73 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

TND is his best

You dislike Glen's Bond films so much, you think his best film is one that he didn't even direct!

Fantastic!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

TND is his best

You dislike Glen's Bond films so much, you think his best film is one that he didn't even direct!

Fantastic!

Yes I wondered about that. TND is very much similar to Glens work though!

[Judo chop]

TND is his best

You dislike Glen's Bond films so much, you think his best film is one that he didn't even direct!

Fantastic!

Quite right, Royan Danton.

But it must be pointed out that I never said I "dislike Glen's Bond film's so much". I like some of them. Most, even. Plus, they are Bond films, so that helps.

I just think Glen has an extraordinary ability to 'plateau'. Despite being fun in many places, there's a specter of averageness that haunts all of them.

[tim partridge]

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

*cough* NO ESCAPE, VERTICAL LIMIT, ZORRO 2, BEYOND BORDERS *cough*

[plankattack]

There's a lot of talk about who's a hack and who's not etc, but I do feel that Glen's films (and he's responsible for a big chunk of the franchise) lack a certin "style" (I know that's not the right word, but I'll try to explain).

For example, Young was one of the men responsible for creating a film that would create a blueprint for the series. He takes credit for defining SC's Bond and by extension the cinematic character. There is a particular style to his three (yes, much of that down to the era but still..)

Hamilton was in charge when the series leant on humour for more effect. Gilbert's films are all epic in scope, visually quite stunning.

Glen has directed more than all of them, yet ultimately has left no signature note on the series. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but it is noticeable that his films (good, bad, serious, funny) all seem rather, well, generic, workmanlike, perhaps.

Fast forward to the present, and many have either praised or criticized Forster for his part in QoS for making a film that is somewhat different. Glen made five, yet they're all same of the same. Maybe this is why many regard Glen as a hack and are reticent to give him too much credit (I'm in that number). There's just an underlying feeling that Glen made one film, five times over without leaving a signature on his time with the franchise.

Edited by plankattack, 08 January 2009 - 03:39 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

*cough* NO ESCAPE, VERTICAL LIMIT, ZORRO 2, BEYOND BORDERS *cough*

God, I am actually going to agree with you here. Campbell is the luckiest Bond director going. He got VERY lucky with CASINO ROYALE - especially when you check out his other, er, "fare".

[plankattack]

God, I am actually going to agree with you here. Campbell is the luckiest Bond director going. He got VERY lucky with CASINO ROYALE - especially when you check out his other, er, "fare".

Agreed. Everytime I hear "Bring back Campbell!" I'm always a little unsure. But in his defence (as with Young, Hamilton etc) Campbell did make a consensus great Bond film.

I'm not sure we can say the same thing about Glen.

[Judo chop]

Glen has directed more than all of them, yet ultimately has left no signature note on the series. I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but it is noticeable that his films (good, bad, serious, funny) all seem rather, well, generic, workmanlike, perhaps.

Fast forward to the present, and many have either praised or criticized Forster for his part in QoS for making a film that is somewhat different. Glen made five, yet they're all same of the same. Maybe this is why many regard Glen as a hack and are reticent to give him too much credit (I'm in that number). There's just an underlying feeling that Glen made one film, five times over without leaving a signature on his time with the franchise.

Exactly as I said and exactly as I feel, planko!

[plankattack]

Exactly as I said and exactly as I feel, planko!

Judo my old friend, we are in the same place on this one. I don't know enough about film-making to give me the right to say that Glen is a bad director, but as a viewer, I do know his films are all cut from the same cloth.

I know that other posters have listed poor films that other Bond directors have made, but those directors have all been responsible for at least one Bond film that fans, regular filmgoers, and critics have all agreed has been very good. Glen, who had five cracks at it, has not, for whatever reason, achieved that standard.

[tim partridge]

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

*cough* NO ESCAPE, VERTICAL LIMIT, ZORRO 2, BEYOND BORDERS *cough*

God, I am actually going to agree with you here. Campbell is the luckiest Bond director going. He got VERY lucky with CASINO ROYALE - especially when you check out his other, er, "fare".

To some extent I think these kind of innocent serial type movies such as Bond require the unpretentious purity of a journeyman. Peter Hunt might have been the finest Bond director because he had the balance of saying something personal but entirely within the parameters that he did not question.

