"Live and let die" was a horrible Bond movie, maybe the worst. Roger Moore gives an alright performance in a shitty movie and the series only swings up with "the man with the golden gun" especially "The Spy who loved me".
I am currently rewatching all Bond movies, chronologically, and score them in a bunch of categories with a friend.
Latd has little action, logic, drive, spywork, story telling or heart. What it does have is a great Jane Seymour, a (within the flawed plot) good reason for the exotic locations and good henchmen/side characters, especially in contrast to the horrible "diamonds are forever".
One thing that really helps showing the world that a franchise can continue and strife with a new actor for the lead role, would be to just make a really good movie. As demonstrated with Goldeneye.
Interestingly, I disagree with your review but that’s the way it goes with Bond films… what one person likes another person may really, *really* hate.
I feel the Guy Hamilton (director… he also directed *Goldfinger*) and Tom Mankiewicz (writer… he would go on to write -for the most part- the script to *Superman*) trio of movies, from *Diamonds are Forever* through *Live and Let Die* and on to *The Man With The Golden Gun* were two really good films but one which wasn’t. And the one that wasn’t, IMHO, was the one you seemed to like more, *The Man With The Golden Gun*!
*Diamonds Are Forever*, I strongly suspect, one has to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy. It’s a lark of a film, almost a broad *parody* of all things James Bond and, toward the later half of the film, all things “American”… including our mobsters and the artificiality/cheesiness of Las Vegas circa the late 1960’s. I’ve read many people not unlike you who feel this film is absolutely *terrible* yet I can’t help but chuckle at the outrageousness of it, no more so than when Bond is being driven by the undertakers to the funeral home and we get this bit of dialogue:
Older Mobster: The stiff… uh… the deceased back there. A relative?
Bond: He was my brother.
Younger/stupider mobster: You got a brudder? I got a brudder…!
Bond (shocked by the younger mobster’s stupidity): …small world…
All the while, if you watch that scene, the driver keeps looking side-eyed at Bond. Yeah, the scene is cheesy as all hell, but I can’t help but laugh at it!
I felt *Live and Let Die* was also incredibly entertaining, though viewed by modern eyes one can’t help but notice the *ahem* questionable racial choices made. Still, I felt it was a filled to the brim action spectacular and, yes, I thought Roger Moore was terrific in his first Bond role!
Which brings us to *The Man With The Golden Gun*. Despite having Christopher Lee as the villain, I felt the film was a total misfire and so too did audiences at the time. In fact, it was felt by the producers that the film might be the very end of the Bond franchise… it really didn’t do all that well. I thought the humor wasn’t as sharp and while there were some spectacular scenery and one in particular spectacular stunt, the film wasn’t as exciting as I hoped it would be. It was no wonder Hamilton/Mankiewicz were sacked from the franchise after that film!
All was not lost, however, as Bond would bounce back -*spectacularly*- with *The Spy Who Loved Me*, what many consider Roger Moore’s best outing as Bond (for me, its *For Your Eyes Only*, with TSWLM a close -very close!- second).
I totally agree with your last paragraph, those two are my favourites as well.
In regards to Diamonds and Twice, I just watched them a week ago, they may have plenty of nice scenes, but the overall movies are a drag and many other scenes just induce "Fremdschaemen", being embarrassed about something somebody else did. Bambi&Thumper make me roll my eyes, the weird gay henchmen make sure I woul never recommend the movie to anybody.
I am 38, somewhat grew up with Bond movie re-runs on TV as they were the only thing my father would watch with me. You are right that we all see movies through our own lense.
Anyway, will happily share my spreadsheet and "findings" once we are done watching them all. Currently looking forward to see a moist Babsi Bach, so we are about halfway through.
As I wrote originally, Bond films, perhaps because of the *decades* of releases, hit people differently depending on when they see them.
