When Roger Moore took over as caretaker of the Bond franchise he was handed a good portion of the momentum and goodwill that had been generated during the Sean Connery era - and he spent it all on "Live and Let Die" (which, miraculously.
DOES feel like something of a continuation from where Connery left off). He started his next film with no reserves. It shows immediately - and never stops showing. There atmosphere is all wrong, there’s no energy, precious little REAL ruthlessness (when Moore does the dirty on someone he comes across as distant and vague, as though he’s a butler). Nor does he have a title song by Paul McCartney or a babe as luscious as the young Jane Seymour to support him this time. He’s clearly come down in the world.
He’s no longer up against super-villains plotting to take over the world; even if you’d resigned yourself to expecting, say, a mere drug baron trying to corner the American market in narcotics, you’ll find the villainous plotting (when it’s at last unveiled, all too late) terribly disappointing and earthbound.
Another black mark: the two most memorable supporting players are the short guy from "Fantasy Island" (serving as, what do you know, butler, on, what do you know, an eccentric millionaire’s secret fantasy island), and the tobacco-chewing redneck sheriff from "Live and Let Die", serving up the same cheap, painfully over-the-top schtick as before, only there’s more of it, and in order to work him into the plot at all they had to have him take a holiday in Thailand (as if such a redneck would EVER go to Thailand!).
They’re memorable, but you kind of wish they weren’t. The scting and expressions are so sick and dull that we can’t believe the series started by Connery is going this way ! Atleast there’s a good gadget in this movie - a car transforming into an Aeroplane and flying off zzoooom. And the heroine sizzles in bikini during most of the ending - hmm couldn’t take my eyes off her.
At the time of writing I’ve seen almost all of the James Bond films. This was the last I managed to lay eyes on. It’s obvious enough why it proved so elusive. It may not be quite as BAD as "On Her Majesty’s Secret Service" or "Moonraker" - I’m not sure on this point, and I don’t care - but it is, in some sense, the biggest embarrassment: the least timeless, with all the silliness of any other Bond film, yet none of the grandeur which the silliness sometimes made possible. Yes, it’s directed by the guy who did "Gold finger". No, I don’t understand how this could be either.
Scaramouch : One mistress cannot serve two Masters, Mr Bond.