Of the three directors who vere more towards "auteur" in the Bond franchise (Hamilton, Forster, Gilbert), I'd say Lewis Gilbert got the best, most consistent results (and unlike Forster/Hamilton knew when to reign in the boldly questionable judgement), and I think that whatever the flaws with his film's scripts, his direction was always top notch. He got Bond as well as the journeymen, but enhanced it to something much bigger and more cinematic than the original parameters had set out. Of course with that he ended up retreading the same formula over three identical films, and with that comes an inherent insincerity.

I have said many times before that I believe Guy Hamilton may have been the best Bond director IMO, but we never ever saw him try. When he put as much of his all into any moment from his 007 films (his all not being his full potential, IMO) he defined cinematic Bond. Even the scenes with Maud Adams in MWTGG are textbook Bond and textbook execution of a cinematic thriller, but it always seemed that he was afraid of just telling a straight Bond movie, as though that was below him or something. Hence the indulgence with sight gags and the like. I see the same in the worst of Forster's Bond work (MK12 location titles for example).

I actually see huge parallels between Hamilton on Bond and Richard Lester on the Superman movies, and in both cases the fans tend to agree. Neither director wanted to just tell a straight comic book story, so why bother in the first place? Ironically though, when either director pushed himself to play it sincerely, they could do Bond/Superman to a fun, cinematically iconic level (who doesn't remember the alleyway transformation from SUPERMAN II?). Coincidentally there is a lot of Hamilton/Superman crossover (Hamilton was original director of SUPERMAN, rewrote SUPERMAN II uncredited, Clifton James as a Sherriff in SII for example, etc)

Anyway, my point is that there is always room for these journeyman types like Glen and Campbell on a 007. Journeyman doesn't equate hack, though. I'm not a fan of Roger Spotiswoode's direction (I love his work with Peckinpah though) and IMO I don't think he had the knack of Glen, Campbell or Young. Next to Goldeneye and TWINE I don't feel like as much love or care was worked into TND by an as passionate journeyman. Try sitting through Terror Train, Stop or My Mom will shoot or Air America as well. Just my opinion.

Edited by tim partridge, 08 January 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[plankattack]

I have said many times before that I believe Guy Hamilton may have been the best Bond director IMO, but we never ever saw him try. When he put as much of his all into any moment from his 007 films (his all not being his full potential, IMO) he defined cinematic Bond. Even the scenes with Maud Adams in MWTGG are textbook Bond and textbook execution of a cinematic thriller, but it always seemed that he was afraid of just telling a straight Bond movie, as though that was below him or something. Hence the indulgence with sight gags and the like. I see the same in the worst of Forster's Bond work (MK12 location titles for example).

I actually see huge parallels between Hamilton on Bond and Richard Lester on the Superman movies, and in both cases the fans tend to agree. Neither director wanted to just tell a straight comic book story, so why bother in the first place? Ironically though, when either director pushed himself to play it sincerely, they could do Bond/Superman to a fun, cinematically iconic level (who doesn't remember the alleyway transformation from SUPERMAN II?). Coincidentally there is a lot of Hamilton/Superman crossover (Hamilton was original director of SUPERMAN, rewrote SUPERMAN II uncredited, Clifton James as a Sherriff in SII for example, etc)

Anyway, my point is that there is always room for these journeyman types like Glen and Campbell on a 007. Journeyman doesn't equate hack, though. I'm not a fan of Roger Spotiswoode's direction (I love his work with Peckinpah though) and IMO I don't think he had the knack of Glen, Campbell or Young. Next to Goldeneye and TWINE I don't feel like as much love or care was worked into TND by an as passionate journeyman. Try sitting through Terror Train, Stop or My Mom will shoot or Air America as well. Just my opinion.

I agree about Hamilton and Lester - it's almost as if they feel the need to leave their "mark" instead of completing the job. But then again, isn't that sometimes the way to end up with something really memorable? It might be self-indulgent (Forster's stated desire to make an "arthouse" Bond movie) but within the confines of the Bond series, I personally feel that the end product has too often suffered due to a reliance on a collective-vision, rather than an individual one.

But then we end up opening that old debate of "are these producer films or director films" and I feel that Glen's tenure is marked by them clearly being the former.

Spottiswoode you're right about. It's a shame he brought only the slo-mo and the bullet cavalcade from Peckinpah!

