Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
TMWTGG is a proper Bond film?
It's been a while since I wrote one of these but they have typically gone down well on these forums so I thought I'd share some of my recent thought on TMWTGG in essay form.
Pure Entertainment:
It was understandable that when 'The Man with the Golden Gun' was released back in 1974 that critics and audiences dismissed the movie uniformly. The initial lacquer of gloss ushered in by the Bond films in the early 1960's had begun to fade and, inevitably, after over a decade in cinemas, fatigue had set in. There is certainly some merit to this argument, as director Guy Hamilton, after three previous 007 films, at times feels bereft of new ideas. However, despite its lack of invention, there is something warm and familiar about 'The Man with the Golden Gun'. Whilst for others it is a film to dismiss, for me it deserves embracing. Not only is 'Golden Gun' a truly underrated picture within the Bond canon, it is also tightly constructed and constantly entertaining.
The whole affair feels like a proper 'Bond film'. After the Bond series more recent detours into the realm of darker and grittier storytelling there have been a slew of pictures arriving attempting to emulate 007's more fun and breezy days. With news that the series has begun to psychoanalyse Bond and delve into his childhood, there seems to be a collective cry from many who want Bond to return to his big bawdy and escapist picture roots.
I feel that 'Golden Gun' wholeheartedly embodies many of the elements that made the classic Bond films such essential viewing back in their heyday. It has a charming and elegant hero, sadistic villains, great humour, stunning locations, beautiful women, and plenty of action and spectacle. 'Golden Gun' has no greater ambition than to purely entertain its audience, which I feel it succeeds with aplomb.
What we have with 'Golden Gun' is a fun espionage film, which wants to thrill its audience whilst hoping they are laughing along with it. On further analysis you may realise that the film is rather empty, but the whole point is that you're not supposed to delve too deeply into it. 'The Man with the Golden Gun' is a film of surface pleasures, so whilst it may not have stood the test of time, it's certainly engaging and entertaining.
Centrally, there is a great conceit that runs through the core of the movie; as we follow James Bond after he is informed that the world's greatest assassin, Francisco Scaramanga, known to the intelligence agencies only as The Man with the Golden Gun, is after him. Therefore, Bond must track down and kill Scaramanga before he catches up with 007 and puts a bullet in his back.
New Angles:
Beyond the typical Bond staples, the film has the confidence to embody a few interesting new angles. For instance, during the first third of the movie we see Bond go on the hunt for Scaramanga and an interesting brutality is displayed in the character. Roger's Bond is often criticised for his overly jocular nature, but during these opening segments there is a certain rough and unpredictable quality on display in his character. This can likely be attributed to Bond's desperation, as he is clearly eager to catch Scaramanga before it's too late. Nonetheless, this slightly darker tinge to the character stays with Bond throughout the picture and Roger confidently embodies the more malevolent and unlikeable characteristics of Agent 007 very well.
Due to his pretty-boy looks, Roger Moore was often easily categorised as the square-jawed, bland and reliable hero. More often than not, he played up to this archetype throughout his career, and never more evidently than his years playing Simon Templar on the hugely popular 1960's TV show, 'The Saint'. Many fans have tended to apologise for the behaviour Bond displayed back in the 60s and early 70s, especially his chauvinism and misogyny; placing blame on the era. However, I feel these characteristics are what makes Bond an interesting character; he isn't wholly likeable or particularly admirable at times. Bond is a killer with a callous disregard for anyone getting in the way of his mission. While he can be charming and debonair there is still something inherently dangerous and unpredictable about a man like that. I must say, I was very impressed with Roger's performance and his embodiment of these qualities.
Despite all this, Moore doesn't loose the traits, which made his Bond distinct to him. He is still, undeniably, the charming gentleman spy and international playboy with a quick one-liner at the ready. However, by pushing the character in this new direction I feel as though we touched upon Moore's most complete depiction of Bond in 'The Man with the Golden Gun'. Later in the series it became something of a custom to have Roger mug and wink to the camera informing the audience that he too was in on the joke. So whilst 'Golden Gun' is a fundamentally silly and ridiculous film, the fact that Roger Moore, and therefore James Bond, is evidently taking it all very seriously makes the picture that bit more engrossing and interesting.
