The Man With The Golden Gun

 What a quick turn around between Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun! It was in fact a year between the two which is unusual for a Bond film. Normally there was at least a two year gap because of the sheer logistics of making a Bond film. But none the less it was one and TMWTGG was released in 1974. Now many consider this the franchises lowest point. But I don't think that at all. Sure it isn't one of the great Bond films but it isn't all that bad either. On release though it was to become the fourth lowest grossing Bond film even though still making a profit. But the main criticisms were directed at its comedic approach which was heavier than any previous film.

 The overall view of the film hasn't changed in the preceding 37 years either. It is ranked within the bottom four worst Bond films. Whilst I dislike the word 'worst' as I like all of the Bond films in way or another, it is one I would intentionally or intentionally watch towards the end if I was to play all 22 films back to back. Not because I dislike it but there are in all honesty better. But for its criticisms I have a soft spot for this, Roger Moore's second outing as 007, and am always happy to watch it.

 As a Bond film there is enough to like but also things to bemoan. For me the only things I question in this was the use of the boat chase and the use of character Sheriff J. W. Pepper. My problem here is that a extensive and probably over long boat chase was used in previous film Live and Let Die. So there is a lack of originality there. But the reprising of Clifton James sheriff role didn't sit well with me. Even in Live and Let Die he is a bit dubious in the overall scheme of the film. But in TMWTGG he is completely out of place. His inclusion is to add an air of comedy but he is almost embarrassing. Besides these two complaints there is still enough I like though.

 The comedy in this is far heavier than in any previous Bond film. Whilst criticised I actually don't mind it as it is juxtaposed with Moore's Bond also having more steel and thugishness than in Live and Let Die. The humour is more sexual innuendo and double entendre than anything else. It is extremely clever and genuinely funny. I certainly laughed at it all. But the humour probably doesn't work so well in some of the sight gags. For instance the scene where Bond and Pepper jump the canal and the car does a flip in mid-air. I've always questioned the decision to add in that type of humour as it isn't quite Bond like. The ad-lib lines and sexual innuendo are, of which Roger Moore was perfect at that type of light comedy. But the sight gags probably don't fit as well.

 This of course was the ninth Bond film. It is now hard to credit there are now 22 Bond films with another to come! Nine in 1974 must have seemed an incredible feat, and even though not as lucrative as previous films it still made money. The film as usual is based on Ian Fleming's novel of the same name. But there almost all similarities stop because the novel was more a novella and not long enough to adapt a film from. In fact almost the only elements used are the names Bond, Mary Goodnight and Scaramanga. The use of a golden gun by Scaramanga was even changed, because in the novella he uses a gold plated Colt six-shooter, where as in the film it is a custom built pistol.

 So what the film adaptation is in all reality was the first time a story outside of Fleming's influence was attempted. As stated it used the title and character names, but that was it .What you and I see on the screen has nothing to do with the novel what so ever. This may account for the average showing of the script. Whilst it isn't a bad script it is somewhat uneven and the film bounces between highs and lows. In fact on release the only scene that was praised was the films shoot out finale between Bond and Scaramanga. Before then it was probably too light hearted, with even the action scenes too comedy driven in approach.

 For instance the scene where Bond goes to ' school ' to be beaten up. When he escapes and his contact's nieces join in the fight and beat up Bond's pursuers is more comedy than action. In an aside the use of martial arts in the film was in reaction to the then world wide craze of martial arts films ( ie Enter the Dragon ). The Bond franchise always was receptive to the mood of the times and this is an example. Of course its most famous move was in jumping on the success of Star Wars and putting Bond into space for Moonraker.

 So how was Moore as Bond in his second outing? Well after the criticism he copped for being too charming and lacking steel in Live and Let Die Moore showed in this turn his Bond could be a cold hard man when needed. Two scenes reinforce this for me. The first is when he meets the gunsmith Lazar and points the loaded rifle at his groin and threatens to blow certain bits off if he doesn't cop up the information he wants. The second is when he roughs up Maud Adams character and quite firmly tells her what she is going to do to help him bring down Scaramanga. Both scenes show Moore's Bond at his hard best and dissipate for me the criticisms that Moore wasn't a strong enough Bond.