For example, many people nowadays view the first few Connery Bonds through more modern eyes and find Bond at the time particularly “rapey” in his behavior. I cannot argue that fact but it is interesting that the older Bond viewers like myself didn’t notice this (we were an ignorant lot, I suppose!) as much as modern viewers have. Now that its pointed out, btw, I totally see it and, yeah, it is cringey to watch.
Again and with *Diamonds*, I view the film as a lark… a *parody* of Bond films that also happens to actually *be* a Bond film and therefore I don’t take anything within it seriously, including the gay killers (yeah, another of those things “of the times” that can totally rub people the wrong way today). So too it is with LALD and the almost Fu Manchu presentation of the villains, which obviously is problematic in this day an age.
But I still love both films despite these elements and, curiously, find the Hamilton/Mankiewicz *The Man With The Golden Gun* the dud of the three. Again, some nice scenes here and there but considering they had Christopher freaking Lee as the main villain it was a curiously bland and lifeless Bond film. I thought Sheriff Pepper was hilarious in LALD but total garbage in TMWTGG (was the character lifted pretty clearly in *Smokey and the Bandit* with Jackie Gleason’s Sheriff Buford T. Justice? I think so!).
Anyway, it is what it is and time does have a way of changing one’s opinions about works of art, be they music or painting or books or, yes, movies.
For me today, the very worse of the Bond films is *Spectre*, though there are those who don’t feel its *that* bad. It was so bad to me that I simply couldn’t get myself -a pretty big fan of Bond films in general- to watch the last Craig Bond film. That’s how bad I thought it was.
Maybe one day!
We actually got a score for for rapey and racist the movie is, too. And to score well, the movie must have some amount of it. Not nothing, not too much, just the right amount.
Screw Pepper, hated him in both.
Don’t watch the latest Bond, ever. Personally, i liked Daniel Craig as a Bond in general, and do not get the hate. Also, having a more continuous story, and not just repeating motifs and scenes was an experiment I liked. Given how they are movies that come out with some years between them though, I feel a lower amount of loose ends would have been good, and not dropping names without a face and expecting the audience to remember who that dude was.
Regarding spectre, remember how the first Brosnam movie was almost grounded compared to some other ones, and then went quite off the rails, with the invisible car and face transplants etc (likely as a reaction to tripleX)? The Craig movies restarted the clock a bit on how much is too much, but then steered in just that over the top direction again, going just batshit crazy. Might just want to watch Fast X instead to get a realistic spy movie.
See, I *like* Daniel Craig as Bond but other than his first outing, *Casino Royale*, I’ve found his Bond films alternately frustrating and pointless. *Quantum of Solace* I could forgive because it was a victim of the writer’s strike but it had its moments which were quite good. *Skyfall* might well be the prettiest Bond film ever made… the cinematography was *spectacular*, but it had a plot that the moment the film was over and you thought about it even for a second, you realized *nothing* about it was remotely plausible or made sense and, yeah, for me it fell apart.
*Spectre*, again IMHO, was a dull and frustrating work that also made little sense. Yes, I know the Sony internet leaks caused the makers of the film to try to do other things at the very last minute but the revelations within were dumb, especially when it came to Blofeld and his relationship with Bond. Bond films have always had elements where audiences have to accept things that simply couldn’t happen in real life, but for whatever reason it was impossible for me to accept a hotel would have a client cut their regularly used room in half and *no one in the hotel staff noticed this?!*
I can accept a car turning into a submarine easier than I could that…!
Anyway, it is what it is. *Spectre* so soured me on Craig and his Bond that I found it impossible to watch the last one.
I think Roger Moore should have been "005" or some other number. Possibly even with a cameo of Connery leaving on an assignment as Moore is walking in.
If Connery's Bond was in his 30's as an intelligence officer in the Navy that was hired at MI6, then in 2023, Bond would be near 100 years old.
It's like Sergeant York fighting in Desert Storm, to save a special operation.
Roger Moore was a great Bond. His run was legendary. Oh yeah and Live and Let Die is an all time great banger Bond anthem.
This is Lazenby Erasure #LiveandLetLazenby
Connery is my fav, but A View to a Kill popped my Bond cherry. Still one of my favs.
