30 replies to this topic

[quantumofsolace]

http://www.denofgeek...-the-golden-gun

[Call Billy Bob]

Wow... this one actually hurts. TMWTGG is one of my favorites because it's fun. It's not meant to be the tense thriller the reviewer would sell his right arm for it to be - it's pure fun. And it delivers.

[tdalton]

I didn't read the whole thing, but from what I did read the author was pretty much on target.  A very, very underwhelming film.

[Gobi-1]

I've always liked The Man with the Golden Gun. Maybe not quite as good as Live and Let Die but certainly moore fun then Diamonds Are Forever.

[sharpshooter]

 Like tdalton, I've found TMWTGG underwhelming in the past. It would probably be my less viewed Bond film in the franchise. So I might revisit it soon.

[SecretAgentFan]

It has a lot going for it even if it has its weaknesses.  I did not care so much for it on the first two viewings (as a teenager) - but the more I watch it the more I can recognize how underrated it really is.

[Guy Haines]

I think the problem with TMWTGG is that it lost its way in terms of plot. Is it about Bond taking on Scaramanga the assassin or Scaramanga the  would be energy tycoon? I wonder if the screenwriters didn't quite have confidence in a straightforward "duel" movie and thought they had to include something topical - the 70s energy crisis - which would involve a large complex being blown to bits at the end of the film?

 

(Actually, thinking it through, it's about neither the assassin nor the would be solar energy sheikh - it's about Scaramanga's girlfriend tricking Bond into finding Scaramanga and killing him. Bond sent on a false trail after a villain who claims he has "nothing against" 007, despite that waxwork likeness of 007 with the fingers shot off - it's all a bit sloppy in terms of motivation.)

 

(In fairness the book TMWTGG also had Scaramanga as more than just an assassin, with a plot to wreck the Caribbean sugar market.)

 

As I understand it, the original idea for the film was a straightforward conflict between Bond and Scaramanga, culminating in a duel - I've read somewhere - either John Brosnan's "James Bond In The Cinema" or Steven Jay Rubin's "The James Bond Films" - that the producers had Jack Palance in mind to play The Man With The Golden Gun.

 

I think if I was making a movie about Bond versus an assassin now, I'd look at a plot similar to the Clint Eastwood 1990s thriller "In The Line Of Fire", with Bond racing against the clock to stop "the world's greatest assassin" from killing someone. Perhaps with 007 having to follow clues, and even the villain, as in "Line Of Fire", daring 007 to try and stop him.

 

Pity such a plot has been done, in the film I've just referred to.

[glidrose]

I think the problem with TMWTGG is that it lost its way in terms of plot. Is it about Bond taking on Scaramanga the assassin or Scaramanga the  would be energy tycoon? I wonder if the screenwriters didn't quite have confidence in a straightforward "duel" movie and thought they had to include something topical - the 70s energy crisis - which would involve a large complex being blown to bits at the end of the film?

Tom Mankiewicz blames the dual plot on Harry Saltzman. Saltzman apparently told him that the villain's plan must either involve weather control or solar energy.

[tdalton]

I think the problem with TMWTGG is that it lost its way in terms of plot. Is it about Bond taking on Scaramanga the assassin or Scaramanga the  would be energy tycoon? I wonder if the screenwriters didn't quite have confidence in a straightforward "duel" movie and thought they had to include something topical - the 70s energy crisis - which would involve a large complex being blown to bits at the end of the film?

 

(Actually, thinking it through, it's about neither the assassin nor the would be solar energy sheikh - it's about Scaramanga's girlfriend tricking Bond into finding Scaramanga and killing him. Bond sent on a false trail after a villain who claims he has "nothing against" 007, despite that waxwork likeness of 007 with the fingers shot off - it's all a bit sloppy in terms of motivation.)

 

(In fairness the book TMWTGG also had Scaramanga as more than just an assassin, with a plot to wreck the Caribbean sugar market.)

 

As I understand it, the original idea for the film was a straightforward conflict between Bond and Scaramanga, culminating in a duel - I've read somewhere - either John Brosnan's "James Bond In The Cinema" or Steven Jay Rubin's "The James Bond Films" - that the producers had Jack Palance in mind to play The Man With The Golden Gun.

 

I think if I was making a movie about Bond versus an assassin now, I'd look at a plot similar to the Clint Eastwood 1990s thriller "In The Line Of Fire", with Bond racing against the clock to stop "the world's greatest assassin" from killing someone. Perhaps with 007 having to follow clues, and even the villain, as in "Line Of Fire", daring 007 to try and stop him.