 The really interesting thing here is the historical backdrop against which the film was made. Obviously Britain at the time was in the middle of its energy crisis. And so the film adapted that into its plot with the ' solex agitator '. Again I refer to my earlier point of the Bond films having a pulse on the current events of the times ( this is why filming was predominately in the Far East due to the then popularity of martial arts films ). This in face of the fact the novella was based entirely in Jamaica. But Jamaica had been used previously in Dr. No and Live and Let Die. So this was a chance to get Bond out into other 'exotic ' locations.

 Actually TMWTGG was going to be made after You Only Live Twice. But it was scrapped as planned filming in Cambodia became impractical due to the outbreak of war. In fact other scouted locations for TMWTGG also suffered from world events! For instance Beirut and Iran were discarded due to the Yom Kippur War. Ha Long Bay in Vietnam for a quite obvious reason as well! Which saw Thailand chosen after pictures were seen of Phuket in a magazine. It was whilst looking at possible filming locations that Broccoli saw the wreckage of RMS Queen Elizabeth in Hong Kong harbour and decided to include it in the film.

 This was to be the last film to be co-produced by Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. Saltzman afterwards sold his 50% share to alleviate his financial troubles to United artists. This lead to legalities which delayed the next film The Spy Who Loved Me for three years. As to castings? Well originally Jack Palance was offered the role of Scaramanga but declined. Interestingly Christopher Lee had been suggested to Broccoli and Saltzman as Dr. No but they had already cast Joseph Wiseman. ( for you not in the know Ian Fleming and Christopher Lee were actually cousins ). Two Swedish models in Britt Ekland and Maud Adams were cast as the Bond girls. Ekland had been interested in being a Bond girl since watching Dr. No and contacted the producers about the role of Mary Goodnight. Maud Adams was cast as a contrast in looks to those of the blonde Ekland. Marc Adams who plays the gunman Scaramanga shoots dead in the films opening had previously appeared in a minor Diamonds are Forever role. He was cast as it was found an interesting idea to put a ' Chicago ' gangster type in the middle of Thailand.

 The film is of course well known for one incredible stunt. This is where stunt driver " Bumps " Willard leaps a AMC Hornet over a broken bridge twisting it 360 degrees in mid-air. It was successfully done in one take and shown in slow motion due to the actual speed necessary for its undertaking. The stunt is quite cool but it has been forever marred by the addition of a penny whistle over the scene. Broccoli kept it in despite reservations, but came to regret it later. One critic described it as  'simply crass ' and that the stunt showed up the lack of excitement in the film. For me it was spoilt by the use of comedy sound effects. Interestingly the stunt was tested many times beforehand and was toured around America before being filmed. UK motoring programme Top Gear  tried to recreate the stunt in 2008 and failed!

 The car plane was filmed at Bovington and was a model inspired by an actual prototype. Again the Bond franchise with its finger on the pulse! The finale between Bond and Scaramanga was significantly shortened because it had pacing problems. This is fortunate because the film at 125 minutes is possibly too long as it stands. Finally the solar power plant was built in Pinewood studios and a used a miniature duplicate model as well. Scenes cut between the two so the viewer was unable to see a discernible difference.

 For Scaramanga's prop golden gun three copies were made. One could be fired with a cap. One we see used in the film with Christopher Lee assembling and disassembling it several times. It of course comprised of an interlocking fountain pen as the barrel, a cigarette lighter as the chamber, and a cigarette case as the handle. Finally a cuff link was the trigger. It is regarded as one of the most memorable Bond film props and is ranked as one of the most popular and recognisable of film weapons. In 2008 one copy was stolen from a studio display and it was valued at 80,000 Pounds!!!!!! As usual there were film product tie ins ( but not as many as in the past ) but bizarrely the toy golden pistol on offer differed from Scaramanga's. Go figure!

 And as ever there is the theme tune! Sung by Lulu it has been variously described as ludicrous, inane, and smut, due to its overt sexual innuendo. Interestingly shock rocker Alice Cooper wrote a song entitled The Man with the Golden Gun for the film which he used on his Muscle of Love album after the producers went with Lulu instead. Composer John Barry who wrote the song hates it and considers it his worst of the franchise. In general critics regard it as the weakest of all the Bond theme songs. Made on a budget of US$7 million it grossed only US$97 million, which as stated, has made it the fourth lowest grossing of all the Bond films.

