both Connery and Craig came closest to the character of Bond.
3
At age 31, I suppose I qualify as a millennial, but my younger brother and I were just commenting yesterday about how our favorite childhood Bond had died. Sean Connery was our least favorite.
1
It was simple: we felt good when watching Roger Moore, regardless of the plot, the character, or his age. He was one who exuded charm and grace, humor and irony. It was ludicrous to see him in a western, but like James Garner he had a charm which covered a lot of plot and writing sins. He wasn't Sean Connery but he was a Bond who made the part move smoothly and it was fun. No grit, just relaxation. As the Saint, he was smoother than George Sanders, a very fine actor who often played the cad such that even in the good guy role there was a suspicion that he really was not a hero. With Moore, there was no doubt that he deserved a place at Arthur's Round Table, where he eventually in title wound up in real life. RIP Mr. Moore, and thanks for the memories.
4
Keen observations, beautifully articulated. Mr Scott could probably deliver gripping spy novels, as well. I always enjoy reading his work.
1
Forget who played Bond. I loved the motor vehicles. Everyone remembers the Aston Martin. But the vehicle I remember, I think from Goldfinger, was the BSA Motorcycle mounted with heat seeking missiles to attack cars. I was 16, wanted to buy a British Twin motorcycle and that was the one I wanted!!
I almost cried when, after being used to destroy a car, it was dumped in a river to get rid of it.
And of course, the Lincoln that Oddjob was using to drive the mobster unwilling to invest in Goldfinger's Fort Knox venture. It wound up in a junk yard crusher......with the dead mobster still inside it.
Only in Bond films did you see vehicles used, and abused, in these ways.
I almost cried when, after being used to destroy a car, it was dumped in a river to get rid of it.
And of course, the Lincoln that Oddjob was using to drive the mobster unwilling to invest in Goldfinger's Fort Knox venture. It wound up in a junk yard crusher......with the dead mobster still inside it.
Only in Bond films did you see vehicles used, and abused, in these ways.
9
The BSA was in Thunderball. My heart was stilled from mourning at the loss of the motorcycle by watching Fiona Volpe pull off the helmet and shake lose her lovely red hair.
1
The franchise under Moore became a cartoon of the notion. I for one loved Connery in the role, but Daniel Craig has rescued it.
51
I'm a Boomer myself and totally agree with your brief but accurate analysis.
2
Well put, totally agree (and a GenXer to boot!)
1
Here's a comment from a baby-boomer female - Roger Moore was by far the best looking Bond (Brosnan wasn't too shabby). Craig isn't the least bit appealing. I'm always in the minority about the Moore-Connery comparison. Couldn't imagine Connery knowing the first thing about anything but beating people up nor any woman swooning in his arms. Been a Moore fan since his Saint days. Nobody does it better.
15
In a 21st Century Bond Universe where the threats seem so real but so petty ("Oh no, the Collective is reading our Facebook posts!") and Bond "goes rogue" in every installment after MI6 HQ is repeatedly detonated (Note to PM May: "Might be time to change the codes on the MI6 entrances")... we sort of yearn for the familiarity of the Roger Moore Bond-Formula:
1) Receive assignment to thwart global baddies
2) Drop glib remarks and sexual innuendo freely
3) Bed Bad Bond Babe
4) Solve caper, dispatch baddies
5) Bed Good Bond Babe
6) Hit your marks, do your job and discreetly return to London W1
Yes, it was formulaic. Yes, it could be corny. But it worked and, in the depths of the Cold War, it was cinema comfort food of the best kind. RIP Roger Moore. You fulfilled your mission and we are all the better for it. We'll hope to see you in the afterlife's second reel.
Tom
1) Receive assignment to thwart global baddies
2) Drop glib remarks and sexual innuendo freely
3) Bed Bad Bond Babe
4) Solve caper, dispatch baddies
5) Bed Good Bond Babe
6) Hit your marks, do your job and discreetly return to London W1
Yes, it was formulaic. Yes, it could be corny. But it worked and, in the depths of the Cold War, it was cinema comfort food of the best kind. RIP Roger Moore. You fulfilled your mission and we are all the better for it. We'll hope to see you in the afterlife's second reel.
Tom
49
I have often thought that a Bond movie was similar to a sonnet, with strict rules of sequence. Try this in a boring meeting (all meetings?) - start numbering the unvarying sequence of a Bond movie, starting with 1) the opening action sequence, unrelated to the rest of the movie's plot; 2) the visit to M and detailing of The Mission 3) the journey to an exotic destination; 4) first encounter with The Bad Girl ..... well, you get the idea. I've gotten through several boring meetings working on this.
I agree, but I liked him even more in the Saint and the Persuaders on TV. A really great actor and apparently very charitable as well. So sad to hear of his death.
18
Roger Moore did a great job of playing bond. That being said Ian Feming so liked Sean Connery as bond that he changed the description of Bond in the rest of the series to match that of Sean Connery. Its hard to argue with the author.
28
yes, especially as Fleming originally wanted Cary Grant but Grant declined due to his age.
Touche, then again, Fleming didnt write for the NYT's...
1
he was brilliant. they all were, in their ways, of course. but i remember very well Sir Roger Moore's blue eyes and his khaki suits (with the slightly flared legs) and the preposterous scripts. he wasn't always chiseled and his jokes were a little corny, but he had a rakish manner about him that invited adventure and a little mutually-fun slap and tickle. needless to say, as a child of the 70's and 80's, he was my Bond and I loved him.
37
Moore was fine, but most of his movies, were as you pointed out - trash.
You can't be the best Bond when your movies are themselves confused about what the character is, and are, in fact, satirizing him.
The Connery character was much closer to the Bond described in Fleming's books.
Craig's character is a modern update to some of the essentials of that character.
Moore's character made a joke out of the character.
You can't be the best Bond when your movies are themselves confused about what the character is, and are, in fact, satirizing him.
The Connery character was much closer to the Bond described in Fleming's books.
Craig's character is a modern update to some of the essentials of that character.
Moore's character made a joke out of the character.
20
From what I've read, Ian Fleming was such a quirky character that perhaps the Roger Moore "Bond" was closer to Fleming himself than the alter-ego Fleming created.
2
roger moore was tv, I loved him in The Saint, but he never right for the big screen. never.
13
As a Gen Xer I have to disagree: Connery was Bond for me and the lion's share of my friends as we grew up. That's not to say Moore wasn't enjoyable, he was. His run ran a bit too long, however, and that probably reduced his standing in the eyes of my generational compatriots.
To me, Moore was and will always be Simon Templar from The Saint. The shown ran on KVOS out of Bellingham, Washington and my friends and I made a point not to miss it. Street hockey in progress but The Saint would be on in 5 minutes? See back on the road in 35 minutes.
To me, Moore was and will always be Simon Templar from The Saint. The shown ran on KVOS out of Bellingham, Washington and my friends and I made a point not to miss it. Street hockey in progress but The Saint would be on in 5 minutes? See back on the road in 35 minutes.
thank you, I grew up watching endless reruns of Octopussy on HBO, back when HBO was the only cable game in town. Millennials may not have known the cold war and nuclear threats, but it made for perfect Bond fodder, and Roger Moore was the ideal man to lend a little humor to such a dark time. You could also see he knew how silly the whole Bond thing was, not like the self seriousness of today's Bond. They can have the moping, meandering Bond of the 21st Century, I'll take Roger Moore and his wink anyday.
35
Amen. James Bond is dead. Long live James Bond .
7