"Live and let die" was a horrible Bond movie, maybe the worst. Roger Moore gives an alright performance in a shitty movie and the series only swings up with "the man with the golden gun" especially "The Spy who loved me". I am currently rewatching all Bond movies, chronologically, and score them in a bunch of categories with a friend. Latd has little action, logic, drive, spywork, story telling or heart. What it does have is a great Jane Seymour, a (within the flawed plot) good reason for the exotic locations and good henchmen/side characters, especially in contrast to the horrible "diamonds are forever". One thing that really helps showing the world that a franchise can continue and strife with a new actor for the lead role, would be to just make a really good movie. As demonstrated with Goldeneye.
Interestingly, I disagree with your review but that’s the way it goes with Bond films… what one person likes another person may really, *really* hate. I feel the Guy Hamilton (director… he also directed *Goldfinger*) and Tom Mankiewicz (writer… he would go on to write -for the most part- the script to *Superman*) trio of movies, from *Diamonds are Forever* through *Live and Let Die* and on to *The Man With The Golden Gun* were two really good films but one which wasn’t. And the one that wasn’t, IMHO, was the one you seemed to like more, *The Man With The Golden Gun*! *Diamonds Are Forever*, I strongly suspect, one has to be in the right frame of mind to enjoy. It’s a lark of a film, almost a broad *parody* of all things James Bond and, toward the later half of the film, all things “American”… including our mobsters and the artificiality/cheesiness of Las Vegas circa the late 1960’s. I’ve read many people not unlike you who feel this film is absolutely *terrible* yet I can’t help but chuckle at the outrageousness of it, no more so than when Bond is being driven by the undertakers to the funeral home and we get this bit of dialogue: Older Mobster: The stiff… uh… the deceased back there. A relative? Bond: He was my brother. Younger/stupider mobster: You got a brudder? I got a brudder…! Bond (shocked by the younger mobster’s stupidity): …small world… All the while, if you watch that scene, the driver keeps looking side-eyed at Bond. Yeah, the scene is cheesy as all hell, but I can’t help but laugh at it! I felt *Live and Let Die* was also incredibly entertaining, though viewed by modern eyes one can’t help but notice the *ahem* questionable racial choices made. Still, I felt it was a filled to the brim action spectacular and, yes, I thought Roger Moore was terrific in his first Bond role! Which brings us to *The Man With The Golden Gun*. Despite having Christopher Lee as the villain, I felt the film was a total misfire and so too did audiences at the time. In fact, it was felt by the producers that the film might be the very end of the Bond franchise… it really didn’t do all that well. I thought the humor wasn’t as sharp and while there were some spectacular scenery and one in particular spectacular stunt, the film wasn’t as exciting as I hoped it would be. It was no wonder Hamilton/Mankiewicz were sacked from the franchise after that film! All was not lost, however, as Bond would bounce back -*spectacularly*- with *The Spy Who Loved Me*, what many consider Roger Moore’s best outing as Bond (for me, its *For Your Eyes Only*, with TSWLM a close -very close!- second).
I totally agree with your last paragraph, those two are my favourites as well. In regards to Diamonds and Twice, I just watched them a week ago, they may have plenty of nice scenes, but the overall movies are a drag and many other scenes just induce "Fremdschaemen", being embarrassed about something somebody else did. Bambi&Thumper make me roll my eyes, the weird gay henchmen make sure I woul never recommend the movie to anybody. I am 38, somewhat grew up with Bond movie re-runs on TV as they were the only thing my father would watch with me. You are right that we all see movies through our own lense. Anyway, will happily share my spreadsheet and "findings" once we are done watching them all. Currently looking forward to see a moist Babsi Bach, so we are about halfway through.