 When released critics generally savaged it. The script was called limp ( and admittedly it wasn't very good as I've mentioned ). Moore was criticised for non-acting and Britt Ekland came under fire for being the least appealing of the Bond girls. But whilst Moore and Ekland were criticised Christopher Lee was highly praised for playing a particularly good Bond villain. But on the other hand some critics thought Moore very good for adding sparkle to the role of Bond in among the films other wise genral boringness. Reflective views have not changed with time. Called silly, sloppy, tired, and boring it has been rightly pointed out it is tonally an entertaining Bond film but lacking in quality. Moore has been accused of looking stiff but really with such an uneven script what could he do? But all critics agree that the shoot out between Bond and Scaramanga is the films high point.

 So then The Man With the Golden Gun is not regarded as one of the franchise's best. It isn't so much a case of it being bad but a case of an uneven, uninspired script. I can see where critics of the film come from when they call it tired or boring. I don't think it is either as such more as ( I keep coming back to ) uneven. There is a palpable lack of spark and it suffers from some real flat moments. Its two flaws are the boat chase and the reprisal of Sheriff J. W. Pepper. If those two were taken out then the film may have a different look to it, certainly in length, as it does feel too long.

 For me personally, even though this is an admittedly lesser Bond film, I don't consider it bad. Even though inherently flawed I as a Bond aficionado have a real soft spot for it and have no problem with watching it. I think Christopher Lee was a great casting choice as Scaramanga. And even though the script is uninspired it does have some good moments, especially the films shoot out finale between Bond and Scaramanga.

 Final word? Flat, uninspired, uneven, and not a memorable Bond film. But it does have its good points. And even though flawed I consider it better and more watchable than Diamonds are Forever. IMDB has this with 6.7/10 which shows it isn't that bad really.

 Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071807/

And here for more from the BFI:

http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/505543/

The Exorcist

 What on earth is there possibly left for anyone to write about this seminal of all horror films? It has just finished playing here on NZ telly and all the way through it I wondered what I could write that hasn't been written before? Well I won't try to! Anyway I cannot for the life of me recall the last time I watched 1973's The Exorcist. It would be twenty plus years at least. But I do recall the first time which was as a 17 year old in 1988. And like so many films I have read the novel it is based on...which I was under-whelmed by! It really was a disappointment against the film even though its author William Peter Blatty wrote the film's screenplay.

 Nostalgia aside I was really looking forward to watching this again after reading two fine posts elsewhere on blogosphere.( In an aside what this has done, along with some recent re-watching of classic early 1970's film that I hadn't seen in many years, has reinforced for me that this my favorite era film wise ). But before I sat down to re-visit The Exorcist I done some reading up on it. What surprised me was that it was nominated for no less than 10 Oscars. How often, if ever, has a horror film managed that? When we think of The Exorcist we immediately think horror, Reagan, possession and its impact on popular culture. But what has been forgotten is that it is actually a pretty damn film, even outside of genre. It is so good it was even nominated for the AFI's Top 100 Best Films which is acknowledgement of its quality.

Rats??...nah we don't have rats. We have a demon though!

 The other thing that ran through my mind as I watched was how such films as this and Psycho have become so ingrained in our collective memories. Why is it these two seminal horrors have done so. Sure they are great films but what else is it that continuously draws us to them, and why have they endured, even though dated visually? Don't ask me.....I just blog here!!!!!!! Because when you think about it these two films in themselves started the slasher and possession type horror film. There are now scarier, newer, more grisly visions of what both first brought to the screen, but neither have ever been beaten.

Get your fingers away from my....!!

 In my recent review of Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds I pointed out how Hitch built up the horror in that film slowly. It has become the formula for horrors since and The Exorcist follows it perfectly. Younger viewers may not get it but this is classic horror at its best. But what I particularly like with The Exorcist is how each phase of Reagan's possession is in small bite size pieces. We aren't bombarded with  the scary stuff all at once. The film slowly and inexorably ratchets up the creepiness, which culminates in the exorcism scenes. For me this is the films brilliance as a horror. I mean each time the door to Reagan's room was opened the viewer was in frightened expectation of what they were going to see.

Is that you Captain Howdy?

