75 replies to this topic

[Qwerty]

I think that The Man with the Golden Gun (both the book and the film) is a victim of it's own interesting premise. A hitman, with talents equal to that of Bond, armed with a "Golden Gun" is such an intriguing idea with so many wonderful possibilites, that whatever is produced from it is destined to be a bit of a disapointment.

Watching the films for the first time, Golden Gun was one of the ones I was most keen on seeing, and about the only one that I was let down by.

You make a very valid point there Freemo. The Man With The Golden Gun was, (I'll never be 100% sure), the very first James Bond film I saw all the way through. I think that if I had seen other films before it, my judgement on it would have been different, I'm not positive on that. It is an intriguing idea, but as you very finely say, can one film take all of it and make it work?

[Turn]

Given that, doesn't that make TMWTGG a more interesting film in that way if no other -- that it isn't a remake of an earlier film in the series where WWIII is hanging in the balance or a deadly satellite threatens mankind or Bond is racing to located a missing vital piece of equipment?

[Loomis]

I think that The Man with the Golden Gun (both the book and the film) is a victim of it's own interesting premise. A hitman, with talents equal to that of Bond, armed with a "Golden Gun" is such an intriguing idea with so many wonderful possibilites, that whatever is produced from it is destined to be a bit of a disapointment.

Okay, but couldn't we say the same thing about the Bond books/films as a whole? In other words, a globe-trotting spy with a taste for the high life and the ability to seduce any woman he wants, armed with a licence to kill issued by the British government, is such an intriguing idea with so many wonderful possibilities, that whatever is produced from it is destined to be a bit of a disappointment.

Just a thought.

[Turn]

I think that The Man with the Golden Gun (both the book and the film) is a victim of it's own interesting premise. A hitman, with talents equal to that of Bond, armed with a "Golden Gun" is such an intriguing idea with so many wonderful possibilites, that whatever is produced from it is destined to be a bit of a disapointment.

Okay, but couldn't we say the same thing about the Bond books/films as a whole? In other words, a globe-trotting spy with a taste for the high life and the ability to seduce any woman he wants, armed with a licence to kill issued by the British government, is such an intriguing idea with so many wonderful possibilities, that whatever is produced from it is destined to be a bit of a disappointment.

Just a thought.

You may be right to an extent, Loomis. But I think the whole novelty of the Bond lifestyle thing wore off 35 years ago. An anti-hero with a license to kill was different 40, 50 years ago. Who'd have dared thought it. As the '60s wore on it wasn't quite as cool, and by the time of the Haight Ashbury/Woodstock era it could have been just relegated to the same nostalgia pile with the Rat Pack.

But it's endured, sometimes in spite of itself. And don't a lot of the films disappoint to a degree?

I'd be willing to bet a majority of the younger audience who went to see any of the 4 Brosnan films or even played the video games has no idea that 007 means Bond is licensed to kill. Considering everybody from rappers to Bob Dylan has used the term in songs and in other pop culture ways, it got lost in the shuffle. And after years of shoot first, ask questions later heroes, who would be any wiser?

[Qwerty]

Given that, doesn't that make TMWTGG a more interesting film in that way if no other -- that it isn't a remake of an earlier film in the series where WWIII is hanging in the balance or a deadly satellite threatens mankind or Bond is racing to located a missing vital piece of equipment?

It makes it interesting, yes. Of course, not all the Bond films before that were remakes either. It's just a question of getting the plotting right in this one.

[freemo]

Okay, but couldn't we say the same thing about the Bond books/films as a whole? In other words, a globe-trotting spy with a taste for the high life and the ability to seduce any woman he wants, armed with a licence to kill issued by the British government, is such an intriguing idea with so many wonderful possibilities, that whatever is produced from it is destined to be a bit of a disappointment.

Just a thought.

Yeah, quite right. Maybe it's just me then, who found this to be particularly the case with Golden Gun (as opposed to say For Your Eyes Only, which doesn't intrigue me near as much). Before I saw it I dreamt up at least a dozen scenerios of how the story could go, what scenes they could have, etc (just going on the title and a couple of stills). Sometimes I get my own idea of what a film is going to be like and then when I get to seeing it and it turns out differnt I'm a little underwhelmed by it. Golden Gun was one of those. Ofcourse, it was only a let down the first time, I've enjoyed it alot more on subsequent viewings.

[SnakeEyes]

I like this film. I couldn't say why though: it's all wrong for sure. But there is something watchable about it.