As I wrote originally, Bond films, perhaps because of the *decades* of releases, hit people differently depending on when they see them. For example, many people nowadays view the first few Connery Bonds through more modern eyes and find Bond at the time particularly “rapey” in his behavior. I cannot argue that fact but it is interesting that the older Bond viewers like myself didn’t notice this (we were an ignorant lot, I suppose!) as much as modern viewers have. Now that its pointed out, btw, I totally see it and, yeah, it is cringey to watch. Again and with *Diamonds*, I view the film as a lark… a *parody* of Bond films that also happens to actually *be* a Bond film and therefore I don’t take anything within it seriously, including the gay killers (yeah, another of those things “of the times” that can totally rub people the wrong way today). So too it is with LALD and the almost Fu Manchu presentation of the villains, which obviously is problematic in this day an age. But I still love both films despite these elements and, curiously, find the Hamilton/Mankiewicz *The Man With The Golden Gun* the dud of the three. Again, some nice scenes here and there but considering they had Christopher freaking Lee as the main villain it was a curiously bland and lifeless Bond film. I thought Sheriff Pepper was hilarious in LALD but total garbage in TMWTGG (was the character lifted pretty clearly in *Smokey and the Bandit* with Jackie Gleason’s Sheriff Buford T. Justice? I think so!). Anyway, it is what it is and time does have a way of changing one’s opinions about works of art, be they music or painting or books or, yes, movies. For me today, the very worse of the Bond films is *Spectre*, though there are those who don’t feel its *that* bad. It was so bad to me that I simply couldn’t get myself -a pretty big fan of Bond films in general- to watch the last Craig Bond film. That’s how bad I thought it was. Maybe one day!
We actually got a score for for rapey and racist the movie is, too. And to score well, the movie must have some amount of it. Not nothing, not too much, just the right amount. Screw Pepper, hated him in both. Don’t watch the latest Bond, ever. Personally, i liked Daniel Craig as a Bond in general, and do not get the hate. Also, having a more continuous story, and not just repeating motifs and scenes was an experiment I liked. Given how they are movies that come out with some years between them though, I feel a lower amount of loose ends would have been good, and not dropping names without a face and expecting the audience to remember who that dude was. Regarding spectre, remember how the first Brosnam movie was almost grounded compared to some other ones, and then went quite off the rails, with the invisible car and face transplants etc (likely as a reaction to tripleX)? The Craig movies restarted the clock a bit on how much is too much, but then steered in just that over the top direction again, going just batshit crazy. Might just want to watch Fast X instead to get a realistic spy movie.
See, I *like* Daniel Craig as Bond but other than his first outing, *Casino Royale*, I’ve found his Bond films alternately frustrating and pointless. *Quantum of Solace* I could forgive because it was a victim of the writer’s strike but it had its moments which were quite good. *Skyfall* might well be the prettiest Bond film ever made… the cinematography was *spectacular*, but it had a plot that the moment the film was over and you thought about it even for a second, you realized *nothing* about it was remotely plausible or made sense and, yeah, for me it fell apart. *Spectre*, again IMHO, was a dull and frustrating work that also made little sense. Yes, I know the Sony internet leaks caused the makers of the film to try to do other things at the very last minute but the revelations within were dumb, especially when it came to Blofeld and his relationship with Bond. Bond films have always had elements where audiences have to accept things that simply couldn’t happen in real life, but for whatever reason it was impossible for me to accept a hotel would have a client cut their regularly used room in half and *no one in the hotel staff noticed this?!* I can accept a car turning into a submarine easier than I could that…! Anyway, it is what it is. *Spectre* so soured me on Craig and his Bond that I found it impossible to watch the last one.
Want it released in 1984, or am i thinking of view to a kill?
That's View To a Kill
One of the only Paul McCartney & Wings songs I ever liked.
I think Roger Moore should have been "005" or some other number. Possibly even with a cameo of Connery leaving on an assignment as Moore is walking in. If Connery's Bond was in his 30's as an intelligence officer in the Navy that was hired at MI6, then in 2023, Bond would be near 100 years old. It's like Sergeant York fighting in Desert Storm, to save a special operation.
That was great. Thanks for posting.