33 replies to this topic

[BlackFelix]

I've been watching the John Glen series of film this week and I must admit, to myself at least, he has a rather flavor-less approach to the series. No real style at all I mean. Not to say Glen was terrible, but his movies are consistantly dull. I've heard for years that "Octopussy" was better than "NSNA" but really if you get past the music part NSNA is a much more stylish affair.

I think John Glen really wasn't cut out for the big time over the top stories that his films featured. Though FYEO and LTK are classics, in my opinion, the bigger features such as AVTAK and TLD are rather flavorless. Aside from the fight at blades safehouse or the parachute chase in paris the action is few and far between. The biggest draw from the earlier pictures was the style of the films, they really caught your eye. Bright vibrant colours, sun soaked far away places, and dynamic wardrobe. Glen's films all have a sort of uniform very "set-ish" looking style. And though it's not his fault entirely the plots ans scripts for some films imparticular for TLD are so inane!

James Bond pictures have now unfourtantly become flashy advertisments however said, the films should support some flair of product and the idea of Bond driving around in a Renault or wearing department store suits! It's a far cry from the days of Terrence Young or even Guy Hamilton. I'm really not trying to burn Mr. Glen. He did, after all, direct my favorite Moore and Dalton features but his apparent lack of imagination along with Michael G. Wilson insipid plots make you wonder how Bond got out of the 80's. Why would Albert Broccoli keep turning to both Glen and Wilson when their combination produced lower quality pictures (in comparison to the older films,) and lower box office revenue?

I don't want to be too negative on Glen, he workerd with what he had but there wer some definite style issues and directing issues that made the pictures into sort of run of the mill tyope movies that may have ben better recieved of the 007 logo wasn't attached.

Any thoughts?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I like the Glen films alot more than any 90s Bonds-but maybe that's because I'm an old school Bond fan who grew up in that era. Or that maybe those films were entertaining,if flawed. The music(score/title song) were always good in the 80's films...I think Glen would have done a great job doing ICEBREAKER in 1991 with Dalton...I liked what Glen did...it's become very clear that Bond directors have a short leash.He gave us some fun action set peices and some nice travelogue spectecle...Not his fault Roger Moore was 10 years too old for the role(I love Roger but he was great in the 70's but Dalton should have started in FYEO).

[Loomis]

Glen a hack? Yes, I suppose so (hardly an auteur, anyway), but a bloody good one. I think he was a much more versatile director than he's usually given credit for being - after all, anyone who can make both OCTOPUSSY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both A VIEW TO A KILL and LICENCE TO KILL, is hardly a one-trick pony.

I like Glen's Bond work, and I wish he were directing CASINO ROYALE. Not one of those directors determined to put his personal stamp on things (well, apart from those pigeons ), and thank goodness for that. A good old-fashioned unpretentious filmmaker, and a real pro.

[Genrewriter]

Glen a hack? Yes, I suppose so (hardly an auteur, anyway), but a bloody good one. I think he was a much more versatile director than he's usually given credit for being - after all, anyone who can make both OCTOPUSSY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both A VIEW TO A KILL and LICENCE TO KILL, is hardly a one-trick pony.

I like Glen's Bond work, and I wish he were directing CASINO ROYALE. Not one of those directors determined to put his personal stamp on things (well, apart from those pigeons ), and thank goodness for that. A good old-fashioned unpretentious filmmaker, and a real pro.

Absolutely. I think that he did a great job with the Bond films he worked on. Heck, four out of the five could qualify as some of the best of Bond.

[Bon-san]

Glen a hack? Yes, I suppose so (hardly an auteur, anyway), but a bloody good one. I think he was a much more versatile director than he's usually given credit for being - after all, anyone who can make both OCTOPUSSY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both A VIEW TO A KILL and LICENCE TO KILL, is hardly a one-trick pony.

I like Glen's Bond work, and I wish he were directing CASINO ROYALE. Not one of those directors determined to put his personal stamp on things (well, apart from those pigeons ), and thank goodness for that. A good old-fashioned unpretentious filmmaker, and a real pro.

Just curious, Loomis. You have referred to Martin Campbell as a hack, and voiced your displeasure at his helming of CR. So the question is begged: if you view Glen as a hack, but would welcome him for CR....what is it about Campbell's hack-ness that is bad, in your opinion? (please forgive my godawful syntax, grammar, etc.)

[tonymascia1]

You're 100% "spot on", Loomis.

