Is THE SPY WHO LOVED ME Roger Moore's best film?

1356

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,931
    Getafix wrote: »
    LaLD is sadly a bit boring

    Yeah, I do want to love it as, as willy says, it's full of good bits and pieces. But as a film, it's a bit dull.
  • Posts: 1,882
    This thread reminds me that I am a bit different in some of my top Bond film preferences which differ from some of the biggest mass audience and fan community favorites, and in some cases critical preferences that could be considered sacred cows - TSWLM, GF, GE, SF being the primary ones. While I appreciate all Bond films and have watched these multiple times to try and tap into whatever it is others see in them to rank them so high, they just don't seem to rise any higher when I do.

    It's similar in that I'm also one who doesn't think a work like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the best Beatles album, much less the best album of all time, or that Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time or whatever.

    Back into the latest thoughts in this thread, I don't want to stray too much from the topic, but LALD is rather mid-pack for me. While I like the music, atmosphere with the voodoo and the array of villains, I agree it's episodic, one long chase movie and I could never understand why Leiter isn't with Bond in the San Monique demolition sequence rather than Quarrel Jr.

    I like the boat chase, but the way it's chopped up to focus on what Pepper is doing or roadblocks or whatever, is a distraction. The comedy bit with the old guy in the truck was unnecessary and part of what slows this down. I'm trying to recall if there was ever a major action sequence in the series that had that many distractions that detract from the main action.

    It makes me wonder what Richard Maibaum may have been able to bring to LALD. He once said he would've liked a crack at it and was dissatisfied with what Mankiewicz did, calling it a cooking drugs in the jungle caper.

    Anybody else like Adam as a henchman? He doesn't have any physical characteristic that makes him stand out, but he seems dangerous and dedicated, making him stand out a bit among the average guy henchman for me, which makes his demise that much more satisfying.
  • Posts: 230
    BT3366 wrote: »
    This thread reminds me that I am a bit different in some of my top Bond film preferences which differ from some of the biggest mass audience and fan community favorites, and in some cases critical preferences that could be considered sacred cows - TSWLM, GF, GE, SF being the primary ones. While I appreciate all Bond films and have watched these multiple times to try and tap into whatever it is others see in them to rank them so high, they just don't seem to rise any higher when I do.

    It's similar in that I'm also one who doesn't think a work like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the best Beatles album, much less the best album of all time, or that Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time or whatever.

    Back into the latest thoughts in this thread, I don't want to stray too much from the topic, but LALD is rather mid-pack for me. While I like the music, atmosphere with the voodoo and the array of villains, I agree it's episodic, one long chase movie and I could never understand why Leiter isn't with Bond in the San Monique demolition sequence rather than Quarrel Jr.

    I like the boat chase, but the way it's chopped up to focus on what Pepper is doing or roadblocks or whatever, is a distraction. The comedy bit with the old guy in the truck was unnecessary and part of what slows this down. I'm trying to recall if there was ever a major action sequence in the series that had that many distractions that detract from the main action.

    It makes me wonder what Richard Maibaum may have been able to bring to LALD. He once said he would've liked a crack at it and was dissatisfied with what Mankiewicz did, calling it a cooking drugs in the jungle caper.

    Anybody else like Adam as a henchman? He doesn't have any physical characteristic that makes him stand out, but he seems dangerous and dedicated, making him stand out a bit among the average guy henchman for me, which makes his demise that much more satisfying.

    Adam was great. I just wish he had shot JW Pepper so we wouldn't have to see him in TMWTGG.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 7,500
    No, TSWLM is not Roger Moore´s best Bond. Here are some of the reasons why:

    Stromberg

    He is simply quite forgettable, a far cry from the iconic charisma that the best villains in the series had to offer. The character required a good performance and posed a challenge for whoever took it on. Stromberg is an absolute lunatic and the performance needed to match that. I want to see some crazyness, not a stone faced, tedius villain.

    Major Amasova

    I have seen people try to defend Barbara Bach´s performance. My reaction to that is always; "why do you even bother"? She is so clearly not up to it. Completely miscast in a role far too big for her. Being wooden is not the same as acting strong and coldly detached. However Bach is not the only problem. Such an on the surface strong, resourceful and potentially iconic character needed better work from the writers as well. We are only told she is an amazing and resourceful agent, we never see it. The only thing she is actually able to do is to tag along, barely surviving and letting Bond do the work for her, just like any other damsel in the series. Imagine her being on her own, would she have been even close to dispaching of Jaws and retrieving the microfilm without assistance? Of course not! I always find it amusing when she threatens Bond with his life. Why on earth would she be a threat to Bond?