[Safari Suit]

And, unless we’re discussing a new director with no previous experience in Bond and whether or not they should be hired to direct a future Bond film, I don’t think it’s relevant to discuss these directors’ works outside of Bond.

I think it is. I don't think you can "sometimes" be a hack. Hunt I might cut some slack because he may have simply been doing the best he had with what little was given to him, but Hunt's post-Bond career shows a profound knack for ineptitude which simply cannot, I'm afraid, be ignored, not least as it can be traced back to some clumsy moments in (the still wonderful) Thunderball.

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

*cough* NO ESCAPE, VERTICAL LIMIT, ZORRO 2, BEYOND BORDERS *cough*

I'm not sure why you're coughing, nothing in your post contradicts mine, or vice versa.

[Judo chop]

And, unless we’re discussing a new director with no previous experience in Bond and whether or not they should be hired to direct a future Bond film, I don’t think it’s relevant to discuss these directors’ works outside of Bond.

I think it is. I don't think you can "sometimes" be a hack.

Tell me what a hack is and I’ll tell you whether I think they can or can’t be. (Is it determined by taking the average quality of all their films? Is it determined by only their best effort? By their median effort?)

But what’s the point of this type of discussion? Why are we working so hard to label someone a hack? I’m not. We can agree to talk Bond and only Bond. We can set the parameters of our discussion. ie. I suggest that once a person has directed a Bond film, judge them based on their Bond film(s).

Glen, I think qualifies by any definition. Maybe Young does too, if you account for his work outside Bond. It doesn’t matter, though. Not here. His Bond films are way better.

[Safari Suit]

Certainly, it would be madness to say Glen did more for the Bond series than Young. (Hunt? Hmmmmmmm...) To be honest I either can't be bothered to come up with a definition of hack, or just can't full stop, and certainly debating the term is not of immediate relevance to the thread, so let's just not call anyone a hack and move on

[Mr_Wint]

John Glen directed one of my favourite films, FYEO, as well as two really good films with OP and TLD, so of course I am "for"! His work as an editor and 2nd unit director helps too.

I have always felt that Glen's directing style is very similar to Young/Hunt. He is especially good at one of the most important things in a Bondfilm... suspense. The climbing scenes in FYEO, the Feldstadt scenes in OP and the airplane scenes in TLD are some of the best examples.

And I give all the credit to Glen for that. He rarely rushed in to the action like, for instance, Gilbert often did. In fact, Glen is in his prime just before the action starts. Just think about it: The thugs sneaking up at Octopussy's palace, the butterfly scene in AVTAK or Bond trying to reach his gun with the ski-stick in FYEO. Great moments!

He was also good at creating the 'Fleming'-atmosphere. I'm thinking about, for instance, the casino scenes and the dinner with Kristatos in FYEO, the backgammon scene in OP and the stunning scenes in Bratislava (TLD).

[Judo chop]

He is especially good at one of the most important things in a Bondfilm... suspense.

I agree. Suspense and pacing are his key strengths.

He was also good at creating the 'Fleming'-atmosphere. I'm thinking about, for instance, the casino scenes and the dinner with Kristatos in FYEO, the backgammon scene in OP and the stunning scenes in Bratislava (TLD).

There, I would again cry "average". What he failed to capture was the enviable lavishness that defined Bond in those types of scenarios earlier in the series.

Actually, I think I'd cry "foul" more often than not. He made Bond feel more civilian than enviable.

[plankattack]

He is especially good at one of the most important things in a Bondfilm... suspense.

I agree. Suspense and pacing are his key strengths.

He was also good at creating the 'Fleming'-atmosphere. I'm thinking about, for instance, the casino scenes and the dinner with Kristatos in FYEO, the backgammon scene in OP and the stunning scenes in Bratislava (TLD).

There, I would again cry "average". What he failed to capture was the enviable lavishness that defined Bond in those types of scenarios earlier in the series.

Actually, I think I'd cry "foul" more often than not. He made Bond feel more civilian than enviable.

I do have to agree here. There's nothing particularly classic about the dinner with Kristatos. It's merely some dialogue set in what looks like a local restaurant with some patio seating in the Home Counties.

