“LIVE AND LET DIE” (1973) Review

“LIVE AND LET DIE” (1973) Review

Between 1967 and 1972, EON Productions spent a chaotic five years trying to find one man to portray James Bond following Sean Connery’s decision to retire from the role. Nineteen sixty-eight found Australian model, George Lazenby in the role. But after one movie, the excellent “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”, Lazenby decided that he did not want to continue the role. Connery came back for one last movie – “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”, but did not bother to stick around. 

Then in 1972, Broccoli and Saltzman hired Roger Moore (famous for the TV series, “THE SAINT”) to portray the British agent. And Moore went on to play the role for the next 12 years. But he had to start somewhere and he did with 1973’s “LIVE AND LET DIE”, an adaptation of Ian Fleming’s 1954 novel. This was the very first Bond movie I had ever seen. Although I have a great sentimental attachment to the movie, I do not really consider it to be among the finest in the franchise. Nor is it a personal favorite of mine.

Following the murders of three MI-6 agents (in New York, New Orleans and the fictional island of San Monique), Bond is assigned by “M” to investigate their deaths. His investigations in New York leads him to a Harlem gangster named Mr. Big. But as it turns out, Mr. Big is also San Monique’s foreign minister, Dr. Kanaga. Bond eventually learns that Kanaga/Mr. Big plans to use the heroin grown in the San Monique opium fields to flood the current heroin market and gain complete control of the U.S. drug market (very similar to the schemes of Harlem gangster, Frank Lucas). He ordered the three British agents killed, because apparently they were in danger of stumbling upon his scheme.

I am going to be frank. As much as I like “LIVE AND LET DIE”, I have never been impressed by the screenplay written by Tom Mankiewicz. It never made any sense to me that the British government would be interested in the activities of a diplomat from an island that had obviously been a former French colony, or an American gangster. If the three agents and Bond had been French, I could see them working with CIA agent Felix Leiter on this case. But there you have it. And Bond’s San Monique showdown with Kanaga had always struck me as being rather disappointing. Another aspect of the movie I found disappointing was the leading lady – namely Jane Seymour as Kanaga’s Tarot card seer, Solitaire. I have nothing against Seymour’s performance. She seemed to be her usual, competent self. But other than predicting Bond’s arrival in New York and later, at Kanaga’s San Monique estate; and warning Bond about Rosie Carver (via a Tarot card), I found nothing impressive about Solitaire’s role in the story. Especially since she eventually became nothing more than a moaning damsel-in-distress. And Geoffrey Holder as Baron Semedi did not really do much for me, but his ghostly appearance at the end of the movie was memorable.

Fortunately, “LIVE AN LET DIE” had its virtues. Roger Moore’s long experience with action roles in television (“MAVERICK”, “THE SAINT”, and “THE PERSUADERS”) allowed him to segued into the Bond role with great ease. He already seemed very comfortable in the role. And without any problems, Moore managed to establish his own style. Unfortunately, very few people appreciated this at the time. And Yaphet Kotto created an impressive villain in an interesting duel role as the smooth and intelligent Kanaga/the bombastic Mr. Big. To this day, Julius Harris’ TeeHee remains one of my favorite Bond henchmen of all time. All I can say was that the man was perfect – humorous, yet very menacing. David Hedison’s friendship with Moore proved to be very effective in his first outing as CIA agent, Felix Leiter. The warmth and easy manner between Leiter and Bond seemed more apparent than in any other Bond film. And I rather enjoyed Gloria Hendry’s performance as the amusingly clumsy, yet treacherous Rosie Carver. And let us not forget the hilarious and unforgettable Clifton James as the long-suffering Southern lawman, Sheriff J.W. Pepper. James’ peformance was so impressive that the producers brought him back to reprise his role in 1974’s “THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN”.

Also among the movie’s virtues was its smooth direction by Guy Hamilton, which included a rather fun boat chase through the Louisiana bayou, fine performances and the rich atmosphere of New York’s Harlem and New Orleans. Cinematographer Ted Moore did much to contribute to the film’s atmosphere. But it is the movie’s score by George Martin and theme song by Paul McCartnery and Wings that seemed to be the movie’s most impressive virtue . . . other than Moore, Kotto, Harris and James’ performances. Although the story for “LIVE AND LET DIE” struck me as unimpressive, I still find the movie to be very entertaining.

