The Spy Who Loved Me in Review

Roger Moore's first two outings as Bond had been rather small-scale affairs, dealing with a drug dealer and then an assassin. This had been reflected in the quality of the films. 'Live And Let Die' was a fun, if unmemorable escapade; 'The Man With The Golden Gun' had been very dull indeed. There was only one thing to do...make Bond BIG again.

Bond is assigned to find out what has been happening to British and Russian submarines which have been disappearing. Bond is soon tearing around Egypt beating up henchmen and then doing battle with a helicopter with his weapon-laden Lotus Esprit. Director Lewis Gilbert clearly knows his way around an action sequence, as they're the best since 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and he also makes the most of the exotic locations. The design is also superb with Ken Adam's magnificent sets, from a huge tanker to Stromberg's underwater lair, an ideal location for the blazing final battle.

It's good to see a Bond movie giving Roger Moore a chance to stretch his action legs in a film that's actually about global destruction. After two lesser adventures, the stunts and outlandish plots were back and to great effect. 'The Spy Who Loved Me' remains the definitive Roger Moore Bond film.

(MP Bartley)

Roger's favourite, but is it yours? Write your review here!

Now I haven't read Fleming's novel - all I know is that it's written from a Bond girl's perspective, and frankly, it's an intriguing idea. And we are all aware of the superiority of the literary Bond to the cinematic Bond, but that's a seperate discussion.

In terms of film version of The Spy Who Loved Me, we are introduced to Roger Moore as a person. One of my few gripes I have with he film is that Roger Moore doesn't want to play Bond. He wants to play himself, and what he's comfortable with. This really hurts the film, because, aside from being a rehash of YOLT, we are given an interesting sub plot involving a XXX. Anya has the character to be one of the best Bond girls, however the mediocrity of Bach's acting aptitude weighs down what could have been sensational. She is stunning though, and does maintain genuine class, but add much more to her simplistic expressions of smiling and frowning. I'll still take her over Holly Shithead from MR. But going back to Roger Moore, I feel that his portrayal of Bond, along with his interpretation in MR are two of the worst performances, not because he is unconvincing, but because it doesn't seem very Flemingesque to me. He does have highlights though ("What a helpful chap"; "Ever get the feeling somebody doesn't like you?"; "All those feathers and he still can't fly"; his confession to Anya was quite good also). If he had more of a performance akin to his one in FYEO, it would have lifted the film.

Other things I'm not particularly keen about: the pacing (first half is terribly slow), the score (it rids of a lot of the tension, such as after Bond dispatches Naomi, it transduces into something exceedinly light hearted that just kills all of the tension within that scene), the plot (nothing exactly compelling. This is one of the reasons why I like YOLT and TND better because while they are the same sort of stories, they are dealing with an outbreak of WWIII. The stakes are high, and yet there is no sense of urgency. In YOLT you have that meeting with the Americans, British and Russians, with jump cuts to those scenes where the Americans [somehow] watch the launches of the shuttles in space. In TND, you have the police escorting Bond, the briefing in the situation rooms and in the car, a heavier use of the navy, etc).

Other than that, it is enjoyable. I love the car chase, the sets, the cinematography, locations, Stromberg's death scene, and of course the magnificent PTS. The good outweighs the bad, but the bad is sometimes glaring at me.

TSWLM has its moments, as this clip shows. Perhaps the greatest non-Barry score as well.



Ah, Miss Munro. Are well-endowed women taught to speak with their tits or is it pure instinct? Such are the conundrums that keep me awake at night.

I find Naomi to be a bit overrated if I'm perfectly honest. Though, I haven't seen The Spy Who Loved Me in a while. And that track playing over that video is the one I was talking about in my post. Completely unsuitable for the scene it accompanies, IMO.

I'm finding that a lot of the Bond films I used to dismiss, such as TSWLM, are looking much better after the dour unentertaining Craig-era. I've had enough of blue-collar maverick Bond. He should be put down.

I have to say, I used to rate SPY very highly. Partly because it was a family favourite, thanks to my dad being the redshirt Roger kicks down the stairs. But now I find it an ugly looking, cheap sounding, sprawling mess. MOONRAKER for me has a lot more going for it, despite its flaws. At least it looks and sounds good, and has Michel Lonsdale and Corinne Fucking Clery in it.

Sharky wrote:

I find [TSWLM] an ugly looking, cheap sounding, sprawling mess.

What do you think of the score?

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I find [TSWLM] an ugly looking, cheap sounding, sprawling mess.

What do you think of the score?

It's good in parts, but on the whole it sounds cheap, tacky. It's a sort of guilty pleasure, like visiting a dilapidated knocking shop run by fat Ukrainian middle aged whores. You feel dirty afterwards.

I think Bill Cunti's FYEO is a more successful attempt at incorporating disco in Bond.

