30 replies to this topic

[Golden Claw]

On his Wikipedia entry, I read that Lewis Gilbert shot documentaries for the RAF in World War 2. And then he made war movies & character dramas. And after some reluctance, he was persuaded by Saltzman & Cubby to direct YOLT. I found it hard to believe that somebody who made character dramas directed 3 of the epic, expansive, extravagant & nonsensical movies of the Bond franchise.

But as a Bond director, I rank him at the bottom. Along with Tamahori, Spottiswoode & Kershner, I feel he is the weakest Bond director. His three movies are virtually clones of each other. Triplets dressed up in different clothes. And they follow the dreaded Bond formula to a T. Too stereotypical. Nothing different. And his triplets rank at the bottom of the pack in my movie rankings.

So what do you think of Lewis Gilbert as a Bond director? Please consider all three triplets.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Well, for the films Gilbert directed, EON wanted a very pliable director, susceptible to pressure from the producers; YOLT was EON's film, not Gilbert's, as opposed to OHMSS, which was clearly Peter Hunt's film.

In a way, it's very similar to how the producers of the Harry Potter films went to Mike Newell for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, their biggest production at the time: Both men had similar résumés, having worked mostly on character dramas and low-budget films beforehand, and so were completely out-of-their-depths when it came to the franchise. Both also butchered classic series villains (Blofeld for Gilbert and Voldemort for Newell) and were succeeded by journeyman directors for the remainder of the series (John Glen for Bond and David Yates for Potter). The two dovetail quite nicely, in fact.

[Mister E]

On his Wikipedia entry, I read that Lewis Gilbert shot documentaries for the RAF in World War 2. And then he made war movies & character dramas. And after some reluctance, he was persuaded by Saltzman & Cubby to direct YOLT. I found it hard to believe that somebody who made character dramas directed 3 of the epic, expansive, extravagant & nonsensical movies of the Bond franchise.

It was Cubby and Saltzman who got it into Gilbert's head that Bond movies are nonsensical. That is why Lewis never approached his other work the same as Bond. As a Director, I think Lewis Gilbert did a great job and certaintly does not belong in the low ranks with Tamahori or Spottiswoode. He knew how to make a Bond film visually appealing his films looked better then most Bonds. I also wouldn't consider MOONRAKER simular to YOLT or TSWLM. MOONRAKER was more fanstastic then both of those films.

Edited by Mister E, 19 June 2008 - 06:09 PM.

[Judo chop]

As a Director, I think Lewis Gilbert did a great job and certaintly does not belong in the low ranks with Tamahori or Spottiswoode. He knew how to make a Bond film visually appealing his films looked better then most Bonds.

Agree. On some days, when the wind blows just right, I'll even put Gilbert over Hamilton.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

The Gilbert films make very little use of Fleming source material and all have similarities, but despite this they are spectacular cinematic achievements. I always remember on the 'inside MR documentary' the cast talk about how difficult it was for Gilbert to helm such a gigantic film, and it is surely easy to understand this perspective. These productions were mega budget for their time and must have been a nightmare to co-ordinate and film. For doing this Gilbert deserves huge credit and as such his contribution to Bond is enormous. I rank him way way above Tamahori and Apted.

[Harmsway]

Gilbert's the man. He produced stylish, lavish Bond adventures the likes of which no other Bond director has really been able to do. He's the king of Bondian spectacle.

In a way, it's very similar to how the producers of the Harry Potter films went to Mike Newell for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, their biggest production at the time: Both men had similar résumés, having worked mostly on character dramas and low-budget films beforehand, and so were completely out-of-their-depths when it came to the franchise. Both also butchered classic series villains (Blofeld for Gilbert and Voldemort for Newell) and were succeeded by journeyman directors for the remainder of the series (John Glen for Bond and David Yates for Potter). The two dovetail quite nicely, in fact.

IMO, HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE is the best of the Potter flicks, and Newell hardly butchered Voldemort. In fact, his casting of Ralph Fiennes made Voldemort interesting, whereas the character could very easily have been just another dull, sinister foe with nothing to bring to the table (he's dull as dishwater in the novels, to be sure).

And similarly, YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is one of the most entertaining Bond ventures in the franchise's history. Beautiful and fun. The only real downside is how lazy Connery is with the role, but it's a testament to his natural charisma that lazy Connery is still more fun to watch than some of those that followed him.

[Mister E]

Gilbert's the man. He produced stylish, lavish Bond adventures the likes of which no other Bond director has really been able to do. He's the king of Bondian spectacle.

Yep I agree on that. He also did great justice to Ken Adams' sets.

Edited by Mister E, 19 June 2008 - 09:03 PM.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

I think Gilbert's fantastic, a real showman when it comes to putting on a big spectacle. The scenes in Blofeld's volcano base are stunning, but they can only be achieved by a director who knows what they want to happen in each frame - it moves smoothly and sets a very tense atmosphere indeed. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker were both epics in my opinion. They border on some over-the-top humour (with Jaws) but you still get the same big-show atmosphere that the old man managed to install in You Only Live Twice. My take on Gilbert? LEGEND!