But in Glen's defence there was a LTK-thread where someone made a case for how "cheap" the film looked. And large chunks of the big outdoor market-place set-piece in OP were clearly filmed indoors. My point? Well, Cubby always said all the money went up on screen, so it's hardly Glen's fault that there was clearly a shortage of cash for some sequences.

Mind you, someone has to take the fall for the unbelievably low-grade back-projection work in Sir Rog's films. And I don't want to hear that was the era - Spielberg either chose not to do so, or did it seamlessly in contempory action films like Raiders. I don't know much about the technical side of it, but I do know when it looks crap!

Edited by plankattack, 08 January 2009 - 10:26 PM.

[Mr_Wint]

There's nothing particularly classic about the dinner with Kristatos. It's merely some dialogue set in what looks like a local restaurant with some patio seating in the Home Counties.

Totally disagree with that. It's a great scene.

I can see far more Fleming touches in Glen's films compared to the subsequent Bondfilms or the previous Hamilton/Gilbert films.

[plankattack]

There's nothing particularly classic about the dinner with Kristatos. It's merely some dialogue set in what looks like a local restaurant with some patio seating in the Home Counties.

Totally disagree with that. It's a great scene.

Let me be more specific rather than being as irreverant as I can be! You're right - it is a good scene, but I feel that's down to the script and the acting - IMHO Sir Rog doesn't put a single foot wrong in FYEO,it's his best Bond by a mile. And Glover and Topol are first rate, yet seemingly overlooked, villain and ally alike. So perhap Glen should get credit for casting. But I just don't feel that anything the director did in filming the scene or cutting it made noteworthy enough for us to praise the director for it.

[Mr_Wint]

There's nothing particularly classic about the dinner with Kristatos. It's merely some dialogue set in what looks like a local restaurant with some patio seating in the Home Counties.

Totally disagree with that. It's a great scene.

Let me be more specific rather than being as irreverant as I can be! You're right - it is a good scene, but I feel that's down to the script and the acting - IMHO Sir Rog doesn't put a single foot wrong in FYEO,it's his best Bond by a mile. And Glover and Topol are first rate, yet seemingly overlooked, villain and ally alike. So perhap Glen should get credit for casting. But I just don't feel that anything the director did in filming the scene or cutting it made noteworthy enough for us to praise the director for it.

It's a scene from a film that John Glen directed so, obviously, he deserves some credit if you liked the scene. Unfortunately, I wasn't there when they filmed this scene so I can't tell you who did what and when. But we both know what a filmdirector does; Realizes the script and takes responsibility for every creative aspect of a film (from green lighting camera angles to actors movement and just about everything and much more than that).

[Blofeld's Cat]

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

*cough* NO ESCAPE, VERTICAL LIMIT, ZORRO 2, BEYOND BORDERS *cough*

God, I am actually going to agree with you here. Campbell is the luckiest Bond director going. He got VERY lucky with CASINO ROYALE - especially when you check out his other, er, "fare".

This is exactly what I mean about Glen. While he was in the comfort of the Eon family he was fine - plenty of support, but once he went out into the big bad world he made crap movies.

[Safari Suit]

I think that's true of all of them though, bar perhaps Gilbert and I guess maybe Apted (since Forster has yet to make anything since QOS we can't make a call on that one yet). Rather fond of Hamilton's Remo Williams though.

[tim partridge]

I think that's true of all of them though, bar perhaps Gilbert and I guess maybe Apted (since Forster has yet to make anything since QOS we can't make a call on that one yet). Rather fond of Hamilton's Remo Williams though.

Hamilton had fine success after Bond with FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE, THE MIRROR CRACK'D and EVIL UNDER THE SUN. Oh and REMO which you already mentioned. Along with Gilbert, Forster and maybe Apted, he's in the elite crowd of graduating Bond directors not ending up in the DTV market (though Terence Young directed INCHON and was up for FIRST KNIGHT, last I read, although both cases were big failures).

Mind you, someone has to take the fall for the unbelievably low-grade back-projection work in Sir Rog's films. And I don't want to hear that was the era - Spielberg either chose not to do so, or did it seamlessly in contempory action films like Raiders.

Yet TEMPLE OF DOOM especially and LAST CRUSADE are jam packed with some of the worst, fringiest blue screen work of the 1980s...

I'll take Rog on skis against a process screen over the rubber dingy mountain slide from TEMPLE.