    The score

    I am of the somewhat controversial opinion that Hamlich´s score is far more annoying and dated than Conti´s for FYEO. I admit the title song is good, but a good title song doesn´t make a great score alone. Some of the tracks make me imagine I am at a cheap night club in the seventies and take me out of the film. The score´s biggest sin however is to make fun of the film. There´s always a fine balance with the most fantastical and silly entries in the series like Spy is. It has to tread carefully not to go overboard into parodi and goof. The silly music was really not needed in that regard. It highlights the sensation that these scenes are tensionless and should not be taken serious at all. And I am not only talking about the Lawrence of Arabia theme music. There are several cues that are put on simply to make fun of the situation and those cheesy saxophone versions of the theme tune whenever Bond and Amasova interact are horrible.

    The tanker finale

    It drags. It just does. We might be touching on personal preferance here, as I think good action scenes in Bond are relatively short, compact and intense, and I much prefer these to the drawn out, overindulgent ones like this one. However I think I can make this claim from an objective standpoint as well. The tanker action, for all it´s amazing imagery, explotions and brawl is just a little bit boring. Yes, I know the set is epic and looks fantastic. But a set is not enough to make an action scene exciting, neither is an overflow of shooting and explotions. You have to create tension, and this scene has precious little of it. It feels like I am watching a bunch of people run around and making noise in a museum. It doesn´t help that the plot is so cliché.

    Jaws the buffoon

    Jaws is a memorable character and he has an amazing introduction. In the first couple of scenes we see him he is incredibly menacing and frightening and we get a sense of expectation and dread for when Bond has to confront him in person. However, very early on, the film makers decide to make fun of him, turn him into a buffoon that looks both clumsy and incompetent. It is a desicion I will never fully understand. I, for one, much prefer the threatening, scary Jaws to the clumsy, comic relief one.

    In conclusion there is quite alot to enjoy in this film. The sets look fantastic, so does the locations and any film with Roger Moore on top form is worth watching. However the film is after all more a selection of iconic imagery and gags rather than a well constructed film with tension. And wether you prefer Bond to be escapist fun or tight thrillers (I lean towards the latter but enjoy a bit of both worlds) a Bond film without necesarry tension is not a classic in my book.
  • Posts: 6,803
    Have to agree, especially the score, particularly the scene where the truck breaks down in the desert!!
  • Posts: 7,500
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Have to agree, especially the score, particularly the scene where the truck breaks down in the desert!!

    Yes. That cue is particularly stupid.
  • Posts: 2,895
    BT3366 wrote: »
    It's similar in that I'm also one who doesn't think a work like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is the best Beatles album, much less the best album of all time, or that Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time or whatever.

    You're a bit behind the curve though--the modern critical consensus considers Revolver the best Beatles album (though I still prefer Sgt. Pepper!) and in 2012 Vertigo dethroned Citizen Kane from Sight and Sound's Greatest Films of All Time poll, which is conducted once a decade and considered the most wide-ranging and authoritative of its kind.
    So the canon can change. But at the moment I think TSWLM is still widely regarded as Roger's best Bond.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 2020 Posts: 14,931
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Back into the latest thoughts in this thread, I don't want to stray too much from the topic, but LALD is rather mid-pack for me. While I like the music, atmosphere with the voodoo and the array of villains, I agree it's episodic, one long chase movie and I could never understand why Leiter isn't with Bond in the San Monique demolition sequence rather than Quarrel Jr.

    It's even more odd how little Felix gets involved considering a great chunk of the film is on his home soil as well! :) I actually can't remember: what's he doing the whole time? My abiding memory of him in this one is of being on the phone to someone important and shaking his head at whatever destruction James has caused that afternoon!
    :D

    The bit with the old guy in the slow truck is great though :)
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Have to agree, especially the score, particularly the scene where the truck breaks down in the desert!!

    That's fun! I feel sad when Bond fans can't enjoy the silly stuff.

    Some of it is certainly pitched badly (the gondola in St Marks Square in Moonraker is a bit shit for example) but most of it, especially in Spy, is fun! :)
  • Posts: 11,425
    jobo wrote: »
    No, TSWLM is not Roger Moore´s best Bond. Here are some of the reasons why:

    Stromberg

    He is simply quite forgettable, a far cry from the iconic charisma that the best villains in the series had to offer. The character required a good performance and posed a challenge for whoever took it on. Stromberg is an absolute lunatic and the performance needed to match that. I want to see some crazyness, not a stone faced, tedius villain.