 I had really forgotten so much of this film! It really did feel like watching it for the first time. But it was more than this because I watched it differently than I did as a teen and into my early twenties. Back then I think we all did the horror film buzz and we watched them to scare our selves silly. Nowadays I don't care much for the genre and watch just a few a year. So this time round I watched it as film alone. What got me was yes The Exorcist is a horror but it stands up extremely well as a film ( which I've already stated ). The immediate thing I saw for the first time was the face of the demon Pazuzu which flashes up for brief milliseconds in certain scenes ( image on right if you didn't already know! ) I can honestly say I'd never seen that before!!!!!

I hope you removed ALL the crucifixes!!

 So yeah this was a film in so many respects I was watching for the first time. But I've experienced that a lot recently with many of the other films I've re-watched from my younger days this year. Also I think as we get a bit older we do get wiser and view things differently than when younger. Well, what was my impression after all these years? Well to be honest I freakin' loved it! It's power and impact haven't diminished, and at times I did feel my skin crawl! Especially during the spider walk down the stairs...that seriously creeped me out and I did get a dose of goose bumps! The other thing I had forgotten was that Reagan did two 360 head turn scenes. One in front of her mother and one with Father Merrin. Funny the little things you forget over the years isn't it?





Cree-fucking-py!!!

 God damn even when the demon/Reagan opens the draw in front of Father Karras had the hairs standing up on the back of my neck! Again a little thing that I had forgotten and yet was genuinely creepy. I tell you there are many, many films I would love to have seen on their big screen release. Seriously, this must have been one hell of a ride in 1973. Just think this was only five years after 1968's Rosemary's Baby, and yet the contrast between the two couldn't be greater. Rosemary's Baby must have looked so lame! To be sure it is a fine film, and a true classic I like but look at the difference between these two horrors. Even 1976's The Omen didn't even get close to The Exorcist.

I told you to get rid of all the crosses mother!!

 So when you put it in that sort of perspective then you realise why cinemas had patrons running screaming from their seats. Some even supplied barf bags for the weak of constitution. There was just no buildup cinema wise to what The Exorcist showed on screen. The funny thing is is that 1970's films were getting more graphically violent with the likes of Dirty Harry and The French Connection but there was nothing approaching The Exorcist. For me when you look back at cinematic history certain films were events rather than just films. Psycho is undoubtedly one. On release theatres in the US ran 24 hours a day to keep up with demand. Even inter-states were clogged for miles due to people waiting to get into drive-in sessions. I think 1982's E.T certainly qualifies. It was an event and The Exorcist  undoubtedly had this status. I have several friends whose parents saw this in 1973 and they state it was beyond words. They had seen nothing like it and can vividly recall  people leaving theatres and even fainting!

Watch it...I'll puke on ya!!

 But it wasn't just the imagery that shocked patrons. The language even by a decade striving for shocks was strong. Even by today's standards it is! Sure the word ' fuck ' isn't blinked at but ' cunt ' isn't that common as such. I think 1973 audiences must have recoiled as Reagan/demon told Father Merrin to ' stick it up her arse' as well. ' Cocksucker '?, my goodness such filthy language!!  They must have had kittens when demon Reagan grabbed her mother's head and shoved it between her legs yelling ' lick me, lick me '!!! Seriously even by 2011's standards this is strong stuff. The Paranormal Activity films look soooooooo lame against scenes like that don't they?! And who was Emily Rose again???!!

The friendly neighbourhood exorcist!!

 The thing here also is I haven't been able to find any other responses to the film from 1973. Sure we know of audiences responses but what of those from the church, and other such groups? This must surely have caused serious outrage. And yet I haven't found anything. There must have been calls to have it banned etc. Yet this is the funny thing with The Exorcist because even though graphic it wasn't a cheap thrill seeking film. It is serious in tone with a fine cast and script. And this is where the crux of it comes as to why it has never been beaten. Horrors since have all tried to emulate or better The Exorcist by being bloodier, upping the shock stakes etc. And yet by doing so they all lost sight of what made it so great in the first place. It wasn't tying to shock or out do anything else.

Get back into bed you naughty girl!!