 

Pity such a plot has been done, in the film I've just referred to.

 

They definitely should have gone the assassin vs. assassin route with The Man With the Golden Gun and kept the entire solex plot on the cutting room floor.  Still, though, I'm not sure that such a plot would have worked in the camp and comedic tone that the film ultimately ended up taking on.  Perhaps it was a storyline that should have been used for Connery, or held onto until they changed directions and went with a more serious style of filmmaking.

[SecretAgentFan]

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (re-watch)

 

Critics hated it.  Fans call it a misstep or much worse.

 

I remember seeing this one for the first time when I was a teenager, feeling disappointed.  Bond was so mean in this, the scope seemed so narrow.

 

In the following years I liked it a bit more but still not enough for reaching at least the middle of my ranking.

 

Now, after watching LALD I enjoyed this one more than ever.  It is a tight thriller, with Moore´s toughest portrayal of Bond.  The story is well thought out and told efficiently, the combination with the Solar MacGuffin is done nicely, the cinematography evokes the beautiful locations with ease and precision, Maud Adams subtly conveys her dilemma of being attracted to men who treat her with contempt and threaten her.  Of course, Christopher Lee is excellent as one of Bond´s most interesting antagonists, a truly frightening presence and inspired casting. John Barry´s score is reaching a perfect balance of fun and danger, just as this film needed it.  Heck, not even Pepper irked me anymore. 

 

I think that this film is a much maligned treasure, not nearly as camp as critics thought it was, and - again - Moore is wonderful in it.  And you can still see very clearly that he performed his action sequences himself, with the early fight in the bellydancer´s room being filmed only with a few cuts.

 

Considering that Bond operates under the impression that a dangerous assassin is out there to kill him, I believed every second of Bond being a badass bastard, being rude and brutal to everyone since he fears for his life and is angered by being taken off his main assignment.  

 

Since the film did not bring in as much money as it was supposed to, it clearly suffered from the usual case of "we have to distance ourselves from it", having many people involved with the production criticize it later.

 

IMO, they are wrong.  This is a great Bond film.  I probably even like it a bit more than LALD.

[Call Billy Bob]

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (re-watch)
 
Critics hated it.  Fans call it a misstep or much worse.
 
I remember seeing this one for the first time when I was a teenager, feeling disappointed.  Bond was so mean in this, the scope seemed so narrow.
 
In the following years I liked it a bit more but still not enough for reaching at least the middle of my ranking.
 
Now, after watching LALD I enjoyed this one more than ever.  It is a tight thriller, with Moore´s toughest portrayal of Bond.  The story is well thought out and told efficiently, the combination with the Solar MacGuffin is done nicely, the cinematography evokes the beautiful locations with ease and precision, Maud Adams subtly conveys her dilemma of being attracted to men who treat her with contempt and threaten her.  Of course, Christopher Lee is excellent as one of Bond´s most interesting antagonists, a truly frightening presence and inspired casting. John Barry´s score is reaching a perfect balance of fun and danger, just as this film needed it.  Heck, not even Pepper irked me anymore. 
 
I think that this film is a much maligned treasure, not nearly as camp as critics thought it was, and - again - Moore is wonderful in it.  And you can still see very clearly that he performed his action sequences himself, with the early fight in the bellydancer´s room being filmed only with a few cuts.
 
Considering that Bond operates under the impression that a dangerous assassin is out there to kill him, I believed every second of Bond being a badass bastard, being rude and brutal to everyone since he fears for his life and is angered by being taken off his main assignment.  
 
Since the film did not bring in as much money as it was supposed to, it clearly suffered from the usual case of "we have to distance ourselves from it", having many people involved with the production criticize it later.
 
IMO, they are wrong.  This is a great Bond film.  I probably even like it a bit more than LALD.

I've wholeheartedly agreed with both this review and your LALD one. Well said! Granted, they've both been in my top 5 Bond films for a long time!

[David_M]

I don't know, I'm a huge fan of LALD (it's the one that got me into Bond in the first place) and Roger remains my favorite, but I could never warm up to TMWTGG.

 

On the plus side, Roger looks arguably better here than at any point in his career and -- as you say -- is still spry enough to do stunts, Lee turns in a strong performance and some of the locations are attractive.  On the other hand, the plot lacks focus, there are too many things that just make no sense (Hip "kidnapping" Bond to generate artificial "tension," Hip and his nieces "rescuing" Bond at the karate school only to run off and abandon him, Scaramanga spending millions to build weaponized solar panels in the middle of nowhere and thus create a dire threat to...um...planes parked in his yard, Scaramanga's giant complex run by one chubby guy who looks like he may or may not have the engineering skill to replace a water heater, etc).  