If I had to rank the non-Barry composer's [Bond] work, it'd be as follows:

1. George Martin
2. Eric Serra
3. Bill Conti
4. Marvin Hamlisch
5. David Arnold
6. Michael Kamen

I've always loved Spy. Never understood how anyone could like Moonraker better. Horses for courses, or something.

The film is just exuberant. Even the "serious" scenes have a wink and a nudge about them. Wood, Maibaum, and Gilbert play up the drama of that Russian shit in a black jumpsuit with lemon piping getting shot, but then... he was shot with a ski pole.

The set-pieces and the film as a whole have a polish to them utterly lacking from the latter-day Hamilton films. It's totally absurd, feather-light entertainment, and perhaps most importantly, it's paced superbly (unlike MR, whose first two acts are a crushing bore, I find).

I favour the Cunti score (I've been amused by that designation ever since I investigated just how "Runaway" got such a terrible score on the old "Rate the Best Bond Track" thread...), but Hamlisch's is a lot of fun... for the most part.

The money's all up there on the screen. Which is more than I can say for some of the post-Cubby installments, anyway. And I think this is Rog at his most comfortable and entertaining. I find it curious that the film was generally rejected by the Ye Olde MI6 community. While I get the complaints about Bach, I just don't see the film as this intolerable nightmare that a lot of people seem to think it is. But whatever.

It's got Vernon Dobtcheff in it. What more could you want.

Quote :

While I get the complaints about Bach, I just don't see the film as this intolerable nightmare that a lot of people seem to think it is. But whatever.

It's not intolerable, far from it. It's just mediocre.

I don't get the remarks about its 'exuberance'. The colours are mostly grey and washed out, the cinematographer was obviously on coke. Roger's at his most smug, and self-satisfied (certain scenes make me want to punch him). Kurt Jurgens is underused. An yes, while it's more consistently paced than MOONRAKER, it drags on and on. I'm usually asleep once it moves to Sardinia.

Quote :

Wood, Maibaum, and Gilbert play up the drama of that Russian shit in a black jumpsuit with lemon piping getting shot, but then... he was shot with a ski pole.

That's fine and all, but why does have to be given such a weighty treatment later on, with that contrived 'I killed your lover', that feels like an forbearer of TWINE?

Sharky wrote:

ambler wrote:

Sharky wrote:

I find [TSWLM] an ugly looking, cheap sounding, sprawling mess.

What do you think of the score?

It's good in parts, but on the whole it sounds cheap, tacky. It's a sort of guilty pleasure, like visiting a dilapidated knocking shop run by fat Ukrainian middle aged whores. You feel dirty afterwards.

Interesting analogy. Might be a good way to rate Bond films. QoS would be the miserable feminist bitch who lectures you on the phallocracy and then wonders why you caught the plane to Bangkok.

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

While I get the complaints about Bach, I just don't see the film as this intolerable nightmare that a lot of people seem to think it is. But whatever.

It's not intolerable, far from it. It's just mediocre.

I don't get the remarks about its 'exuberance'. The colours are mostly grey and washed out, the cinematographer was obviously on coke. Roger's at his most smug, and self-satisfied (certain scenes make me want to punch him). Kurt Jurgens is underused. An yes, while it's more consistently paced than MOONRAKER, it drags on and on. I'm usually asleep once it moves to Sardinia.

I don't think a film has to be kaleidoscopic to be exuberant. Not at all. I don't see the "grey" complaint - maybe in portions of Sardinia, and when Gilbert slips into old-school war footage mode for the big battle, but the film looks fine apart from that. There's some pretty effective lighting in Gogol's office, Egypt, on Atlantis and the Liparus, et cetera - it doesn't look like 3-strip, but then I don't think it needs to be. But that's not necessarily what I'm talking about when I'm talking about exuberance anyway - I'm talking about the nature of film, the set-pieces, the plot mechanics, Jaws, et cetera.

As with any performance, YMMV, but while Rog might be slightly smug in Spy and MR... it's funny. Timing is everything, and he's got it. Others don't have the timing to make it amusing, and they end up looking like misanthropes. The Gilbert films are the ideal bracket in terms of Moore performances I think - he's unconvincing and forced in the Hamilton films and... just too old in the Glen films.

Sharky wrote:

Quote :

Wood, Maibaum, and Gilbert play up the drama of that Russian shit in a black jumpsuit with lemon piping getting shot, but then... he was shot with a ski pole.

That's fine and all, but why does have to be given such a weighty treatment later on, with that contrived 'I killed your lover', that feels like an forbearer of TWINE?