I believe the likelihood for this evolution in Roger's Bond came from the collaboration of both Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz on script duties. Maibaum had previously expressed his unhappiness with Moore's portrayal of Bond, feeling that the Moore lacked the grit of Sean Connery by too often spoofing himself. Meanwhile, in his two previous efforts, Mankiewicz had displayed an affinity for delivering witty dialogue and perfectly pitched one-liners. It would seem that Maibaum's influence somehow hardened up Bond's character whilst Mankiewicz was still on hand to provide the humour and those memorable zingers.
In addition, the film has the confidence to incorporate some very usual and welcomingly strange segments. For instance, during the sequences in Scaramanga's funhouse, 'Golden Gun' suddenly adopts a brilliantly unusual, surreal vibe not previously seen in a Bond movie. There is something uncanny and nightmarish about seeing Bond prowling down a hall of mirrors before being confronted by an eerie likeness of himself, and the final shot of 'Rodney' with a bullet in his head and the flashing lights engulfing him is particularly haunting. I enjoyed the strange detour into the funhouse and at best there are moments that seem like sequences straight from a David Lynch film, albeit not as horrific.
'Carry On' Bond:
There is a certain black comedic wit running throughout the movie, especially in the writing of the Lazar sequence. Despite this, the film does sadly detour too frequently into the realm of slapstick. I'm personally not overtly against these elements, mainly as the picture is so tightly paced that many move by relatively quickly and never really get enough space to leave too sour a taste. Guiltily, I must also confess to laughing numerous times during a number of the more broad gags.
Nonetheless, the comedy is evidently not as consistently sharp or witty as previous 007 films. In the pasts Bond films were essentially conceived as being cartoons for adults, in recent years and 'Golden Gun' in particular it's clear that the principle audience for the film is young boys. It is not entirely a children's film but it does skew younger than previous entries. In this regard, the film does play a little to the cheap seats.
One of the major pitfalls of the film is its lack of invention; instead of creating anything new the film relies on cheap laughs. There seems to be a number of ideas borrowed from previous films and in particular Hamilton seems to be attempting to repeat the same tricks and beats over again. For instance, the inclusion of Sheriff Pepper in Thailand is a stretch too far, and Bond grabbing a sumo wrestler's buttocks feels like something straight out of a 'Carry On' film.
Due to the over reliance on slapstick humour, 'Golden Gun' has become something of a sitting duck for negative attention. However I enjoy my camp and ridiculous Bond films, and I know I am not alone. If you don't like the Roger Moore era than 'Golden Gun' is really one Bond film to avoid as it encapsulates many of the embarrassing traits that many of us happily embrace. Furthermore, it's clear many filmmakers today have taken cues from Roger's more humorous films, you only need to sit through some of Matthew Vaughn's excessive and crass 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' or Paul Feig's 'Spy' to see glimpses of this. It should also be noted that many of the light-hearted and fun action sequences in the film feel as though they set the template for Steven Spielberg's 'Indiana Jones' series.
The Cast:
For 'The Man with the Golden Gun' the filmmakers really assembled one of the best casts for a Bond picture yet. Beyond Moore's reprisal of 007, at the centre of the film is Christopher Lee's Scarmamanga, a compelling character in his own right. Lee gives Scarmamanga a number of noted qualities, aside from his towering and elegant demeanour, he has a forceful and imposing screen presence and booming voice. In terms of characterisation, an interesting trait that Scaramanga has is his reverence and respect of Bond. It's almost as if the man is a fan of the Bond series and an avid viewer of Bond's past missions, and thereby sees himself as the dark reflection of 007.
In many ways, Scaramanga idolises James Bond and sees him as more than a worthy adversary. The chance to kill James Bond is something Scaramanga sees as the perfect epitaph to his distinguished career, something that will further cement his legacy. It's a fun conceit to a villain and one that sparks dramatic tension as Bond simply refuses to acknowledge any similarity he may have with the famed assassin. In the sequences between Lee and Moore the pair spar excellently with one another and their introductory scene at the kickboxing stadium is well written and expertly staged.
Beyond this you have two beautiful women filling out the necessary 'Bond girl' criteria. Andrea Anders is the more compelling and tragic character in the film; she is a desperate woman trapped in a relationship with a very powerful and frightening man, which she can see no escape from. Therefore, she orchestrates a plan to kill Scaramanga, which she attempts to coerce James Bond into, mainly as he is the only man she believes is capable of doing so.
