Roger Moore fan Stan Markotich contributes his take on Roger Moore, his movies and Bond's future...

I think what many fans overlook is that of all the Bonds, Roger Moore had the toughest job, and not because he replaced Sean Connery. Moore played the role during a time when, in the real world, rapid social experimentation and rifts in the international system collided, first producing insecurity, then a yearning for nostalgia and the entertainment world's equivalent of 'comfort food.'

In the early 1970s there was Vietnam, and demands for social change reached a crescendo, all reflected by the pop media of the day. I don't think US television has been raunchier before or since. Then there was the energy crisis and what became rampant inflation. The average Joe worried about his job and likely felt threatened by the pace of social evolution. This was ripe fodder for the culture world, and movies responded, spawning genres and sub-genres, empowerment films, Blaxploitation, and on and on. Bond had to react, and so with Moore's first entry, Live and Let Die, the audience was treated to what was essentially a Blaxploitation film, but of course with identity and role reversals.

And so when there was need for nostalgia, Moore found himself playing Bond in The Man With The Golden Gun. I know it's all too often maligned, with many people suggesting the whole essence of the Bond character was missing. Perhaps, but what the film really was, was a most excellent look back for those who remember Moore as TV's the Saint, and as a big screen version of that series, the work was brilliant. Again when there was a need to revisit the past, the filmmakers offered up For Your Eyes Only. I think there's a strong case to be made for this being the best of all the Bond movies. First, the plot is as close to reality as one may expect from escapist entertainment. Much of the action is credible. Moore's performance is solid, and most of the villains are among the best of the Bond bad guys.

And I say best, while remembering that everybody I know recalls Julian Glover and Topol being nondescript in their roles. On the contrary, they take me right back to memories of very real characters cluttering some cafes along the Adriatic: charming, ruthless, cutthroat, manipulative, benign, human, and even self-effacing. And after seeing the film several times, I'm just not convinced that Topol's Columbo is, deep down, a good guy at all.

Moore's character handles geopolitics quite well, too. While light entertainment, The Spy Who Loved Me does, in a few fleeting places, serve as a real reminder of the serious limitations of détente. That the big picture politics of the day and its practitioners remained sound objects of both satire and puerile humour, is well demonstrated by the picture. There's just something about The Spy Who Loved Me that reminds me of Dr. Strangelove.

Moore sometimes gets criticized for not nailing down the Bond character from the outset. Not only do I think this is misplaced commentary, it in fact overlooks the strength that Moore brought to the role. He played the character during a time when values, politics, social expectations churned and changed at a pace not seen until very recently. To keep current with audience demands and tastes, Bond could not remain static, having to be just as ready to adjust, and to do so quickly. This I think Moore did extremely well.

So, again, in the 1970s we had the energy crisis, Vietnam, inflation, social change. Today we have skyrocketing energy prices, stalled economies, Iraq, terrorism. Is it a case of plus ca change...? I think under the circumstances considering Quentin Tarantino as a possible candidate to direct at least the next project is a no-brainer. His work, right down to an homage to the Blaxploitation genre, is a solid recommendation. The problem, I suspect, will be finding a lead actor who might contribute the way Roger Moore did during his tenure, notably from 1973 to 1981.