 The real thing that surprises me about the film is how it was nominated for 10 Oscars. Sure we know it is a fine film but I come back to the point of its controversial aspects. Surely it must have raised a storm of protest and if so it is surprising politics didn't kick in and see it 'overlooked'  for nominations ( it's Oscars came for Best Sound and Best Adapted Screenplay ). But whilst a fine film it wasn't ever, ever ,ever going to beat The Sting as Best Picture!! ( I'm a HUGE The Sting fan! ). So this was a film that really made the cinematic world sit up and take notice, and not just because of its content. I think as time has gone by its reputation has preceded the fact it is regarded so highly as a film regardless of genre. It is in fact preserved in the Library of Congress as 'culturally significant' !! Amazing isn't it considering what it shows....and as for all that bad language!!

IS tatue Pazuzu??!!

 Without question The Exorcist has well and truly passed into popular culture. It must be one of the most watched and talked about films ever made.  Psycho is also one of the films that have achieved this. So for a few facts! It is the 9th highest grossing R-rated film of all time. The AFI has it third on their Top Thrills list behind Psycho and Jaws. It has been repeatedly in numerous publications etc  rated as the scariest film ever made. Most critics agree it is the most effective horror ever made, balancing a good script with gruesome effects and fine acting. I agree on all counts. This is why it lifts The Exorcist head and shoulders above ALL its competitors and imitators.

Watch your step...you might break your neck!!

 Well readers I just absolutely enjoyed watching this seminal horror classic again. Even though I have seen it before it still had the power to creep me out and make my skin crawl. It is funny though how it and Psycho are so similar. Both are the last word in their respective horror genres. Also both Anthony Perkins and Linda Blair went on to nothing mediocre careers. They became so well known for these roles that they were never able to shake them off. Perkins admitted to not minding so much and wouldn't change a thing. Blair though stooped as low as to star in a third Exorcist and a comedy parody of the role she made so famous.

One of cinema's most iconic images?? You bet ya!! Superb.

 Without question a great film and a damn scary horror. It may not be the greatest horror though as many critics rate Nosferatu as the greatest. Regardless of which is the best The Exorcist is a film that has indelibly stamped its mark on the world of cinema. Ahead of its time it has had many, many imitators that have done nothing more than try and out do it. None have even remotely come close. My last word is this, often imitated but never beaten....and I doubt it ever will be.

 Oh in closing lets all pray that it never suffers the indignity of a re-make. But I believe rumours are out and about. This would seriously piss me off. How and why butcher a true classic? It will only try and out special effects the original and fail miserably in even trying to get close to the original in every way. Leave it alone why don't ya?!!!!!! I hate re-makes at the best of times but don't try it on this I say.

 I highly recommend a look at wikipedia's page on The Exorcist. It is extremely thorough and damn interesting. It covers all the casting ( like Audrey Hepburn being approached to play Reagan's mother and Stanley Kubrik being asked to direct ). Even facts like how the spider walk was made by a contortionist with the help of wires is examined. It is well worth a look for any serious film/The Exorcist aficionado.





 Click here for a synopsis and more from IMDB:



Awwww......wasn't she a cutie!!!



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070047/

And here for a fan site:

http://captainhowdy.com/ 

Serenity

 Ah Friday night and I had the house to myself. And with it being Friday night TV3 usually has a movie on at 8.30. So empty house and yours truly ( oh and the cat ) settled in for a few hours. Now I've never seen

Serenity before and really knew little about it besides what I read in the paper. But even as I read the paper's abbreviated review I wondered..you know...that almost sixth sense kicked in.

 I found this a strange movie. It is a full length, big screen release, and yet it has its root is television. I'm fairly sure this didn't play here in NZ theatres and probably went straight to DVD. I'm 99% sure I wouldn't have bothered to see it on the big screen either. It just looks too much like a made for TV movie and yet it was made specifically for the big screen. Somehow the effect just does not work. Its not that it looks cheap, it just doesn't look right. Seriously the CGI is no better quality than what you see in Doctor Who or any of the myriad of Star Trek spin offs. On the big screen they must have looked lame, but all the same acceptable for telly.

 You have all seen made for TV movies and you know what they visually look like. But I really can't figure why it was made for the big screen. It is a continuation of a short runned TV series Firefly of which this movie is based after the last episode. I've never heard of the series and I'm pretty certain it never reached NZ shores. Apparently the series was scrapped after 11 of a supposed 14 episodes. Producer Joss Whedon, after unsuccessfully having another studio buy it, decided to make a film out of it ( here is my explanation of why it was made for the big screen!! ).