In one of the film's more interesting moments, Andrea attempt to persuade Bond to continue in his mission to kill Scaramanga by offering to sleep with him. She doesn't offer seductively, instead, it seems that for her sex is her only battering tool as she believes it is the only currency any man would ever truly want from her. Andrea is clearly a vulnerable and fragile woman; the fact that Bond then goes on to take her up on her offer is beyond exploitative. Nonetheless, Andrea has the most interesting character arc and Maud Adams gives a wonderful turn in the part. Adams has a beautiful statuette pose and her large eyes and sharp cheekbones are striking to behold.
As his the habit in all of Guy Hamilton's collaborations with Tom Mankiewicz there is always at least one female character who is depicted as something of a bimbo and this time the mantle passes to Britt Eckland. Much is made of Goodnight's rather superfluous and hindering role, as most of the time she seems purely there to be usurped by other females competing for Bond's affections. However, I think the character is really rather endearing and I often found myself empathising with her rather hapless and useless nature. If I was ever to be placed in the field the likelihood is I'd be more of a Mary Goodnight figure than a James Bond. Moreover, Eckland's performance is genuinely funny and I've yet to mention how beautiful she is. Britt Eckland is the ultimate 60s pinup, the fact she is unnecessarily in a bikini for the finale is the one of the ridiculous and brilliant quirks of the Bond films from this era. You could never get away with stuff like that today and it's probably a reason people yearn for the mischievous and exotic tone of the earlier 007 pictures.
In the supporting roles, Bernard Lee's brilliantly sardonic and beleaguered performance is surprisingly comedic and comes close to stealing the show. However, this accolade belongs to Hervé Villechaize. Hamilton's decision to use a dwarf as the film's henchman seems like the typical gimmick-laden nonsense you'd expect from the director, but Hervé imbues Nick Nack with so much charisma and personality he walks away with the picture.
Production Values
The film does inherent some of the negative qualities embodied by its predecessor and Hamilton's previous effort, 'Live and Let Die'. Firstly, the editing in the action sequences is still rather flabby; this was a problem which plagued 'Live and Let Die' and really diluted much of the punch that movie could have had if those sequences were tightened up. For instance, whilst the car chase is exciting, there are still come cues and moments that lack punch and with more finesse could have been enthralling. Secondly, much like 'Live and Let Die', the production values are not quite as high as you'd expect from a Bond film. It's possible the rushed back-to-back production on both films could have led to the budget being cut back. For instance, the club scenes in Beirut feel particularly cheap and more akin to something you'd see hastily mocked up for a 1970s TV show than a huge slick film production.
However, the script is rather creaky at certain intervals and is often overly cumbered with exposition. Considering Mankiewicz's credentials and Hamilton's past work with the scribe it's a surprise the film is not as sharp or funny as would would have expected. Moe problematically the film does not have the confidence rely solely on the rivalry between Scaramanga and Bond to build a plot and, instead, feels compelled to rely on a nonsensical MacGuffin that does more to confuse the plot of the film.
In terms of technical contributions, Peter Murton does an admirable job with the film's production design, in particular, the marvellously disorienting Queen Elizabeth headquarters being the standout achievement. Despite many of Murton's successes, you can't help but wonder quite how far Ken Adam would have pushed some of the designs, especially when it comes to Scaramanga's fun-house. We can only imagine what loopy and bizarre ideas Adam's imagination would have conjured up.
Furthermore, despite the joint talents of Ted Moore and Oswald Morris the cinematography is rather anonymous and bland. This may be down to the fact that Moore quit the film and his replacement merely wanted to adequately capture the necessary scenes opposed to add any distinct flavour to the camerawork. They are helped along by some stunning and exotic locations and some expertly staged stunt sequences. John Barry's score is typically great and even the horrendous Lulu title song works in the context of the film's slightly camp and slapstick tone. The costume design also deserves to be singled out as Bond's wardrobe is really on point in this picture. Especially during the moment Roger is flying the plane with a tie and shoulder-holster in place. Very cool.