[BoogieBond]

Yep, Agreed with a lot of the comments above.
Lewis is responsible for directing some of the most breathtaking scenes in the series for me. I love the Kobe Docks scene in YOLT. Some of the scenes of Spy are unforgettable(Ski scenes, Car scene), and Moonraker also has tremendous scope and are very imaginative(Cable car, Freefall PTS).

I know Lewis is not wholly responsible for all of these scenes, as second unit and Mikey etc all make a contribution. But as a Bond director his 3 entries are far from the worst. His other contributions outside Bond , Alfie, Educating Rita and Shirley Valentine, show, to me, he was an excellent director. I wouldn't compare him with the others of my least favourite 007 outings at all. I would compare him with the best, that rare echelon of Bond Directors(Terence Young, Peter Hunt, Guy Hamilton, Martin Cambell)

Lewis, you can slip me the fiver now

Edited by BoogieBond, 19 June 2008 - 10:57 PM.

[Colossus]

I agree with the sentiments here that Gilbert was one of the very best Bond directors. People mistakenly criticize him for the outlandish stories or similar plots when that's not his job but the writers, he was just making those words into reality. And what an EPIC reality it was, all of his films feel epic, larger-than-life, they have the most beautiful cinematography of them all bar none, and those really creative camera angles, the man really knew where to put and point a camera.

I'd also place him higher than Guy Hamilton in that as well. Hamilton's need for the lighthearted fun and goofyness became just shameless. Gilbert had a better blend of humor, and yet he even showed a more hardedged grit to his scenes as well especially in the fights like the sofa one or Hans one in YOLT, the Sandor one or overkilling Stromberg, museum fight. I would have really liked to see him do a by-the-book Bond, since even Hamilton was given Goldfinger.

Edited by Colossus, 19 June 2008 - 10:46 PM.

[chrisno1]

Lewis Gilbert is a fine director in his own right and his canon of work is excellent (Alfie, Educating Rita, in particular) He is a traditional British director who gets the job done, on budget, on time, with the minimum of fuss and the maximum result. It is interesting that in terms of cinematic appeal Gilbert had 3 of the hardest original novels to adapt. In the case of TSWLM, Fleming stipulated the story couldn't be used at all, so Gilbert brought in his own script writer, Chris Wood, who cleverly re-worked YOLT into the 1970s. I agree his 3 films are comparative clones, but also agree that in terms of FX, photography, set design, music, costumes, pacing, thrills and spills, all 3 films deserve high praise. They all rank towards the top end of my list. I also agree that they are less realistic, but for that you have to substitute their accessibility to a wide audience. YOLT succeeded on the back of the tremendous success of TB; it could have been a hash up. TSWLM came at a time when 007 was a suffering a little, Saltzman had gone and box office had been slow for the first two Roger Moore flicks. MR repeated and bulit on the previous films success - it was the highest grossing 007 movie (in pure $$$) at the time. I think Lewis Gilberts's contribution to 007 is huge. Much more so than Hamilton (who made 1 great film and 3 average ones) and Glen (who made 1 great film and 4 negligable ones).

[Mr. Blofeld]

YOLT failed miserably on the back of the tremendous success of TB; it was a definite hash up. TSWLM came at a time when 007 was a suffering a little, Saltzman had gone and box office had been slow for the first two Roger Moore flicks; as such, it was the only good apple out of the three. MR failed to repeat the previous film's success; it might have been highest grossing 007 movie (in pure $$$) at the time, but it stunk horribly.

There, corrected it for you.

[Mister E]

YOLT failed miserably on the back of the tremendous success of TB; it was a definite hash up. TSWLM came at a time when 007 was a suffering a little, Saltzman had gone and box office had been slow for the first two Roger Moore flicks; as such, it was the only good apple out of the three. MR failed to repeat the previous film's success; it might have been highest grossing 007 movie (in pure $$$) at the time, but it stunk horribly.

There, corrected it for you.

Um, a little Mr. Blofeld ? THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was a bomb at the box office and let's not forget the legal battles with Kevin McClory that delayed production.

[Mr. Blofeld]

YOLT failed miserably on the back of the tremendous success of TB; it was a definite hash up. TSWLM came at a time when 007 was a suffering a little, Saltzman had gone and box office had been slow for the first two Roger Moore flicks; as such, it was the only good apple out of the three. MR failed to repeat the previous film's success; it might have been highest grossing 007 movie (in pure $$$) at the time, but it stunk horribly.

There, corrected it for you.

Um, a little Mr. Blofeld ? THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was a bomb at the box office and let's not forget the legal battles with Kevin McClory that delayed production.