I quite agree on the 'missed mark' Freemo: how much cooler would the film have been if all that solex crap was done away with and a simple Bond vs MWTGG has ensued. Think of that - the first Bond film where there is no 'mission' but it's simply personal. These days I would balk at the idea of another personal story, but back then it would have been magic.

Another good point was made by Loomis: why slam GG when LALD and TSWLM had just as much 'cheap crap' in them as GG did. Perhaps it's a sub-concious thing with the weaker-minded fan populice: everyone says it sucks so it just does. Bit like OHMSS and 'those Dalton films'. I'll even admit to being on that bandwaggon when I was younger.

[Loomis]

why slam GG when LALD and TSWLM had just as much 'cheap crap' in them as GG did. Perhaps it's a sub-concious thing with the weaker-minded fan populice: everyone says it sucks so it just does. Bit like OHMSS and 'those Dalton films'. I'll even admit to being on that bandwaggon when I was younger.

I think people just look for scapegoats and consensus opinions, and the Bond ones are very clear to see: "Denise Richards is the worst thing about THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH", "Lazenby was hopeless", "THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN is the stupidest Bond film ever", "MOONRAKER is enough to make Fleming turn in his grave", etc. None of those statements is true.

And, of course, it works the other way round, too: "Brosnan was the best Bond since Connery", "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is a return to Fleming", "THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is probably the greatest Bond film ever".... Again, not assertions I'd agree with.

[Brian Flagg]

After many, many years of being everything from "hostile" to "indifferent" to TMWTGG, I have finally reached the conclusion that while it is "lesser Bond", it stacks up better than anything being done today. The problem I had with it initially was I saw it after TSWLM and MR, which show Roger at his witty and light stepping best. I always thought of GG and LALD as an awkward stage for Roger, as he hadn't put his mark on the role yet. The lighter touch suited Moore better than when he played Bond as the "Tip of Her Majesty's Spear." I thought Moore's 007 came across as grouchy more than menacing when he got fierce. Only when he occasionally got medieval did it work for him, as it was more effective when he would surprise the viewer with an instance of ruthless efficiency.

The film itself is a mixed bag, as per usual with the Moore era, but since I haven't seen it to death like the other Roger entries, it is actually fresh to me today, as is LALD. It's getting better all the time, as those sods from Liverpool once sang. Scaramanga is a fine villain, there is a neglected Barry score to be had, Nick Nack is amusing but menacing and even the title song entertains, which is something I thought I'd never say!

[Qwerty]

I quite agree on the 'missed mark' Freemo: how much cooler would the film have been if all that solex crap was done away with and a simple Bond vs MWTGG has ensued. Think of that - the first Bond film where there is no 'mission' but it's simply personal. These days I would balk at the idea of another personal story, but back then it would have been magic.

Quite. I was just going to point out how the personal stories don't seem to always be looked on in a golden light in today's Bond films, but who knows how The Man With The Golden Gun would have been accepted then if it had changed to what you describe. I agree that the two plots crisscross too many times and never really connect. Just Bond versus Scaramanga, it could work. Question is if that would have been enough for the film.

[licensetostudy]

You may be right to an extent, Loomis. But I think the whole novelty of the Bond lifestyle thing wore off 35 years ago. An anti-hero with a license to kill was different 40, 50 years ago. Who'd have dared thought it. As the '60s wore on it wasn't quite as cool, and by the time of the Haight Ashbury/Woodstock era it could have been just relegated to the same nostalgia pile with the Rat Pack.

I have done much research on sources from the late sixties and early seventies, and the attitude was Bond should be "relegated to the same nostalgia pile with the Rat Pack." James Bond had lost much popularity and was seen as being a thing of the past, or a series that only belongs in the sixties. For a while, Bond was indeed a thing from the 60s stuck in the 70s where he wasn't supposed to be. Movies like Diamonds Are Forever were considered dated and not useful in a "jaded" world of Vietnam and Watergate. Before the war and watergate ended and it was time for feel good movies like Rocky and Star Wars during the late 1970s, people prefered social commentary or art films like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Taxi Driver. They believed those challenging times made the world grow up a bit, so the cheesy, cartoonishness of Bond was seen as being a relic of the early to middle 1960s. The main complaint coming from critics was their surprise at how these movies could still be made in a time they are not welcome much anymore. Bond was now unpopular from 1067 to 1977, but for some unknown reason the films still keep coming at us; the attitude from this period was "oh, and here comes another James Bond movie, and this is really getting tiresome and boring now; yawn, yawn, yawn. I would recommend reading the Time Magazine review of The Spy Who Loved Me. The critic was so bored reviewing another Bond movie that he submitted the rough notes he took while watching the picture instead of writing a complete article. However, little did people know that Bond would survive 40 years past his time. Today, Bond isn't really considered nostalgia like the Rat Pack, but from 1967 to 1977, and possibly after he sure was part of that nostalgia. A film series that should remain in the past, and for a while Bond wasn't cool anymore.