But that's the thing, it's impossible to take seriously, and I don't think you're supposed to. You don't forget the ski pole, after all. Unlike TWINE, it's devoid of histrionics, and Moore is totally matter of fact - all he does for the rest of the film is keep ribbing XXX about her being upset over whatsisface. It's not played with slack-jawed guffaws, but I don't think it needs to be. The "reveal" scene is a necessary evil to set up the champagne gag, and, being a quieter scene, provides the necessary gear change going into the third act. It adds an element of drama, but it's pure mechanics, not character insight. Every Bond/XXX exchange is a means to some end in regards to the plot - none of it is trying to really seriously examine the characters.

FourDot wrote:

I've always loved Spy. Never understood how anyone could like Moonraker better. Horses for courses, or something.

The score, the sets, the women, the score, the villain, the overall look of the thing. The first act of Moonraker is vastly more engaging than anything in Spy imho.

Quote :

(unlike MR, whose first two acts are a crushing bore, I find).

Ha. Touche.

Quote :

While I get the complaints about Bach, I just don't see the film as this intolerable nightmare that a lot of people seem to think it is. But whatever.

I dunno-- for me the film is and always has been a little drab. It's an anti-gestalt in that it fails to be even the sum of its parts. I don't know why but the film has always failed to completely engage me. It could be the lack of a Barry score and the drab tones, but I dunno.

FourDot wrote:

The Gilbert films are the ideal bracket in terms of Moore performances I think - he's unconvincing and forced in the Hamilton films and... just too old in the Glen films.
.

Strongly agree there. Gilbert was Moore's Terence Young-- the director who managed to bring out the best in his performances in terms of his own natural strengths. He certainly wasn't able to do that with Connery.

For me, MR is TSWLM done better, with a few other added bonuses.

Lazenby. wrote:

For me, MR is TSWLM done better, with a few other added bonuses.

While I rate Spy overall a few notches better than Moonraker, I agree that the latter is better-made. Spy was a high technical achievement in its own right, but MR looks like a far more expensive and glossier production. It has aged a lot better too (largely due to Barry's score).

That said, TSWLM was one of the first Bond films I saw in my childhood, so it's left a big impression on me. The first two acts are some of the most fun in the entire series. The third act has impressive Ken Adam sets and all, but like Thunderball's climax it can feel bloated and tiresome on repeat viewings. Still, it's the best of the 1970s.

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) - 8/10
Up until Moonraker was made, The Spy Who Loved Me easily had the most ludicrous plot. But despite venturing dangerously near self-parody, The Spy Who Loved Me, similarly to Goldfinger, uses its camp as a style (mostly). Roger Moore has vastly improved since The Man with the Golden Gun, and is even able to portray dark humor convincingly. (“What a helpful chap.” - Moore’s best moment as 007; but it also helps that the writers have finally started realizing Moore’s “strengths”.) As far as the rest of the cast goes, Stromberg and Jaws make a pretty good evil team. Barbara Bach, on the other hand is as mediocre as they come; she holds back this film from being great. But I can really appreciate The Spy Who Loved Me’s beautiful sets and environments. The interior of Liparus is as fantastic as it is grand, as is Atlantis, Stromberg’s massive underwater house. Bond’s new tricked out Lotus is also a truly worthy gadget and ranks among Q’s best. Oh, and Carly Simon’s “Nobody Does It Better” is the best Bond theme as far as I’m concerned. As silly as the film’s story is, The Spy Who Loved Me is great fun and realizes its own camp without being too overtly superfluous.

I'm not a particular fan of the film, but am currently reading Christopher Wood's superb novelization of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, which is a lot grittier and more Flemingian than one might be forgiven for assuming. The prose quality is also of a surprisingly high standard and IMO puts the vast majority of the continuation novels to shame. Indeed, I'd rate this as the best continuation novel after COLONEL SUN.

Is it Fleming? No, but in places it's excitingly close. Highly recommended not only for fans of TSWLM but also for anyone passionate about the literary 007.

Loomis wrote:

I'm not a particular fan of the film, but am currently reading Christopher Wood's superb novelization of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, which is a lot grittier and more Flemingian than one might be forgiven for assuming. The prose quality is also of a surprisingly high standard and IMO puts the vast majority of the continuation novels to shame. Indeed, I'd rate this as the best continuation novel after COLONEL SUN.

Is it Fleming? No, but in places it's excitingly close. Highly recommended not only for fans of TSWLM but also for anyone passionate about the literary 007.

I've never read that. I must pick up a copy.

Are you a fan of Chrstopher's Cofessions novels too? :D

The Spy Who Loved Me has always been a favourite of mine and I'd say it is Roger Moore's best movie as James Bond followed by For Your Eyes Only. It's an exquisite, globetrotting espionage adventure with impressive sets, non-stop action and memorable set-pieces such as Jaws stalking Fekkesh through the pyramids.

Moonraker was fun but was too much of a Star Wars rip-off whereas TSWLM pretty much had its own identity as a big-budget Bond movie.

What do you folks make of the doc?