Summary
'The Man with the Golden Gun' is an easy Bond film to dismiss, but if you're willing to roll with it you can see it as the classic it truly is. It's a fun, breezy and thoroughly entertaining affair, and whilst it does have a tendency to play a little broad at times its exotic and mischievous tone have me longing for the Bond films of old.
Pure Entertainment:
It was understandable that when 'The Man with the Golden Gun' was released back in 1974 that critics and audiences dismissed the movie uniformly. The initial lacquer of gloss ushered in by the Bond films in the early 1960's had begun to fade and, inevitably, after over a decade in cinemas, fatigue had set in. There is certainly some merit to this argument, as director Guy Hamilton, after three previous 007 films, at times feels bereft of new ideas. However, despite its lack of invention, there is something warm and familiar about 'The Man with the Golden Gun'. Whilst for others it is a film to dismiss, for me it deserves embracing. Not only is 'Golden Gun' a truly underrated picture within the Bond canon, it is also tightly constructed and constantly entertaining.
The whole affair feels like a proper 'Bond film'. After the Bond series more recent detours into the realm of darker and grittier storytelling there have been a slew of pictures arriving attempting to emulate 007's more fun and breezy days. With news that the series has begun to psychoanalyse Bond and delve into his childhood, there seems to be a collective cry from many who want Bond to return to his big bawdy and escapist picture roots.
I feel that 'Golden Gun' wholeheartedly embodies many of the elements that made the classic Bond films such essential viewing back in their heyday. It has a charming and elegant hero, sadistic villains, great humour, stunning locations, beautiful women, and plenty of action and spectacle. 'Golden Gun' has no greater ambition than to purely entertain its audience, which I feel it succeeds with aplomb.
What we have with 'Golden Gun' is a fun espionage film, which wants to thrill its audience whilst hoping they are laughing along with it. On further analysis you may realise that the film is rather empty, but the whole point is that you're not supposed to delve too deeply into it. 'The Man with the Golden Gun' is a film of surface pleasures, so whilst it may not have stood the test of time, it's certainly engaging and entertaining.
Centrally, there is a great conceit that runs through the core of the movie; as we follow James Bond after he is informed that the world's greatest assassin, Francisco Scaramanga, known to the intelligence agencies only as The Man with the Golden Gun, is after him. Therefore, Bond must track down and kill Scaramanga before he catches up with 007 and puts a bullet in his back.
New Angles:
Beyond the typical Bond staples, the film has the confidence to embody a few interesting new angles. For instance, during the first third of the movie we see Bond go on the hunt for Scaramanga and an interesting brutality is displayed in the character. Roger's Bond is often criticised for his overly jocular nature, but during these opening segments there is a certain rough and unpredictable quality on display in his character. This can likely be attributed to Bond's desperation, as he is clearly eager to catch Scaramanga before it's too late. Nonetheless, this slightly darker tinge to the character stays with Bond throughout the picture and Roger confidently embodies the more malevolent and unlikeable characteristics of Agent 007 very well.
Due to his pretty-boy looks, Roger Moore was often easily categorised as the square-jawed, bland and reliable hero. More often than not, he played up to this archetype throughout his career, and never more evidently than his years playing Simon Templar on the hugely popular 1960's TV show, 'The Saint'. Many fans have tended to apologise for the behaviour Bond displayed back in the 60s and early 70s, especially his chauvinism and misogyny; placing blame on the era. However, I feel these characteristics are what makes Bond an interesting character; he isn't wholly likeable or particularly admirable at times. Bond is a killer with a callous disregard for anyone getting in the way of his mission. While he can be charming and debonair there is still something inherently dangerous and unpredictable about a man like that. I must say, I was very impressed with Roger's performance and his embodiment of these qualities.
Despite all this, Moore doesn't loose the traits, which made his Bond distinct to him. He is still, undeniably, the charming gentleman spy and international playboy with a quick one-liner at the ready. However, by pushing the character in this new direction I feel as though we touched upon Moore's most complete depiction of Bond in 'The Man with the Golden Gun'. Later in the series it became something of a custom to have Roger mug and wink to the camera informing the audience that he too was in on the joke. So whilst 'Golden Gun' is a fundamentally silly and ridiculous film, the fact that Roger Moore, and therefore James Bond, is evidently taking it all very seriously makes the picture that bit more engrossing and interesting.