    Major Amasova

    I have seen people try to defend Barbara Bach´s performance. My reaction to that is always; "why do you even bother"? She is so clearly not up to it. Completely miscast in a role far too big for her. Being wooden is not the same as acting strong and coldly detached. However Bach is not the only problem. Such an on the surface strong, resourceful and potentially iconic character needed better work from the writers as well. We are only told she is an amazing and resourceful agent, we never see it. The only thing she is actually able to do is to tag along, barely surviving and letting Bond do the work for her, just like any other damsel in the series. Imagine her being on her own, would she have been even close to dispaching of Jaws and retrieving the microfilm without assistance? Of course not! I always find it amusing when she threatens Bond with his life. Why on earth would she be a threat to Bond?

    The score

    I am of the somewhat controversial opinion that Hamlich´s score is far more annoying and dated than Conti´s for FYEO. I admit the title song is good, but a good title song doesn´t make a great score alone. Some of the tracks make me imagine I am at a cheap night club in the seventies and take me out of the film. The score´s biggest sin however is to make fun of the film. There´s always a fine balance with the most fantastical and silly entries in the series like Spy is. It has to tread carefully not to go overboard into parodi and goof. The silly music was really not needed in that regard. It highlights the sensation that these scenes are tensionless and should not be taken serious at all. And I am not only talking about the Lawrence of Arabia theme music. There are several cues that are put on simply to make fun of the situation and those cheesy saxophone versions of the theme tune whenever Bond and Amasova interact are horrible.

    The tanker finale

    It drags. It just does. We might be touching on personal preferance here, as I think good action scenes in Bond are relatively short, compact and intense, and I much prefer these to the drawn out, overindulgent ones like this one. However I think I can make this claim from an objective standpoint as well. The tanker action, for all it´s amazing imagery, explotions and brawl is just a little bit boring. Yes, I know the set is epic and looks fantastic. But a set is not enough to make an action scene exciting, neither is an overflow of shooting and explotions. You have to create tension, and this scene has precious little of it. It feels like I am watching a bunch of people run around and making noise in a museum. It doesn´t help that the plot is so cliché.

    Jaws the buffoon

    Jaws is a memorable character and he has an amazing introduction. In the first couple of scenes we see him he is incredibly menacing and frightening and we get a sense of expectation and dread for when Bond has to confront him in person. However, very early on, the film makers decide to make fun of him, turn him into a buffoon that looks both clumsy and incompetent. It is a desicion I will never fully understand. I, for one, much prefer the threatening, scary Jaws to the clumsy, comic relief one.

    In conclusion there is quite alot to enjoy in this film. The sets look fantastic, so does the locations and any film with Roger Moore on top form is worth watching. However the film is after all more a selection of iconic imagery and gags rather than a well constructed film with tension. And wether you prefer Bond to be escapist fun or tight thrillers (I lean towards the latter but enjoy a bit of both worlds) a Bond film without necesarry tension is not a classic in my book.

    Anyone who doesn't appreciate Mrs Ringo Starr's performance in TSWLM is frankly bonkers.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    Posts: 1,081
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,778
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.

    Wholeheartedly agreed!
  • Posts: 11,425
    That's an unusual view but fair enough. I think MR proves the law of diminishing returns, not that there isn't a lot to like in it still
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    I find it rather hilarious that we have a thread discussing whether or not TSWLM is Moore’s best and a thread discussing whether or not FYEO is the most boring Bond film, when both of them are really the only Moore Bond films I really like. As such, my answer to the questions in both threads is “NO.” FYEO isn’t boring and I don’t think TSWLM is Roger’s best (damn close though). FYEO is.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 3,279
    I find it rather hilarious that we have a thread discussing whether or not TSWLM is Moore’s best and a thread discussing whether or not FYEO is the most boring Bond film, when both of them are really the only Moore Bond films I really like. As such, my answer to the questions in both threads is “NO.” FYEO isn’t boring and I don’t think TSWLM is Roger’s best (damn close though). FYEO is.

    Funny enough, these are the 2 films that I feel I should really appreciate (TSWLM being a fan favourite of the cinematic Bond, and FYEO being a fan favourite of the Fleming Bond), yet for some reason neither do anything for me.

