‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ or — Roger Moore vs. Tom Cruise?
I had zero intention of writing anything about ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ (1977) when I settled down to re-watch it for the umpteenth time last night. Seriously, what more is there to say about a Bond movie that’s been written about, praised, analysed and lampooned as much as this one? But having returned from watching, for a second time, ‘Mission Impossible — The Final Reckoning’ (2025) I was fascinated by the fact that I had just sat through a movie where Tom Cruise informs the audience his goal is to get onboard a sunken submarine only for him to then take over AN HOUR to bloody well do so.
Surely, I pondered, if James Bond announced he had to get onboard a sunken submarine he’d have done so in five minutes and without all that needlessly convoluted arsing about? So, with the latest Ethan Hunt movie fresh in my mind, I was curious to compare a James Bond movie against it, and considering ‘The Spy Who Loved Me’ contains plenty of similarities — underwater sequences, submarines, defusing a nuclear device, global annihilation, etc — it was the obvious choice.
Would a movie half a century old manage to hold its own against the latest multi-million dollar blockbuster or would it feel like a dusty relic from a bygone age?
Turns out Moore’s Bond had absolutely nothing to worry about because of all the praiseworthy elements you could rave about ‘TSWLM’ — the ski jump, the Lotus, Jaws, those Ken Adam sets, the still-convincing-to-this-day model work, that theme song, etc — what struck me most was its pacing because dear god, this film absolutely moves!
It’s one fast-paced giddy delight after another, as though the filmmakers were thinking — “How can we make the most insanely entertaining movie ever made?” And that’s exactly what they did! So it’s — BLAM! BLAM! BLAM! — with the film plunging headfirst into one crazy escapade after another with barely a pause for breath.
This is, first and foremost, a live action cartoon (notice that nearly every explosion isn’t a signifier of death and destruction but, instead, functions as a comedic exclamation mark). It’s a film that, much like an impressively endowed exhibitionist at a nudist camp, unabashedly frolics in its own eye-popping absurdity and it is impossible to resist that level of playful charm. A lot of this, I suspect, is down to co-writer Christopher Wood, someone who, after having recently watched all his ‘Confessions of a Window Cleaner’ movies, I now regard as something of a comedy genius. Sure, the Bond scripts had so many uncredited writers it can be hard to discern exactly who wrote what but Wood’s distinctively bawdy touch is immediately recognisable and that marriage of his knack for English smut with Roger Moore’s eyebrow-raising smirk (this is an actor who knew exactly what to do with this lighter material) is the perfect fit, and one that’s never been quite matched in Bond since.
What also struck me watching ‘TSWLM’ this time round was its look because this movie is consistently and relentlessly GORGEOUS!
I’ve always had a soft-spot for Lewis Gilbert’s “trilogy” of Bond films (even if they do all have almost exactly the same plot) because as well as being some of the most enjoyable they’re also the most visually ravishing and possessing a genuine poetic sweep, and here legendary cinematographer Claude Renoir treats the audience to some of the prettiest shots in the entire franchise (a silhouetted Bond gazing up at that Egyptian minaret might be the strongest argument against those who claim these films were devoid of visual panache). And don’t even get me started on when the Lotus dives into the water with the helicoper perfectly positioned behind it.
But, most of all, this film is fun. So much deliriously, unapologetically silly, giggly fun.
So yeah, who knew that one of the most acclaimed and popular James Bond movies was wildly entertaining?! Tune in tomorrow for more highly original, groundbreaking and innovative cinematic insights such as: ‘Citizen Kane — It Ain’t half Bad!’