[Royal Dalton]

I'll take Rog on skis against a process screen over the rubber dingy mountain slide from TEMPLE.

Me too.

Actually, I love all that stuff. It's part of the fun, as far as I'm concerned.

[jaguar007]

Just like everyone, Glen had his highs and lows. In 1981, I thought FYEO was a breath of fresh air for the Bond series. I still think it has some of the best scenery of all the films. I also rate TLD as one of my top 5 favorite Bond films (much of that has to do with Dalton's performance). I can also understand why some people don't like Glen's style (or lack of it). His movies are very strait - forward and almost documentary like. Most of his movies are some of the more forgettable Bond films and the audience decline for Bond during the 80s might have much to do with his direction of the films.

I do have a question for Col Sun. I have heard that Dalton and Glen did not exactly click, but that is the most I have heard. What about them did they disagree on? I not curious because of wanting the dirt - I'm curious because I want to know how different Dalton's Bond may have been had he worked with a director he saw eye to eye with.

Dalton was unfortunate that he only worked with one director during his Bond tenure. He might had been more successful in the role with different directors.

[Safari Suit]

I think that's true of all of them though, bar perhaps Gilbert and I guess maybe Apted (since Forster has yet to make anything since QOS we can't make a call on that one yet). Rather fond of Hamilton's Remo Williams though.

Hamilton had fine success after Bond with FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE, THE MIRROR CRACK'D and EVIL UNDER THE SUN. Oh and REMO which you already mentioned. Along with Gilbert, Forster and maybe Apted, he's in the elite crowd of graduating Bond directors not ending up in the DTV market (though Terence Young directed INCHON and was up for FIRST KNIGHT, last I read, although both cases were big failures).

Force 10 from Navarone may have been a commercial success, but is it really any better than some of the films you cited to identify Campbell as a hack? And First Knight was hardly a disaster on the level of Inchon!

I'll take Rog on skis against a process screen over the rubber dingy mountain slide from TEMPLE.

Me too.

Actually, I love all that stuff. It's part of the fun, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes indeed.

[tim partridge]

I think that's true of all of them though, bar perhaps Gilbert and I guess maybe Apted (since Forster has yet to make anything since QOS we can't make a call on that one yet). Rather fond of Hamilton's Remo Williams though.

Hamilton had fine success after Bond with FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE, THE MIRROR CRACK'D and EVIL UNDER THE SUN. Oh and REMO which you already mentioned. Along with Gilbert, Forster and maybe Apted, he's in the elite crowd of graduating Bond directors not ending up in the DTV market (though Terence Young directed INCHON and was up for FIRST KNIGHT, last I read, although both cases were big failures).

Force 10 from Navarone may have been a commercial success, but is it really any better than some of the films you cited to identify Campbell as a hack? And First Knight was hardly a disaster on the level of Inchon!

I meant Young's attempt to helm First Knight was a failure, not the film itself. He hadn't had a big film in years by that point, so I don't see the logic in why it would have been his baby originally. Connery, maybe?

FORCE TEN is a decent movie, played sincerely and with consistently inspired visuals, so Hamilton obviously had genuine respect for Alistair Maclean that he didn't share for Fleming. It's not throwaway tongue in cheek like Campbell's Zorro, either (Zorro being Campbell's only high point outside of Bond and TV's Edge of Darkness). The Christie movies I mentioned that Hamilton did btw are also well, well above anything in Campbell's body of work. Very particular period settings, witty and character performance driven; much more sophisticated storytelling.

Hamilton's REMO WILLIAMS is also a more offbeat, quirky and character performance dependent movie unlike the pure mainstream popørn of say Campbell or Glen. It's also another book adaptation, which again, when Hamilton was sincere with, excelled. Infact, most of Hamilton's movies were popular book adaptations with very specific quirks, and Bond was the least quirky and offbeat of the lot, so no wonder his 007 films are so frustratingly inconsistent in tone.

[Zorin Industries]

There's nothing particularly classic about the dinner with Kristatos. It's merely some dialogue set in what looks like a local restaurant with some patio seating in the Home Counties.

Totally disagree with that. It's a great scene.