[Kingdom Come]

My opinion is, if Glen was a really talented director he would have gone on to bigger and better things? Like Young before him - he didn't. So what does that tell us? I like Glen's work on the Bond films even the bad ones like AVTAK / LTK. As previously said he was poorly served by fairly poor screenplays and being the director that was onboard for the downsizing of the series. I found his films too slow but full of atmosphere. He shouldn't have directed five - no director should but to finish, all his directed films are remarkably different in many ways.

[Loomis]

Just curious, Loomis.  You have referred to Martin Campbell as a hack, and voiced your displeasure at his helming of CR.  So the question is begged: if you view Glen as a hack, but would welcome him for CR....what is it about Campbell's hack-ness that is bad, in your opinion? (please forgive my godawful syntax, grammar, etc.)

Just personal taste, I guess. I've seen some Glen films and some Campbell films, and prefer the former. And I'd say GOLDENEYE is inferior as a Bond outing to any of Glen's 007 efforts.

[ACE]

Loomis, on target as ever!

Glen was very effective for his time.

Definitely a producer's director (on time on/under budget) and, after the excesses of the 1970's, a welcome return to earth. His films do not have standard Q/car gadget/scenes/watch/3 girl forumula scenes.

However, he does lack a bit of flair and the films are tonally mixed. He is not aided by functional scripts that, while returning Bond to earth and to somewhat of the adult action hero who kids can enjoy, knocked a large amount of wit and elan from the series (like the air from the Roger Bond souffle that had to be replaced by quiche de cabinet in the final take).

However, I prefer the 1980's films to those of the 1970's and the fact that John Glen made a major directorial contribution to action cinema. Reliant on specıalıst action units (BJ Worth, Remy Julienne, Willy Bognor) helped Bond avoid staleness and dodgy optical effects.

However, Mr Glen has had his day.

I love Martin Campbell as a director and think he will do great things with Casino Royale.

ACE

Edited by ACE, 04 October 2005 - 06:43 PM.

[pgram]

I really enjoyed your post, BlackFelix, I think I know what you mean and I think I have the answer.

Yes, we all love Glen, he did a good job directing five DIFFERENT Bond films. Being an editor, the main quality of his films was tempo. They are all enjoyable, easy to watch adventures. But you just have the feeling that something is missing.

What is missing is this flair of extraordinarity. Young, the best Bond director IMO knew how to make over the top films. He could make the most of the stories, sets, actors, music. If you ask me, I 'd say he was under an expressionistic influence. This in fact is a thread I would open some day, but you could foresee early Bond in German films of the twenties or thirties. Glen lacks this feeling.

Let me give you an example. Script says: Tracy, in AVTAK, lives in a big house which has no furniture, since Zorin took everything from her. Why? Why is this important in the film? This point goes unnoticed. Now, try to imagine another approach. Suppose her house is filmed like Xanadu in Citizen Caine. Wouldn't the effect of emptiness be a lot more powerful? Wouldn't you (and Tracy) feel terrified by living in such a house? Wouldn't the fight between Bond and the bad guys be more impressive? Glen just doesn't take advantage of such opportunities to create an atmosphere.

I could go on with more examples (Professor Butcher and his temple in LTK could be really impressive, yet not made the most of, for example). That's Glen weakness: good rythm, but not atmospheric enough.

Needless to say, of course, that the last good Bond film, LTK was his...

[doublenoughtspy]

I'd say Glen was underrated actually.

Helming the Bond franchise for the entire decade of the 80s is quite an accomplishment.

Some of his choices I would have made differently, but can anyone point to a director who was flawless for 5 films in a row?

It is hard to believe the differences between films came from the same director, much less the same franchise.

[Qwerty]

I think he was a much more versatile director than he's usually given credit for being - after all, anyone who can make both OCTOPUSSY and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, both A VIEW TO A KILL and LICENCE TO KILL, is hardly a one-trick pony.

100% agreed with that. Gilbert often is associated with fantasy, Hamilton with comedy, but Glen's films are very different from eachother.

[IndyB007]

I really rather like Glen's Bond films, FYEO and LTK are a couple of my favorite ones. His non-Bond work isn't all that great. Granted, I am basing that comment on only 1 movie.... The Point Men starring Christopher Lambert and Maryam D'abo, what a stinker that movie was!

[Flash1087]

I'm not sure. I do like Glen, but I will agree with pgram's assessment that he's a good director, but lacking in atmosphere.

He was the 2nd unit director for a few of the Moore films, and perhaps others I'm unaware of, and so maybe constantly having to film far-away stunt shots and backdrop pieces affected the way he approaches all films?