"LIVE AND LET DIE" (1973) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 1973 James Bond movie, "LIVE AND LET DIE".  Adapted from Ian Fleming's 1954 novel, the movie was directed by Guy Hamilton and marked Roger Moore's first appearance as James Bond:



"LIVE AND LET DIE" (1973) Photo Gallery

Fans' Opinions on Sean Connery as Bond

FANS' OPINIONS ON SEAN CONNERY AS BOND


“No post-Connery Bond in his debut performance has shrugged off comparisons to his predecessors as successfully as Craig does in Casino Royale: before the movie is even halfway through his Bond is far more his own man than those of Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan were by the end of their first Bond films.” 

“A splendid casting choice, Craig has a physicality that only Sean Connery and perhaps George Lazenby could approach.”

“I don't think he (Daniel Craig) can overtake Connery as Bond for me, but he's already running a damned close.”



I do not understand this. Are all James Bond fans in love Sean Connery? Are we all expected to accept the idea of him as the best James Bond as a matter of fact? I hope not. Because it is an opinion I have never shared during my thirty-four years of watching Bond movies.

While watching a commercial for the recent Bond movie, “CASINO ROYALE”, the announcer declared Daniel Craig as the best Bond. A relative of mine nearly jumped out of his seat and cried, “Sean Connery is the best Bond!” as if it were a matter of fact. I could only look away in amusement.

One reason why I have never accepted Connery as the best Bond is the fact that he was not the first actor I had seen in the role. And if I had, I still doubt I would have accepted him as the best Bond. Although Roger Moore was my first Bond (I first saw him in “LIVE AND LET DIE”), very little time had passed before I saw Connery as Bond television for the first time. From what I had seen of Moore on the movie screen and Connery on television, both seemed to be very effective as James Bond. But only different. To this day, I have never been able to decide between the two who was my favorite Bond. And when movies like “ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE”, “THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS” and “GOLDENEYE” became popular with me, I found it increasingly difficult to choose any actor as the best Bond.

I am not saying that Sean Connery was a lousy James Bond. He obviously made an excellent Bond. But after watching most of the Bond films over the past six months, I simply found it hard to accept the idea that he was the best actor to portray Bond. Quite frankly, I found myself equally impressed with those that followed – George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.

As for Connery, I was especially impressed by his performances in “FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE” and “THUNDERBALL”. He seemed to be at his most human in those two roles. And in 1971’s “DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER”, he seemed to be at his funniest. But honestly . . . I have never viewed him as the best James Bond. I certainly do not believe that his debut as Bond was the best. And I do not think I ever will. In fact, his debut (in “DR. NO”) is my least favorite Bond debut. His performance seemed . . . mixed. Uneven. In some scenes, his performance seemed very smooth and professional. At other times – especially in Jack Lord’s company – he seemed wooden.

He never really came close to the literary Bond penned by Ian Fleming. Both Dalton and Craig deserve that honor. Not that being close to the literary Bond mean much to me. Frankly, I could not care less how an actor portrays the 00 agent, as long as he gives a good performance, deal adequately with the action sequences and create his own style as Bond. Connery had created his own style – a mixture of rugged machismo and a touch of sophistication. But machismo seemed to dominate Connery’s Bond.

I don’t know. Perhaps many Bond fans – which seemed to be dominated by men – feel that machismo is the ultimate expression of a man. Personally, I do not agree. But we are all allowed our opinions. In adopting a machismo persona, Connery immediately created his own style of how to portray Bond. But the reason why I cannot give him credit as the ultimate Bond is that the other actors have managed to create their own style, as well. Why should Connery be given credit for something the other five actors have also managed to achieve?

But why do fans insist upon declaring Connery as the best Bond, as if it were a matter of fact? Some might point out that most Bond fans prefer Connery. I admit that it does seem to be the case that Connery is the most popular Bond actor. But I am the type of person who does not believe in the old term – ‘majority rules’. Especially in regard to art or entertainment. Hell, most Americans in the mid-19th century believed there was nothing wrong with enslaving African-Americans. But just because most accepted this opinion as fact, does not mean they were right. And I must say the same about Connery’s performances as Bond. Even if most fans accept him as the best James Bond, does not mean they are right. In the end, it is subjective. I only wish that many of these film critics and fans stop declaring Connery as the best Bond . . . as if it were a matter of fact. Would it really kill for them to add – “in my opinion”?