Let me be more specific rather than being as irreverant as I can be! You're right - it is a good scene, but I feel that's down to the script and the acting - IMHO Sir Rog doesn't put a single foot wrong in FYEO,it's his best Bond by a mile. And Glover and Topol are first rate, yet seemingly overlooked, villain and ally alike. So perhap Glen should get credit for casting. But I just don't feel that anything the director did in filming the scene or cutting it made noteworthy enough for us to praise the director for it.

A director doesn't just "film a scene" then "cut it". You said that the scene works because of "the script and the acting"... who do you think steers both aspects of any film? It's the director. Glen is from a different generation of British film production - a generation that would still exist now had the British film industry not crumbled thrice over. If a film is any good (like EYES ONLY) it is because the director got it right.

[Loomis]

And to those who say he's a "hack", I challenge anyone to come out of The Jigsaw Man or Wild Geese II and sincerely believe the same could not be said of Terrence Young or Peter Hunt.

*cough* NO ESCAPE, VERTICAL LIMIT, ZORRO 2, BEYOND BORDERS *cough*

God, I am actually going to agree with you here. Campbell is the luckiest Bond director going. He got VERY lucky with CASINO ROYALE - especially when you check out his other, er, "fare".

This is exactly what I mean about Glen. While he was in the comfort of the Eon family he was fine - plenty of support, but once he went out into the big bad world he made crap movies.

To be fair, though, when Glen was directing Bonds he had the advantage of massive budgets. If he'd had as much cash to play with on THE POINT MEN as he'd had on LICENCE TO KILL, the former would almost certainly have been a far more polished affair.

And, of course, "plenty of support" is always vital on any kind of film project. If Glen had had better teams around him and bigger budgets on his non-Bond work, things might have been very different, so I'm not sure that he ought to be made to carry the can.

A director doesn't just "film a scene" then "cut it". You said that the scene works because of "the script and the acting"... who do you think steers both aspects of any film? It's the director. Glen is from a different generation of British film production - a generation that would still exist now had the British film industry not crumbled thrice over. If a film is any good (like EYES ONLY) it is because the director got it right.

But I suppose that doesn't apply to Campbell and CASINO ROYALE, eh, Zorin? You wouldn't say that if CASINO ROYALE is any good "it is because the director got it right", because you reckon Campbell simply "got lucky" with that one. Well, sorry, but no director ever gets that lucky, especially if he's just a totally untalented hack.

I guess in your book someone other than Campbell must have been steering the script and the acting on CASINO ROYALE, huh?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I think that's true of all of them though, bar perhaps Gilbert and I guess maybe Apted (since Forster has yet to make anything since QOS we can't make a call on that one yet). Rather fond of Hamilton's Remo Williams though.

Hamilton had fine success after Bond with FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE, THE MIRROR CRACK'D and EVIL UNDER THE SUN. Oh and REMO which you already mentioned. Along with Gilbert, Forster and maybe Apted, he's in the elite crowd of graduating Bond directors not ending up in the DTV market (though Terence Young directed INCHON and was up for FIRST KNIGHT, last I read, although both cases were big failures).

Force 10 from Navarone may have been a commercial success, but is it really any better than some of the films you cited to identify Campbell as a hack? And First Knight was hardly a disaster on the level of Inchon!

I meant Young's attempt to helm First Knight was a failure, not the film itself. He hadn't had a big film in years by that point, so I don't see the logic in why it would have been his baby originally. Connery, maybe?

FORCE TEN is a decent movie, played sincerely and with consistently inspired visuals, so Hamilton obviously had genuine respect for Alistair Maclean that he didn't share for Fleming. It's not throwaway tongue in cheek like Campbell's Zorro, either (Zorro being Campbell's only high point outside of Bond and TV's Edge of Darkness). The Christie movies I mentioned that Hamilton did btw are also well, well above anything in Campbell's body of work. Very particular period settings, witty and character performance driven; much more sophisticated storytelling.

Hamilton's REMO WILLIAMS is also a more offbeat, quirky and character performance dependent movie unlike the pure mainstream popørn of say Campbell or Glen. It's also another book adaptation, which again, when Hamilton was sincere with, excelled. Infact, most of Hamilton's movies were popular book adaptations with very specific quirks, and Bond was the least quirky and offbeat of the lot, so no wonder his 007 films are so frustratingly inconsistent in tone.

Hope no ones mentioned Terence Young's post Bond effort Wait Until Dark, with Audrey Hepburn Its a masterpiece IMO