[BlackFelix]

I think the "atmosphere" observation hit a nail on the head! Still there is more to it. On the surface the Glen features have all the ingrediants and nuances of a Bond picture, yet it never molds into a flavour thats long lasting(in a good way.)

I mean, there are some points that were brought out, but Glen's ability to direct 5 different movies or keep a budget and stick to a release date don't really amount to anything past him being an effective director. For that he recieves all the credit. The problems traces back to the films themselves, which again I said in my original post is not all together his fault. Michael G. Wilsons screenplays were ridiculus, at times hard to follow and had he not been Broccoli's step-son I wonder if he would of kept that job.

But back on to Glen, for example sake, take AVTAK and GF, these 2 pictures for all intensive purpose were the same film yet GF beats AVTAK in every imaginable way. Some will say it's not fair to argue the series arguable best film against one of the worst. I think so, GF was a hit not because of its plot, which in retrospect isn't all that inspired. GF was a hit because of its atmosphere and style. Hamilton took from his predecessor and not only added but reinvented what could have been a bland feature into the basic blueprint for all "high octane" Bond features. Glen, simply did not.

I want to stress, I'm not a John Glen hater. I've watched all his bond pictures and seen him in interviews and actually rather like him. I consider FYEO timeless and LTK a classic, yet the other 3 are plain dull. The directors today all want to get back to the Young style, or even the Hunt style yet no directors have mentioned a word about returning to Glen..why?

[TheSaint]

I'd say Glen was underrated actually.

Helming the Bond franchise for the entire decade of the 80s is quite an accomplishment.

Some of his choices I would have made differently, but can anyone point to a director who was flawless for 5 films in a row?

It is hard to believe the differences between films came from the same director, much less the same franchise.

I'll second that emotion.

[Qwerty]

Some of Glen's films are the best in the series. Octopussy and The Living Daylights.

[Onyx2626]

Nice thread. True, Glen (i bought his book) is no Terence Young but hey, FYEO, TLD and LTK are films that seem to fly by. I became a beleiver after some one on iMdb argued how the truck chase in LTK was far better than anything Hollywood put out at that time. If the court will allow:

Suppose you were watching some low budget European spy movie with the TLD pre-titles as its climax...you'd say, hey that was a pretty good picture.

I love action movies, but frankly I started collecting Bond flicks when I got tired of seeing a good actor like Bruce Willis blow stuff up and wisecrack his way through films that were supposed to be suspenseful.

Remember in LTK when Anthony Zerbe describes Bond skiing barefoot onto the plane and throwing out the pilot, and Robert Davi looks at him like, "you've got to be kidding..." Why is that cool? Because John Glen let us see it! Most producers would hang their whole film on that scene.

Okay the hockey rink fight in FYEO makes me miss Oddjob in Ft. Knox, but throughout the Eighties the Bond films not only held the UNDISPUTED crown for creative stunts, they practically turned it into a fetish. the defense rests

[Jim]

Producer's man; gave Mr Broccoli what he wanted.

[SecretAgentFan]

Producer's man; gave Mr Broccoli what he wanted.

Exactly my impression. Glen was coming up the ranks within EON and proved to be very capable with second unit action and he evolved into a very good director that shaped the Bond era with Moore

[David Schofield]

I CAN see how people consider Glen to be a hack: his Rog movies were - IMO - a case of routine, "flogging a dead horse" one more time movies, without the courage to bin Rog and move on. Conversely, the Brozza movie's are energetic and include enthusiastic performances from Brozza.

HOWEVER, when Glen was given the chance with a new, more capable actor and carte blanche to move in a new direction with TLD and LTK, his movies were some of the more adventurous and creative of the series.

Let's hope Campbell is able to be similarly inspired by Daniel Craig in Casino Roya le.

[avl]

I CAN see how people consider Glen to be a hack: his Rog movies were - IMO - a case of routine, "flogging a dead horse" one more time movies, without the courage to bin Rog and move on. Conversely, the Brozza movie's are energetic and include enthusiastic performances from Brozza.

HOWEVER, when Glen was given the chance with a new, more capable actor and carte blanche to move in a new direction with TLD and LTK, his movies were some of the more adventurous and creative of the series.

Let's hope Campbell is able to be similarly inspired by Daniel Craig in Casino Roya le.

You are dead on, except FYEo was more than marking time - it was a major reworking of the series, which they botched by casting Roger.
I don;t think Glen added much to the the direction the series took with Dalton etc did he - he was basically a good competant director who kept the things moving and tried to make the best of the material. Not much room for auteur theory with Bond

[SecretAgentFan]

You are dead on, except FYEo was more than marking time - it was a major reworking of the series, which they botched by casting Roger.