 

And it's not just Bond who's cranky throughout.  Everyone's in a bad mood in this one, and it eventually rubs off on the viewer.  M treats everyone rudely, especially Bond but also Q.  Q is always kind of cranky as part of his schtick, but here it's not even "lovable."  

 

I agree Maud is great (so glad she got another go in OP!), but that just makes it harder to take that the wrong girl gets killed.  Mary Goodnight is insufferable, and the prime reason I can never totally defend the series against charges of misogyny.  

 

I can't agree that the "Solex Agitator" angle is well-handled.  It's a confusing distraction from the potentially much more interesting "Bond vs. Evil Bond" premise.  

 

Also, I have to say the whole film has a certain "cheapness" to it that's hard for me to articulate exactly, but somehow it comes off as the most low-budget entry since DN (which had the excuse of being first).  From the 1:85:1 aspect ratio to cheap-looking sets like Faida's dressing room (where the production lights make an accidental cameo!) to Scaramanga's empty complex (reminding us it's a Meddings miniature) to the "so what" stakes of the Solex and the less-than-spectacular showdown in the fun house, the whole outing just feels too small for Bond, IMHO. I think at least some of the warm welcome given to TSWLM was that it returned us to the days of large scale, opulent spectacle.  

 

I even think it's Barry's weakest score.

 

And while it may be true that not making a huge profit meant that it was later talked down by those involved, it's worth asking WHY it didn't make more money.  I think it's because it wasn't nearly the crowd-pleaser LALD had been.  Also, it probably didn't help that they rushed it out so fast, barely a year after the last one.  Another six months in development phase might've made this one excellent.

 

Possibly the biggest shame here is that after showing in LALD that he could play Bond as a right bastard (but a cool one!), here it goes full tilt into "rotten cad" territory, which led in later entries to a course correction where 70s-80s Bond ends up in Roger's patented "Simon Templar" territory; charming and affable and pretty much a knight minus the shining armor.  It might've been a lot more interesting to see a nice guy like Roger play a not-so-nice Bond throughout his tenure.  I mean, can you really imagine the Bond of Roger's first two entries hanging off a plane or a dirigible just to rescue a "fair damsel" like he does in his last two?  It's hard to reconcile the Bond who tells Rosie "I certainly wouldn't have shot you BEFORE" with the one who bakes Stacey a quiche and sits up all night so she can sleep safely.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think it´s a learning curve for the Moore-Bond to become more friendly and aware of his shortcomings the older he gets.  Therefore I never had a problem with the "continuity" of his tenure.

 

Why didn´t TMWTGG make more money?  Well, I do believe that it was another phase of too much Bond within too little time.  Also, those who did not like LALD did not feel the urge to see another Moore-Bond so soon.  And the Bond films were no longer the newest craze, people started to flock to the big budget blockbusters of Spielberg or Coppola.  The paranoia thrillers of the 70´s attracted more attention than British spy-entertainment.

 

The cheapness of the film´s look - well, I did not get that feeling, I must say.  And sometimes I do believe that the reception of a movie is influenced so much by everything you have read and heard about it before.  Positive and negative word-of-mouth can be devestating because either one expects too much or only looks for the flaws.

 

Having said that, any opinion is, of course, respected and respectable.  Sorry to learn you don´t like this one.  But that´s the beauty of the Bond franchise:  there is so much to choose from, and so many variations.

[David_M]

 

 

I think it´s a learning curve for the Moore-Bond to become more friendly and aware of his shortcomings the older he gets.  Therefore I never had a problem with the "continuity" of his tenure.

 

I wouldn't call it an issue with "continuity" per se, and I don't want to give the impression I don't enjoy Roger's later entries, or for that matter that I resent Bond morphing into something closer to Roger's "true" persona.  But after a while, I get tired of all the complaints that Roger "couldn't" play a hard-edged character, when in his first two films (and various non-Bond projects) he proved he very much could.  The fun I have watching the cocky, arrogant, ruthless wise-ass Bond of LALD is very different from the fun I have watching the upstanding, heroic Bond of OP, but in the end, fun is fun.

 

And I agree with the larger suggestion that Moore's Bond evolves.  In fact, Moore-Bond in general can be seen as a "later stage" of Connery-Bond; less inclined to wade in fists first, more likely to think his way out of a jam, and with a sort of bemused, "Really?  This again?" attitude towards the villains and their threats.