I believe the likelihood for this evolution in Roger's Bond came from the collaboration of both Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz on script duties. Maibaum had previously expressed his unhappiness with Moore's portrayal of Bond, feeling that the Moore lacked the grit of Sean Connery by too often spoofing himself. Meanwhile, in his two previous efforts, Mankiewicz had displayed an affinity for delivering witty dialogue and perfectly pitched one-liners. It would seem that Maibaum's influence somehow hardened up Bond's character whilst Mankiewicz was still on hand to provide the humour and those memorable zingers.
In addition, the film has the confidence to incorporate some very usual and welcomingly strange segments. For instance, during the sequences in Scaramanga's funhouse, 'Golden Gun' suddenly adopts a brilliantly unusual, surreal vibe not previously seen in a Bond movie. There is something uncanny and nightmarish about seeing Bond prowling down a hall of mirrors before being confronted by an eerie likeness of himself, and the final shot of 'Rodney' with a bullet in his head and the flashing lights engulfing him is particularly haunting. I enjoyed the strange detour into the funhouse and at best there are moments that seem like sequences straight from a David Lynch film, albeit not as horrific.
'Carry On' Bond:
There is a certain black comedic wit running throughout the movie, especially in the writing of the Lazar sequence. Despite this, the film does sadly detour too frequently into the realm of slapstick. I'm personally not overtly against these elements, mainly as the picture is so tightly paced that many move by relatively quickly and never really get enough space to leave too sour a taste. Guiltily, I must also confess to laughing numerous times during a number of the more broad gags.
Nonetheless, the comedy is evidently not as consistently sharp or witty as previous 007 films. In the pasts Bond films were essentially conceived as being cartoons for adults, in recent years and 'Golden Gun' in particular it's clear that the principle audience for the film is young boys. It is not entirely a children's film but it does skew younger than previous entries. In this regard, the film does play a little to the cheap seats.
One of the major pitfalls of the film is its lack of invention; instead of creating anything new the film relies on cheap laughs. There seems to be a number of ideas borrowed from previous films and in particular Hamilton seems to be attempting to repeat the same tricks and beats over again. For instance, the inclusion of Sheriff Pepper in Thailand is a stretch too far, and Bond grabbing a sumo wrestler's buttocks feels like something straight out of a 'Carry On' film.
Due to the over reliance on slapstick humour, 'Golden Gun' has become something of a sitting duck for negative attention. However I enjoy my camp and ridiculous Bond films, and I know I am not alone. If you don't like the Roger Moore era than 'Golden Gun' is really one Bond film to avoid as it encapsulates many of the embarrassing traits that many of us happily embrace. Furthermore, it's clear many filmmakers today have taken cues from Roger's more humorous films, you only need to sit through some of Matthew Vaughn's excessive and crass 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' or Paul Feig's 'Spy' to see glimpses of this. It should also be noted that many of the light-hearted and fun action sequences in the film feel as though they set the template for Steven Spielberg's 'Indiana Jones' series.
The Cast:
For 'The Man with the Golden Gun' the filmmakers really assembled one of the best casts for a Bond picture yet. Beyond Moore's reprisal of 007, at the centre of the film is Christopher Lee's Scarmamanga, a compelling character in his own right. Lee gives Scarmamanga a number of noted qualities, aside from his towering and elegant demeanour, he has a forceful and imposing screen presence and booming voice. In terms of characterisation, an interesting trait that Scaramanga has is his reverence and respect of Bond. It's almost as if the man is a fan of the Bond series and an avid viewer of Bond's past missions, and thereby sees himself as the dark reflection of 007.
In many ways, Scaramanga idolises James Bond and sees him as more than a worthy adversary. The chance to kill James Bond is something Scaramanga sees as the perfect epitaph to his distinguished career, something that will further cement his legacy. It's a fun conceit to a villain and one that sparks dramatic tension as Bond simply refuses to acknowledge any similarity he may have with the famed assassin. In the sequences between Lee and Moore the pair spar excellently with one another and their introductory scene at the kickboxing stadium is well written and expertly staged.
Beyond this you have two beautiful women filling out the necessary 'Bond girl' criteria. Andrea Anders is the more compelling and tragic character in the film; she is a desperate woman trapped in a relationship with a very powerful and frightening man, which she can see no escape from. Therefore, she orchestrates a plan to kill Scaramanga, which she attempts to coerce James Bond into, mainly as he is the only man she believes is capable of doing so.