That

[Harmsway]

Hmmm, John Glen.

Well, there's no doubt that he's not a great director. His direction is often bland, but serviceable, with little extra flair. His direction ultimately hit an all-time-low with Licence to Kill, which is so horrifically shot and directed that it nearly robs the movie of its Bondishness.

He certainly wasn't the worst Bond director (Michael Apted, anyone?), and turned out some good Bond flicks, ala OP and TLD. But he also produced some stinkers, as with AVTAK.

So what do we make of Glen? He was just alright in my book. Of the later directors, I personally prefer Martin Campbell and Roger Spottiswoode to Glen. And of the previous directors, I prefer all of them to Glen.

[Turn]

You are dead on, except FYEo was more than marking time - it was a major reworking of the series, which they botched by casting Roger. 
I don;t think Glen added much to the the direction the series took with Dalton etc did he - he was basically a good competant director who kept the things moving and tried to make the best of the material.  Not much room for auteur theory with Bond

I don't agree it was a major reworking for the series. What it seemed like was moving the series from action, stunts, humor and special effects gadgetry to more stunts to keep the story moving along moreso than most Bond and throwing a few bones to Fleming fans here and there. Were there really any suprises in FYEO aside from Bond rejecting Bibi's advances?

The story seems kind of tailored to any Bond since Moore threatened to leave the series at the time, especially with the opening scene in the graveyard.

[Harmsway]

[quote name='Turn' date='5 October 2005 - 15:18'][quote name='avl' date='5 October 2005 - 11:34']You are dead on, except FYEo was more than marking time - it was a major reworking of the series, which they botched by casting Roger.

[BlackFelix]

FYEO is a classic! I'll give glen his due for that picture. His career is bookended with 2 great pictures as front and back covers and souless films in the middle. The John Glen pictures lack a total sense of tension that the earlier films easily accomplished. Unfortantly that tension hasn't returned since.

I've heard Wilson and Glen both say that with TLD they were moving away from the jokes and going for an intense more realistic thriller. Honestly, the only changes TLD made was the lead actor. Honestly, Dalton only played the part more straight than Moore would have. Otherwise thier performances are interchangeable. But thats here nor there.

Glen's films are shot the same, edited the same and look generally the same the only major differences are the lead actor and the stories are different. Look at FRWL and TB, same director yet they look like totally different films.

[Harmsway]

FYEO is a classic! I'll give glen his due for that picture. His career is bookended with 2 great pictures as front and back covers and souless films in the middle. The John Glen pictures lack a total sense of tension that the earlier films easily accomplished. Unfortantly that tension hasn't returned since.

  I've heard Wilson and Glen both say that with TLD they were moving away from the jokes and going for an intense more realistic thriller. Honestly, the only changes TLD made was the lead actor. Honestly, Dalton only played the part more straight than Moore would have. Otherwise thier performances are interchangeable. But thats here nor there.

Glen's films are shot the same, edited the same and look generally the same the only major differences are the lead actor and the stories are different. Look at FRWL and TB, same director yet they look like totally different films.

FYEO is one of the most overrated films in the entire Bond series. It's an utter snoozefest with very little of interest at any given point. OP is at least fun, and AVTAK (while one of the worst Bond films ever) at least has some vividness to it. Glen's best Bond films is TLD, the only one that really works from start to finish, with LTK is second place (even though it's his blandest direction in the series).

[Donovan]

In answer to the question, I certainly don't think he was a hack. First of all, Bond films are made by committee more than any other film. What I mean is creative decisions, etc. -- especially when Mr. Broccoli was in charge.

Glen had extensive experience as an editor. That's a pretty good way to learn how to direct (although acting seems to be the fast-track method). From a technical standpoint, Glen did better than alright. I've always maintained that he is probably the best stunts director ever.

My issue was his tenure with Dalton. I think Dalton needed an actor's director, for the two of them to collaborate on the tone, etc. of portraying Bond. I think Glen was pretty much hands off, which actors like. But whenever you watch Dalton, and you instinctively feel that he might just be over-acting a little, that's his theater roots coming through and a director needs to see that and curb it.

So, in short, I like Glen. Thought he was great for Roger. But a new guy was needed for "The Living Daylights" and "Licence To Kill". Changing directors is what keeps the series fresh.

[tdalton]

John Glen is not a hack. He was responsible for some of the best films in the series: For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, The Living Daylights, and Licence To Kill.