 

 

 

 And sometimes I do believe that the reception of a movie is influenced so much by everything you have read and heard about it before.  Positive and negative word-of-mouth can be devestating because either one expects too much or only looks for the flaws.

 

In my case, I watched it first on TV in the 70s, having missed the media blitz when it hit theaters, and no one I knew had seen it or had an opinion, so it was tabula rasa for me.  I liked it well enough because I liked Roger and the scale of it's suited to TV.  Plus I was a kid.  But later on I admit to being affected by a variation on what you describe; so many books and, much later, internet talk took a dim view of the film that I grew to see the flaws more starkly.  Plus with the "embarassment of riches" created by having all the films available for VHS and DVD viewing, it was easier to get "picky" where, in the beginning, any Bond at all was a treasure.

 

I have to say that, in general, the negativity aimed at a lot of Roger's tenure has dampened the fun of watching them for me.  With many of his entries, I can still take a deep breath and go in with an open mind to re-evaluate for myself, and come out the other end thinking, "I don't care what anyone thinks, I still like it."  With TMWTGG, that's not as easy.  But that's not to say there aren't things to like about it. 

 

I'm glad you're having such a fun time revisiting the series and that, for at least the last two in a row, things are on an upward slope for you.  I hope the fun lasts as long as possible.  And now that my boys are old enough that I think these films are suitable for them, I'm looking forward to starting over with fresh eyes myself.

[SecretAgentFan]

Thanks, David, for your thoughtful and personal comments!

[glidrose]

And while it may be true that not making a huge profit meant that it was later talked down by those involved, it's worth asking WHY it didn't make more money.  I think it's because it wasn't nearly the crowd-pleaser LALD had been.  Also, it probably didn't help that they rushed it out so fast, barely a year after the last one.  Another six months in development phase might've made this one excellent.

Gotta quibble with a couple of points here. The film opened strong, but box-office fell off within several weeks. Likely reason? Bad word of mouth. Further, the producers didn't rush this film out. Certainly no faster than they rushed LALD out. Measure the gaps between DAF, LALD and TMWTGG and you'll find they all fall into the same time-frame: a one-and-a-half year release pattern. Christmas '71, Summer '73, Christmas '74.

Despite that, I do think the film would have benefitted from taking more time during the scripting process.

[tdalton]

It opened strong, like every other film, because it's a Bond film.  Since it wasn't the "crowd-pleaser" like Live and Let Die was, the numbers fell off from there.  David_M is spot-on in his assessment.

[glidrose]

It opened strong, like every other film, because it's a Bond film.  Since it wasn't the "crowd-pleaser" like Live and Let Die was, the numbers fell off from there.  David_M is spot-on in his assessment.

 

And so am I. "Crowd-pleaser" encompasses a wide range. A film can still be thought okay - even good - and not be a crowd pleaser. Bad worth of mouth spells it out in no uncertain terms. And that's exactly what TMWTGG "enjoyed".

 

And some on this board would quibble with your claim that every Bond film opened strong. These people would claim that LTK didn't open strong in the U.S. I personally think that view is going far, but I don't think they're entirely wrong either.

[sharpshooter]

I think the end segments are entertaining and leisurely, starting from Bond landing at Scaramanga's island, touring the facility and having the meal. The funhouse, which provides great visuals, has Bond on the back foot for a change, entering a scenario every other assassin before him has failed. He literally thinks outside the box by evading the cameras and climbing down the support beams. I also like the ending on the Junk with Goodnight and Nick Nack, fending away the champagne bottles. It's just the content which precedes this is perhaps too languid and not exactly the most exciting series of events.

[tdalton]

I like the ending in the funhouse as well.  I just wish that they had saved it as a surprise rather than revealing it early on.  The moment that you saw the statue of Bond in the PTS you knew exactly how Scaramanga was going to meet his fate.

 

I think it would have worked much better to simply have Bond wander into the funhouse and have the audience experience it for the first time right along with Bond.  It definitely could have made for one of those rare times that you're not entirely sure how Bond is going to get out of the predicament.

[sharpshooter]

I like the ending in the funhouse as well.  I just wish that they had saved it as a surprise rather than revealing it early on.  The moment that you saw the statue of Bond in the PTS you knew exactly how Scaramanga was going to meet his fate.

Very true.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

I like the ending in the funhouse as well.  I just wish that they had saved it as a surprise rather than revealing it early on.  The moment that you saw the statue of Bond in the PTS you knew exactly how Scaramanga was going to meet his fate.