 The problem is as I've stated is that visually, scriptually and acting wise it just can't escape its television roots. There is a lot to like but if I had seen this in a theatre I would not have been happy to have watched what is essentially a made for telly movie. My other problem with Serenity is this....WTF is it all about?????? Seriously I couldn't make head nor tail of the plot what so ever! So for its 119 minute running time I was scratching my head wondering what it was all about. Strange to think that I sat through a two hour movie all the time hoping something would happen to explain it all. But no, the end came and I was still in the dark!

 Maybe I needed to see the series but this made no sense to me at all. I came close to turning it off because I couldn't fathom the plot. It wasn't so much overly complicated but it was if it was trying too hard. I sort of grasped the almost Star Wars Empire and Alliance angle and the Minority Report similarities, but after that I was lost. What was all the fuss about the girl ? Who was she and what was her gift/power/ thingy?? Huh? Huh? Huh? Huh? That was me all the way through!

 So the script really left a lot to be desired. It was cloudy at best and didn't seem to clarify what the whole point was story wise. But this was its major drawback because other wise the CGI and the acting was pretty cool considering its TV origins. The cast is actually quite solid, especially Nathan Fillion of TV's Castle and horror film Slither fame. He plays these deadpan comedic roles so well and again here he is in top form. Alan Tudyk who I know from Death at a Funeral ( the English version and not he inferior American re-make/butchery ), Alan Baldwin etc make for, and do a reasonable job. But again it all has that made for TV feel.

 Apparently on release in 2005 it performed poorly at the box office and yet received generally favourable reviews from critics. But overall it was felt to be a modest sci-fi movie that couldn't shake off its TV roots. For me, whist I didn't mind its origins, I wouldn't have been impressed to have seen it on the big screen. But the thing I can't escape with Serenity is its plot which just doesn't seem to explain anything or go anywhere as such. I sat down for 2 hours and watched a movie that I couldn't for the life of me comprehend! So either I'm completely thick or the script failed to deliver. I will leave you to decide!

 Amazingly IMDB has this with 7.9/10!!!! I just don't believe it warrants that all. I'd be hard pressed to give it more than 4/10 simply because it isn't a genuine big screen movie and the script is too cloudy. When a movie can't clearly explain itself within two hours and loses the viewer there is something wrong. I wouldn't say it was poor but it is certainly a TV movie and a TV movie alone.

In a word.......odd. Thank goodness I have Bond film The Spy Who Loved Me and The Exorcist to watch tomorrow and Sunday night!

Click here for a synopsis and more:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/

 And if you really want more then I highly recommend a visit to wikipedia's page which is extremely detailed and thorough...( but in no way clarified the plot for me! ).

Live And Let Die

  Well with Sean Connery, George Lazenby and Sean Connery done and dusted as James Bond it came Roger Moore's turn at having the license to kill. Of course Moore had been previously considered for the role after Connery first retired after You Only Live Twice. But due to other commitments couldn't take the role which went to unknown Australian male model George Lazenby. The funny thing is that even after Connery's second retirement Moore wasn't initially considered as Bond.

 Of course Connery was urged to stay on. But with his final departure the search for a new Bond began. Believe it or not Albert Broccoli approached Clint Eastwood who was fresh off his Dirty Harry success. But although flattered Eastwood declined stating Bond should be played by an English actor. Oxymoronically after having asked American Eastwood Broccoli then refused United Artists desire to cast an American. Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman and Robert Redford were all considered. But Broccoli put forward Roger Moore instead. Without appearing anti-American it is fortunate the role has never been given to an American. I feel if it had been done so United Artists then would have put pressure on Broccoli and co to make the whole franchise more American in feel.

 But fortunately for posterity's sake the English actor Roger Moore was cast. With Moore on board the character changed direction. Not only did Moore himself not want to play Sean Connery's Bond, but he was also at odds not to imitate his television role of Simon Templar in  The Saint. Screenplay writer Tom Mankiewicz was to intentionally write in Moore's persona by giving more comedy and a light hearted approach to the role. Moore was in the unenviable position that George Lazenby was in in following on from Sean Connery. But with all due credit, whilst Live and Let Die isn't the best Bond film, it is superior to its predecessor Diamonds are Forever.