    Like I said earlier, LALD and TMWTGG are my 2 Moore favourites. They are my guilty pleasures, alongside DAF (Guy Hamilton must have done something right.... ;) )
  • Posts: 7,500
    Getafix wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    No, TSWLM is not Roger Moore´s best Bond. Here are some of the reasons why:

    Stromberg

    He is simply quite forgettable, a far cry from the iconic charisma that the best villains in the series had to offer. The character required a good performance and posed a challenge for whoever took it on. Stromberg is an absolute lunatic and the performance needed to match that. I want to see some crazyness, not a stone faced, tedius villain.

    Major Amasova

    I have seen people try to defend Barbara Bach´s performance. My reaction to that is always; "why do you even bother"? She is so clearly not up to it. Completely miscast in a role far too big for her. Being wooden is not the same as acting strong and coldly detached. However Bach is not the only problem. Such an on the surface strong, resourceful and potentially iconic character needed better work from the writers as well. We are only told she is an amazing and resourceful agent, we never see it. The only thing she is actually able to do is to tag along, barely surviving and letting Bond do the work for her, just like any other damsel in the series. Imagine her being on her own, would she have been even close to dispaching of Jaws and retrieving the microfilm without assistance? Of course not! I always find it amusing when she threatens Bond with his life. Why on earth would she be a threat to Bond?

    The score

    I am of the somewhat controversial opinion that Hamlich´s score is far more annoying and dated than Conti´s for FYEO. I admit the title song is good, but a good title song doesn´t make a great score alone. Some of the tracks make me imagine I am at a cheap night club in the seventies and take me out of the film. The score´s biggest sin however is to make fun of the film. There´s always a fine balance with the most fantastical and silly entries in the series like Spy is. It has to tread carefully not to go overboard into parodi and goof. The silly music was really not needed in that regard. It highlights the sensation that these scenes are tensionless and should not be taken serious at all. And I am not only talking about the Lawrence of Arabia theme music. There are several cues that are put on simply to make fun of the situation and those cheesy saxophone versions of the theme tune whenever Bond and Amasova interact are horrible.

    The tanker finale

    It drags. It just does. We might be touching on personal preferance here, as I think good action scenes in Bond are relatively short, compact and intense, and I much prefer these to the drawn out, overindulgent ones like this one. However I think I can make this claim from an objective standpoint as well. The tanker action, for all it´s amazing imagery, explotions and brawl is just a little bit boring. Yes, I know the set is epic and looks fantastic. But a set is not enough to make an action scene exciting, neither is an overflow of shooting and explotions. You have to create tension, and this scene has precious little of it. It feels like I am watching a bunch of people run around and making noise in a museum. It doesn´t help that the plot is so cliché.

    Jaws the buffoon

    Jaws is a memorable character and he has an amazing introduction. In the first couple of scenes we see him he is incredibly menacing and frightening and we get a sense of expectation and dread for when Bond has to confront him in person. However, very early on, the film makers decide to make fun of him, turn him into a buffoon that looks both clumsy and incompetent. It is a desicion I will never fully understand. I, for one, much prefer the threatening, scary Jaws to the clumsy, comic relief one.

    In conclusion there is quite alot to enjoy in this film. The sets look fantastic, so does the locations and any film with Roger Moore on top form is worth watching. However the film is after all more a selection of iconic imagery and gags rather than a well constructed film with tension. And wether you prefer Bond to be escapist fun or tight thrillers (I lean towards the latter but enjoy a bit of both worlds) a Bond film without necesarry tension is not a classic in my book.

    Anyone who doesn't appreciate Mrs Ringo Starr's performance in TSWLM is frankly bonkers.


    If my tastes are the result of insanity, I will happily remain insane, thank you ;))
  • Posts: 1,882
    I find it rather hilarious that we have a thread discussing whether or not TSWLM is Moore’s best and a thread discussing whether or not FYEO is the most boring Bond film, when both of them are really the only Moore Bond films I really like. As such, my answer to the questions in both threads is “NO.” FYEO isn’t boring and I don’t think TSWLM is Roger’s best (damn close though). FYEO is.

    Hey, we have to find something to talk about until November, especially those of us trying to stay spoiler-free.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    No, by all means, keep discussing. Just something that struck me. Carry on.
  • Posts: 230
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.

    I agree up until space lazers start firing. I love MR until the last 20 minutes.
  • Posts: 3,279
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.

    I agree up until space lazers start firing. I love MR until the last 20 minutes.