Of TSWLM, d'you mean? I suppose that pressure produced a superior film, whereas YOLT and Moonraker are both lazy, lazy, lazy.

[Mister E]

Of TSWLM, d'you mean? I suppose that pressure produced a superior film, whereas YOLT and Moonraker are both lazy, lazy, lazy.

Yes I meant SPY. I'll agree with you on YOLT but MOONRAKER I personally wouldn't call lazy.

[Royal Dalton]

All three of Gilbert's Bond films are great. End of.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Of TSWLM, d'you mean? I suppose that pressure produced a superior film, whereas YOLT and Moonraker are both lazy, lazy, lazy.

Yes I meant SPY. I'll agree with you on YOLT but MOONRAKER I personally wouldn't call lazy.

The one where the villain lets Bond kill his pet snake, then locks him in an easily-escapable hideaway?

[Mister E]

The one where the villain lets Bond kill his pet snake, then locks him in an easily-escapable hideaway?

Drax certaintly didn't let Bond kill his pet python, it got a pretty tight grip on 007. What easily escapable hideaway do you mean ?

[Mr. Blofeld]

The one where the villain lets Bond kill his pet snake, then locks him in an easily-escapable hideaway?

Drax certaintly didn't let Bond kill his pet python, it got a pretty tight grip on 007. What easily escapable hideaway do you mean ?

To quote a fellow user:

I love the giant snake scene in Moonraker where Bond struggles to live as various henchmen with assault rifles watch close by. Of course Bond kills the snake with his trusty poison pen and Drax then proceeds to not shoot 007, but lock him in the exhaust chamber under the shuttle, where he proceeds to escape again.

[Mister E]

The one where the villain lets Bond kill his pet snake, then locks him in an easily-escapable hideaway?

Drax certaintly didn't let Bond kill his pet python, it got a pretty tight grip on 007. What easily escapable hideaway do you mean ?

To quote a fellow user:

I love the giant snake scene in Moonraker where Bond struggles to live as various henchmen with assault rifles watch close by. Of course Bond kills the snake with his trusty poison pen and Drax then proceeds to not shoot 007, but lock him in the exhaust chamber under the shuttle, where he proceeds to escape again.

Why would anyone have to intervene when the snake clearly had the upper hand ? Also Bond had to blow open the vent to escape before the space shuttle launched. Now in that case you can agrue why no one noticed the explosion prior to the launch.

[DaveBond21]

Some people don't like YOLT, TSWLM and Moonraker? Do they like any of the films?


I especially think TSWLM and MR are great. All Bond movies have similarities - a scene with M, a scene with Moneypenny, a car chase, gadgets, shooting, a fight, a bad guy, a henchman. That's what 007 movies are all about.

[Harmsway]

I really enjoy MOONRAKER. Sure, it's the furthest Bond ever waded into the waters of self-parody. But it's a whole lot of fun.

[DaveBond21]

I really enjoy MOONRAKER. Sure, it's the furthest Bond ever waded into the waters of self-parody. But it's a whole lot of fun.

I agree, it's great fun, has fantastic locations, beautiful women, and some great dialogue. It is extremely easy to watch.

[DR76]

I don't view Lewis Gilbert as one of the weakest directors. He did such a great job with THE SPY WHO LOVED me. And YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE wasn't bad. For me, it was the script that prevented it from rising above the level of mediocrity, not Gilbert's direction.

[avl]

Gilbert is a legend and his three films are the pinnacle of the epic, fantastical end of the cinematic Bond spectrum.

[Golden Claw]

How true. YOLT, TSWLM and Moonraker are indeed epics of the Bond franchise. I believe Lewis Gilbert could've made serious, hard-edged Bond movie if he had been given the right material. And I wonder how come they hired Roald Dahl to write the screenplay for YOLT?

DaveBond21: just because I don't like the Lewis Gilbert triplets doesn't mean I don't like any Bond film. And there's much more to Bond films then what you just listed, isn't it? No offence intended.*raises white hanky*

[Mr. Blofeld]

I especially think TSWLM and MR are great. All Bond movies have similarities - a scene with M, a scene with Moneypenny, a car chase, gadgets, shooting, a fight, a bad guy, a henchman. That's what 007 movies are all about.

You sound like Lee Tamahori.

[Royal Dalton]

And I wonder how come they hired Roald Dahl to write the screenplay for YOLT?

They just got lucky.

[Mister E]

I believe Lewis Gilbert could've made serious, hard-edged Bond movie if he had been given the right material.

I think he would have too. I would hire Gilbert to do a loyal adaption of YOLT. He would have gotten the visual spleandor described in the book just right.

[ChrissBond007]

Lewis Gilbert is by far not the worst director, but not the best.

I love You Only Live Twice, Moonraker is okay, but I'm not a fan of The Spy Who Loved Me. The Bondfilms he made are bigger with bigger action scenes and some great fun. I rank Lee Tamahori and Roger Spottiswoode at the bottom.