Very true.

 

 

I disagree.  I did not know at that moment how it turned out.  And to have it as a surprise would not have worked at all - you need to know it is there, otherwise you don´t know what happened and will consider it a bad trick on the audience.  To actually place the wax figure at the beginning was clever, IMO, because you almost forgot about it.

[tdalton]

The wax figure was a bad trick either way.  It was just a poor and rather cheap way to give Bond a chance to get a jump on Scaramanaga that required little to no skill.  Regardless of whether or not they kept the funhouse at the beginning or not, it would have been more effective either way had the wax figure been removed from the film.

[David_M]

Yes, but if the wax figure wasn't there, Bond would've had to disguise himself as an Old West gunslinger, or a Prohibition-era gangster. And think of the disservice to generations of Moore haters who'd never have gotten to make their clever "Roger Moore = wax dummy" comments!

 

I will say that the funhouse sequence is a treasure trove for anyone with a crush (or man-crush) on Roger Moore; the camera is all over him (in the mirror shot, there's dozens of him!) and he looks great.  I also agree it was smart of him to "break the rules"and climb down the scaffolding (even if there were no prior -- or later -- hints that the funhouse is actually built on multiple levels).  But in the end we still don't know if Bond is a better gunman than Scaramanga; all he proves is that he's sneakier.

 

The amusing thing here is that the wax 007 is arranged in a stock Eon publicity pose, which almost seems to break the fourth wall.  At least he doesn't have a big "gunbarrel" graphic on the wall behind him.

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  

 

But if 007 has Tarot cards handy with his own number printed on the backside, a wax figure might be always on offer, too.

[tdalton]

Yes, but if the wax figure wasn't there, Bond would've had to disguise himself as an Old West gunslinger, or a Prohibition-era gangster. And think of the disservice to generations of Moore haters who'd never have gotten to make their clever "Roger Moore = wax dummy" comments!

 

I will say that the funhouse sequence is a treasure trove for anyone with a crush (or man-crush) on Roger Moore; the camera is all over him (in the mirror shot, there's dozens of him!) and he looks great.  I also agree it was smart of him to "break the rules"and climb down the scaffolding (even if there were no prior -- or later -- hints that the funhouse is actually built on multiple levels).  But in the end we still don't know if Bond is a better gunman than Scaramanga; all he proves is that he's sneakier.

 

The amusing thing here is that the wax 007 is arranged in a stock Eon publicity pose, which almost seems to break the fourth wall.  At least he doesn't have a big "gunbarrel" graphic on the wall behind him.

 

Having the gunbarrel behind him might have provided for a rather nice surreal moment.  I could see where that's done in a way that's a real crowd-pleaser yet still keeping with the very off-kilter vibe of the funhouse.  I'm only being half serious here, but if done right, it could have been a much more interesting way of breaking the fourth wall than the "This never happened to the other fellow" line in On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

 

And, I do love the funhouse (it's the only part of The Man With the Golden Gun that is good), but you're right in saying that they would have just had Bond pose as whatever else was hidden in the funhouse to get the jump on Scaramanga if the wax statue of Bond wasn't there.  Scrapping the whole Solex nonsense and focusing solely on the Bond vs. Scaramanga business is, IMO, the only proper way to do what EON was trying to do with this film, since it clearly wasn't going to be an adaptation of Fleming's novel.  In a perfect world, we would have gotten a climax that would have tested both of their skillsets as assassins to see who truly was better, rather than putting them in the odd setting of a funhouse where trickery, rather than skill, winds up saving the day.

[DaveBond21]

This could have been quite a dark 007 movie, if the comic relief is taken away. Remove the scenes involving Sheriff Pepper, karate school girls and Nick Nack and it turns into a more serious spy film. However the plot is basically all about setting up the final dual between Bond and Scaramanga.

 

Good stunts, nice atmosphere, Roger Moore with a mean streak. It's good fun but it's not as good as the next one TSWLM

[0072]

Yep, I agree with this one too: just one more poop in the toilet bowl...

 

Sheriff JW Pepper is an unforgivable act of aggression against the goodwill of the audience.

[Call Billy Bob]

Sheriff JW Pepper is an unforgivable act of aggression against the goodwill of the audience.

While some, like me, enjoy good ol' JW as a fun diversion and great comic relief. I know he's not for everyone, but saying his inclusion is unforgivable is a bit much...

[SecretAgentFan]

Indeed.  And audience reacted very favorably to him back then.