    I think that is the general consensus by most fans
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    Without a shadow of a doubt!
  • Posts: 230
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.

    I agree up until space lazers start firing. I love MR until the last 20 minutes.

    I think that is the general consensus by most fans

    Yes...it is.
  • QQ7QQ7 Croatia
    Posts: 371
    I find it rather hilarious that we have a thread discussing whether or not TSWLM is Moore’s best and a thread discussing whether or not FYEO is the most boring Bond film, when both of them are really the only Moore Bond films I really like. As such, my answer to the questions in both threads is “NO.” FYEO isn’t boring and I don’t think TSWLM is Roger’s best (damn close though). FYEO is.

    I have a really similar opinion to yours, just with TSWLM and FYEO reversed.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 6,778
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.

    I agree up until space lazers start firing. I love MR until the last 20 minutes.

    I think that is the general consensus by most fans

    While I understand that space laser shootouts are a far cry from tight Orient Express struggles or suspenseful Bratislava sniper attacks, I do think it is better executed than the Liparus climax.
  • Posts: 6,803
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    STLCards3 wrote: »
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Moonraker does everything that The Spy Who Loved Me introduced much better, IMO.

    I agree up until space lazers start firing. I love MR until the last 20 minutes.

    I think that is the general consensus by most fans

    While I understand that space laser shootouts are a far cry from tight Orient Express struggles or suspenseful Bratislava sniper attacks, I do think it is better executed than the Liparus climax.

    A mighty +1
  • Posts: 2,895
    The Liparus climax is more complexly staged, with goals of overcoming Stromberg's army, advancing toward the heavily guarded command center, and finding a way to overcome its defence system. The Moonraker climax is a bunch of guys in spacesuits shooting each other lasers. It's as brainless as the rest of the movie.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Liparus climax is more complexly staged, with goals of overcoming Stromberg's army, advancing toward the heavily guarded command center, and finding a way to overcome its defence system. The Moonraker climax is a bunch of guys in spacesuits shooting each other lasers. It's as brainless as the rest of the movie.

    Neither scenes are particularly good I think. The sets are incredible, but the action is bland.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,026
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Liparus climax is more complexly staged, with goals of overcoming Stromberg's army, advancing toward the heavily guarded command center, and finding a way to overcome its defence system. The Moonraker climax is a bunch of guys in spacesuits shooting each other with lasers. It's as brainless as the rest of the movie.

    The Moonraker love is surprising and a bit baffling, imo. I honestly can't see how the two films are comparable in quality in any department, aside from possibly score.
  • Posts: 7,500
    Revelator wrote: »
    The Liparus climax is more complexly staged, with goals of overcoming Stromberg's army, advancing toward the heavily guarded command center, and finding a way to overcome its defence system. The Moonraker climax is a bunch of guys in spacesuits shooting each other with lasers. It's as brainless as the rest of the movie.

    The Moonraker love is surprising and a bit baffling, imo. I honestly can't see how the two films are comparable in quality in any department, aside from possibly score.

    I don't think they are that different. They are both very light hearted (silly in places), glamorous and completely OTT. There are some things I think MR does better. Drax is a significantly more satisfying villain, the score is far better and the locations are slightly more iconic and beautiful. Venice, Rio and the Iguazu waterfalls is a particularly impressive selection of locations and I have a personal soft spot for all of them.
  • Posts: 4,023
    The Liparus climax follows along the lines of the YOLT volcano climax, yet YOLT takes half the time to get the job done. Plus it has ninjas.
  • Posts: 2,895
    The Moonraker love is surprising and a bit baffling, imo. I honestly can't see how the two films are comparable in quality in any department, aside from possibly score.

    I agree entirely. MR is a shameless but enervated attempt to re-combine the ingredients as TSWLM, but this time with Star Wars garnish. It's a pallid echo of what made its predecessor effective. Roger, at the top of his game in TSWLM, is sleepwalking. Barbara Bach's line-readings were inexpressive, but at least she was alive, which is more than I can say for Lois Chiles, that triumph of the mortician's art. Drax has some genuinely witty lines (an oasis in a desert of buffoonery), but otherwise he's as boring a villain as Stromberg. Ken Adam produced stunning sets for both films, but the Liparus set get the nod for its vastness. The Lotus gives TSWLM the edge in gadgets. Barry's "Space March" is lovely, but his score is otherwise a bid sedate, so Hamlisch's vulgar disco has matching merit.
Sign In or Register to comment.