[Kingdom Come]

Loomis, if u have a widescreen television you shouldn't have black bars. I think I'm correct in saying TMWTGG is in anamorphic so again it should fill your widescreen sized set. In any case, the other Bond films which are in 2:35 aspect ratio can still be viewed on a widescreen set without bars as well.

Anyway my quick opinion of TMWTGG has never changed, it is bright and breezy and like one or two of the other films, you need to view it like a 'Bond goes on holiday' feel. I love its design; photography; locales and colourful characters. I am not keen on Lee nor Scaramanga as both are dull as ditch water. Mary Goodnight is dumbed down beyond belief. The film is slightly hampered by some dodgy editing, weak titles but apart from that, I love it!

[Loomis]

Loomis, if u have a widescreen television you shouldn't have black bars. I think I'm correct in saying TMWTGG is in anamorphic so again it should fill your widescreen sized set.

True. It does.

In any case, the other Bond films which are in 2:35 aspect ratio can still be viewed on a widescreen set without bars as well.

True again, but only if you use the zoom function of your DVD player, which in the case of my widescreen TV results in a grainy picture.

ETA: No, actually it's not just a matter of using your DVD player's zoom, is it? There are other ways of changing the aspect ratio with a widescreen TV - still, I don't like the look of the Panavision image blown up to fill the frame of a widescreen TV, and I'd sooner be saddled with the black bars.

you need to view it like a 'Bond goes on holiday' feel. I love its design; photography; locales and colourful characters.

Yep.

[Loomis]

I would recommend reading the Time Magazine review of The Spy Who Loved Me. The critic was so bored reviewing another Bond movie that he submitted the rough notes he took while watching the picture instead of writing a complete article.

Well, that doesn't surprise me. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME is a very boring film, for the most part, and it's full of corny jokes. Also, it's a throwback to what we might nowadays call the "Austin Powers Bond" of 1967, only less stylish and more juvenile (YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE has its moments of sophistication - TSWLM doesn't). No wonder a "serious" critic in 1977 was unimpressed.

Alas, I don't think Bond is "cool" today, either, although that begs the question: when was Bond last cool? 1967, I suppose. Don't get me wrong: there is no doubt that Bond has stood the test of time, and the films have by and large continued to do very well at the box office right up to the present day, but, somehow, Bond has survived and even prospered while being, essentially, uncool, or, to put it more kindly, a series that trades to a large extent on nostalgia.

Right now MGM has only one franchise... One thing that is holding it together for them. JAMES BOND... and as perfect as Pierce Brosnan was for the role... his Bond films never gelled... never hit on all the cylinders... They never fired the imagination and they basically haven't been very good at all. In fact, I'd go so far to say that Brosnan's BONDs are far and away the worst by any of the Bond actors, even though his personal performance as Bond has been exemplary. The best BOND movie that Brosnan did was THE TAILOR OF PANAMA... but noone saw that because they were never told it was here.

Right now, You have the audience believing that James Bond is a big thing to get all hot and bothered over. That James Bond is sexy and cool and big explosions and bang bang and computer wires being removed and wink wink nudge nudge and ewwws and aaahhhhsss... But there is no spying, there is no story, there are no characters and there is no passion. They are dead lifeless little films that open big and die quickly. - Harry Knowles, May 2001 (http://www.aintitcoo...lay.cgi?id=9181)

Nice post there, licensetostudy.

[Kingdom Come]

Loomis NEVER use your DVD players zoom!

[Brett Sinclair]

It's definitly a flawed gem,it's not my favorite of the Roger Moore era but i certainly would'nt say it was the worst Bond film.For me the more dull entry's in the series rank alot lower,Diamonds are forever,Thunderball and The living daylights.
I could'nt say that The man with the golden gun is dull or boring,i'm always entertained every time put it on.

I know those films have their fans as does The man with the golden gun.I'am quite surprised when i see it at the top of peoples personal favorites.
I myself have several friend's that cite it as their favorite as well.

Like every Bond film it has it's good points but the most annoying thing i find about the film is that any flaws could have been so easily smoothed over.Shame really.