 But I have now lived through the transition of Bonds from Moore to Brosnan to Craig, and it is amazing how quickly you become used to the new actor. Even though very familiar with Live and Let Die after repeated viewings over the years, I found I settled into Moore as Bond very quickly. If nothing else Moore was noted as a fine actor and his professionalism is very obvious in this, his first Bond film. One of the criticisms of Moore as Bond in this was that the character lacked the hardness under the charming exterior. To a certain degree I agree. But in The Man With the Golden Gun onwards Moore really got into his stride, and in certain scenes he was definitely a cold, hard man when he needed to be.

 Now of course this is based on Ian Fleming's second Bond novel. It has certainly dated as many of his very earliest novels have done. But none the less it is one of his stronger early novels. But there is a major problem with it. It is extremely racist. Some critics on release of the film adaptation thought it too racist. But I dispute this as the producers made every effort to keep Fleming's racism, sexism, along with his many other unsavoury views out of the films. They were seen as family entertainment so any thing along those lines was ewell and truly toned down. I personally think the Bond films over the years have managed to keep things ' clean ' in regards to keeping much of Fleming's view points out.

 But it is a ' blaxploitation ' film no question. But whereas Fleming used racism to belittle Black culture, the film adaptation merely uses it as a story backdrop alone. If anything the decision to tackle the novel was a brave move considering the potential for racial mis-understandings. But all the same it was released at he height of blaxploitation so affros, black gangsters, ' pimp mobiles ' and honky abounds. It was also the first time a black was used as a Bond girl just to keep the waters smooth. All the same criticism was unavoidable but on the whole the film was generally well received.

 In fact Live and Let Die was chosen to be the next Bond film even as Diamonds are Forever was still in production. Screen play writer Tom Mankiewicz thought it would be daring to introduce a black villain considering the Black Panthers and other black movements were so active at the time. New Orleans came to be used as a filming location because of its vibrant black community. Hence we see the two black jazz funerals, along with the use of local canals for the boat chase. It was whilst in Jamaica searching for locations that the crew found a crocodile farm owned by a Ross Kanaga. Of course this inspired the crocodile farm scene in the film and gave the name to the film's villain.

Naughty James...taking Solitaire's virginity!!

 As usual the behind the scenes stuff is of interest...well I always think it is. So here are a few facts etc, I always add in for any die hard Bond fans who are reading!! In the novel Solitaire is Caucasian, and for a brief time it was considered turning her into a black woman for the film. But the idea was discarded in favour of Fleming's description. At first Catherine Deneuve was considered for the role before yummy Jane Seymour was cast  after her performances in television series The Onedine Line. Yophet Kotto was cast after he was seen in another United Artists film, Across 110th Street. He said one of the things that appealed about playing Kanaga was his interest in the occult and feeling he could control events through it.

 The character of buffoon like sheriff J. W. Pepper was created to give the film some comic relief. Portrayed by Clifton James he was to appear in the next Bond film The Man With the Golden Gun as well. At the time of writing James is still alive aged 90! This was also the first of two times David Hedison was to play Felix Leiter. He was to reprise the role in 1989's License to Kill even though it was a tradition up until then to cast a different actor for the role. Madeline Smith, who plays Italian bedmate to Bond in the films opening scenes, was cast on Moore's advice after she appeared with him in The Saint. Whilst acknowledging Moore's politeness on set she later confided she found it difficult to wear only bikini briefs whilst Moore's wife oversaw the scene. In his biography My Word is my Bond Moore goers further into his then wife's jealousies over him working with other woman. This was the major reason for their eventual divorce.

Mmm..Jane, can you spill out of that anymore?!!

 Amazingly enough this was the only film until 2002's Casino Royale that didn't feature Desmond Llewellyn as Q. At the time he was starring in television series Follyfoot. But even though written out of three episodes so he could film Live and Ket Die, the producers had previously decided not to include the character, much to Llewellyn's annoyance. Initial filming was held up because Moore was diagnosed with kidney stones. But once started principle filming took place in Louisiana. Then it moved to Jamaica  ( which doubled for the fictional San Monique ). The other scenes were divided between Harlem and the ubiquitous Pinewood Studios. Apparently whilst in Harlem the producers had to pay ' protection money ' to a local gang to ensure the crews safety. Suffice to say when the money ran out they were " encouraged " to leave!!!!

