talkmagic.co.uk

How can Moonraker possibly be anyones favourite Bond film? I found it an incredible waste of film, and I think that Roger Moore was the worst Bond ever, he should never have been given the role.

The book is far better. In fact, I don't even think that the bridge scene at Blades was in the film was it? They changed so much that it was unrecognisable as the same story, the only thing that was the same was that it starred Bond and was called Moonraker.

Oh come on he wasn't as bad as one of the other actors to played Bond who shall remain nameless... *Cough* Lazenby *Cough*

& no I've never had the pleasure of reading any of the bond books

Despite being in a badly thought out film, Lazenby was far more true to the real Bond (as described in the books) then Moore, though Connery was clearly the best, closely followed by Timothy Dalton. The best films in my opinion though are the more recent Brosnan ones.

Thread split from Reviews so the Bond debate can continue (cue The John Barry Seven and that funky guitar line.......)

I like the topic title, you are making me look wierd!

Well, this one could run for ever! IMHO with regard to the films:

1) Best Bond has to be Connery - even Fleming said so, then Dalton, then Lazenby, then Brosnan (although he's pushing hard for second place lately) and Moore last. Mainly because he will always be the original Saint to me and didn't take the Bond role seriously enough.

2) Best Car: The DB5 - forget the BMWs and the later cars, the DB5 is the one I'd sell my Granny for. In fact, I'd sell someone else's Granny for it.

3) Best Film: Has to be Goldfinger. By that time they'd got the act together very well, guns, girls, gadgets FX - the lot. After that it all went a bit pear shaped until the post-Moore films.

I'd like to say a lot more (no pun there!) but I'll leave it for a while so the argument can rage and you can all tell me where I'm going horribly wrong!

PS The books are still great although a bit dated in some parts. The start of Moonraker - 'The Two 38's roared simultaneously' or words to that effect - if only I could come up with a magic routine with that sort of opening impact I'd be very, very happy. And rich - probably rich as well.

Oh, bu**er...

Read this thread thinking it may be some Friday-Afternoon-Raunchy-Chattathon...

Oh,well... seeing as I'm here...

We were weened on Bond as youngsters. Our dad must be his No.1 fan.

I read the Fleming books at an early age, and never really understood what the point of reading them was when I could just wait until Bank Holiday Monday and watch the film instead?!?!

In those days, Sean Connery WAS the only bond, IMHO.

Lazenby was awful, although, as mentioned, he was reasonably well cast if you're looking at the original character.

Moore was detatched, corny and possibly even TOO British?

Dalton? Who told him he could possibly be James Bond? I think they lost the plot with that one.

Brosnan... good man... good grasp of the 'Bondism' concepts, i.e. souave, humerous... but has anyone ever seen his eyeballs???

Sean Connery... now, if this man were a woman etc. etc....

He's a Woman's Man. And a Man's man. He's the whole reason that the series became a big-screen success, IMHO.

How can you say that about Dalton? I think he was great, just the right amount of casual violence, not too many lighthearted jests at the expense of dead enemies and more importantly he is more like I would imagine a real spy to be, pretty serious and committed to the job.

nickj wrote:How can you say that about Dalton? I think he was great, just the right amount of casual violence, not too many lighthearted jests at the expense of dead enemies and more importantly he is more like I would imagine a real spy to be, pretty serious and committed to the job.

Tee hee...

I found him to be wooden and rather dull, and that 1960's 'innocent' humour disappeared with him. But I know what you're saying about realism - he WAS more like a real spy, but I think what makes the Bond series so great is that it treats it all a bit tongue-in-cheek.

Best thing to happen in a James Bond film?

HALLE BERRY!

case closed

So a new question...
Who do you want to be the next James Bond???

Jude Law
Matthew Perry
James Frain
Will Smith


Can't think of anyone else who's been rumored with the job... Who would you like to see???

Oh good God, are those the rumors? Put me in a box now before the next one comes out.

billy connoley..... bring back the scots.

How about...................................




.............................PETER KAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, of course Fleming preferred Connery as Bond. Ian Fleming died before "Goldfinger" was released! He never saw any other Bonds.

Lazenby wasn't as bad as some say, but he was a bit wooden and was also trying too hard to be Connery Mark II (in my opinion).

I think that's why they went for Roger Moore next. My guess is that they decided to go for a change of tack to avoid direct comparisons to Connery's portrayal.

I think "Live and Let Die" and "The Spy Who Loved Me" are two of the best Bond films. "For Your Eyes Only" is actually quite a dark film and rather serious. There's minimal gadgetry and some nasty villains who are quite realistic.

I liked Dalton's Bond, but he needed to be a little less serious. I didn't think he was wooden at all. He seemd like he really could be a very dangerous man, especially if you crossed him.

Brosnan is very good. It's hard to compare him with Connery, because the films have changed a lot. I didn't like the last one hugely; there were too many big explosions and some of the stuff was a bit silly (even in the context of an action film).

Overall, I think I'd go for Connery as best Bond. He could do the jokes, but was also quite dangerous. Brosnan is just a little too light to take the crown.

Flame away, guys.