 The crocodile stunt was actually suggested by farm owner Ross Kananga. The producers liked the idea and enlisted him to help to do it. The scene took five takes to complete, including one where a crocodile snapped at Kanaga's trousers, tearing them. The snakes also caused a fuss among some crew members. The script supervisor was so afraid  she wouldn't appear on set with them. The actor who plays an agent in the films opening scenes fainted during filming! Jane Seymour was terrified if they got too close. And Geoffrey Holder only agreed to fall into the coffin full of snakes because Princess Alexandra was on set watching!! Ah the pitfalls of acting huh!!!

 Since the crew was filming in the deep south of the US the local canals offered up the opportunity for the films lengthy boat chase. It was filmed on the Louisiana bayou and was at one stage interrupted by flooding. 26 boats were built especially for the scene. 17 of which were destroyed during rehearsals alone! The scene where the speedboat jumps over the bayou ( pictured ) with the help of a ramp unintentionally created a then Guinness World Record with 34 cleared meters!! Unfortunately the waves it created in doing so made the following boat flip over! And finally the double-decker bus chase used a second hand London bus that had the top adapted. It ran on ball bearings so that it slid off when it passed under the low bridge. Suffice to say Roger Moore wasn't the driver, but an actual London Transport driving instructor was!

 Now where would a review be without a word about the title song! Of course it is the hard driving classic Live and Let Die ( funnily enough ) by Wings. It was the first true rock 'n' roll song to open a Bond film. It was a success that remained at #2 in the US charts for three weeks and reached #9 in the UK's. It has arguably remained one of the best and well known pieces of Bond music outside of the theme. When the film was released it was a box office success but met with a mixed reception from critics ( none the less the film won an Oscar for the title song of Wings! ).

 So what did critics make of Live and Let Die and Roger Moore in 1973? Well the racial themes were questioned but the action scenes were praised. Many felt Moore unable to live up to the legacy of Sean Connery. But that was said of George Lazenby as well, and yet On Her Majesty's Secret Service was a very strong Bond film. Any actor who takes on Bond will always have to suffer being compared to his immediate predecessor though. Some stated Moore's Bond didn't have the thuggisness that was under the surface of both Connery and Lazenby's Bonds. But this was to come out in the next few films Moore was to make. The role of Kanaga was considered banal compared to previous Bond villains Goldfinger and Dr. No. But Jane Seymour was praised as one of the franchises most beautiful Bond girls. And so it went on.

 For me I do like Live and Let Die even though I rate it as a middling effort Bond film. It must be remembered that this was Roger Moore's first outing in the famous role, and he was going to be minutely examined. I think he done a fine job. The film's failings are more a flat novel to film adaptation, and the script, rather than any from Moore. For me it is superior to its predecessor Diamonds are Forever. As an adaptation it does leave in enough of the novel, but mixes up the chronology somewhat. For instance at the end of the film, when Felix Leiter asks Bond and Solitaire what there is to do on a train for 6 hours, it is from their escape from Kanaga in New York, which is less than half way into the novel.

 The last scene although changed from the novel does nod towards it though. In the novel Kanaga intends to kill Bond and Solitaire by dragging them behind his smuggling boat over some coral. Hence attracting the sharks and barracudas to finish them off. Of course in the film Kanaga has several caged sharks, and purists of the novel will recognise the reference. One scene isn't used but was later in 1989's License to Kill. And that was where Felix Leiter is savaged by a shark at one of Kanaga's entry points of his smuggling operations. ( In the novel it is gold coins he is smuggling and not heroin ).

Mmmmmmm...Jane Seymour!!!!

 Over all though the novel is not one of Fleming's best and it has passed on to the film. As a Bond film it is possibly a bit too long, and whilst not bad isn't overly memorable. But for a first up 'new' Bond film it is solid enough. I always feel for such an iconic role it took an actor time to truly grow into it. This is something Timothy Dalton unfortunately never got. Whereas George Lazenby shot himself in the foot by walking away from the role. Like him or not Roger Moore is Bond.

 IMDB has it with 6.8/10 which is more than fair. For me there is enough to like but there are other Roger Moore outings I'd watch before this.

 

Click here for a synopsis and more:

null://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070328/