In one of the film's more interesting moments, Andrea attempt to persuade Bond to continue in his mission to kill Scaramanga by offering to sleep with him. She doesn't offer seductively, instead, it seems that for her sex is her only battering tool as she believes it is the only currency any man would ever truly want from her. Andrea is clearly a vulnerable and fragile woman; the fact that Bond then goes on to take her up on her offer is beyond exploitative. Nonetheless, Andrea has the most interesting character arc and Maud Adams gives a wonderful turn in the part. Adams has a beautiful statuette pose and her large eyes and sharp cheekbones are striking to behold.
As his the habit in all of Guy Hamilton's collaborations with Tom Mankiewicz there is always at least one female character who is depicted as something of a bimbo and this time the mantle passes to Britt Eckland. Much is made of Goodnight's rather superfluous and hindering role, as most of the time she seems purely there to be usurped by other females competing for Bond's affections. However, I think the character is really rather endearing and I often found myself empathising with her rather hapless and useless nature. If I was ever to be placed in the field the likelihood is I'd be more of a Mary Goodnight figure than a James Bond. Moreover, Eckland's performance is genuinely funny and I've yet to mention how beautiful she is. Britt Eckland is the ultimate 60s pinup, the fact she is unnecessarily in a bikini for the finale is the one of the ridiculous and brilliant quirks of the Bond films from this era. You could never get away with stuff like that today and it's probably a reason people yearn for the mischievous and exotic tone of the earlier 007 pictures.
In the supporting roles, Bernard Lee's brilliantly sardonic and beleaguered performance is surprisingly comedic and comes close to stealing the show. However, this accolade belongs to Hervé Villechaize. Hamilton's decision to use a dwarf as the film's henchman seems like the typical gimmick-laden nonsense you'd expect from the director, but Hervé imbues Nick Nack with so much charisma and personality he walks away with the picture.
Production Values
The film does inherent some of the negative qualities embodied by its predecessor and Hamilton's previous effort, 'Live and Let Die'. Firstly, the editing in the action sequences is still rather flabby; this was a problem which plagued 'Live and Let Die' and really diluted much of the punch that movie could have had if those sequences were tightened up. For instance, whilst the car chase is exciting, there are still come cues and moments that lack punch and with more finesse could have been enthralling. Secondly, much like 'Live and Let Die', the production values are not quite as high as you'd expect from a Bond film. It's possible the rushed back-to-back production on both films could have led to the budget being cut back. For instance, the club scenes in Beirut feel particularly cheap and more akin to something you'd see hastily mocked up for a 1970s TV show than a huge slick film production.
However, the script is rather creaky at certain intervals and is often overly cumbered with exposition. Considering Mankiewicz's credentials and Hamilton's past work with the scribe it's a surprise the film is not as sharp or funny as would would have expected. Moe problematically the film does not have the confidence rely solely on the rivalry between Scaramanga and Bond to build a plot and, instead, feels compelled to rely on a nonsensical MacGuffin that does more to confuse the plot of the film.
In terms of technical contributions, Peter Murton does an admirable job with the film's production design, in particular, the marvellously disorienting Queen Elizabeth headquarters being the standout achievement. Despite many of Murton's successes, you can't help but wonder quite how far Ken Adam would have pushed some of the designs, especially when it comes to Scaramanga's fun-house. We can only imagine what loopy and bizarre ideas Adam's imagination would have conjured up.
Furthermore, despite the joint talents of Ted Moore and Oswald Morris the cinematography is rather anonymous and bland. This may be down to the fact that Moore quit the film and his replacement merely wanted to adequately capture the necessary scenes opposed to add any distinct flavour to the camerawork. They are helped along by some stunning and exotic locations and some expertly staged stunt sequences. John Barry's score is typically great and even the horrendous Lulu title song works in the context of the film's slightly camp and slapstick tone. The costume design also deserves to be singled out as Bond's wardrobe is really on point in this picture. Especially during the moment Roger is flying the plane with a tie and shoulder-holster in place. Very cool.
Summary
'The Man with the Golden Gun' is an easy Bond film to dismiss, but if you're willing to roll with it you can see it as the classic it truly is. It's a fun, breezy and thoroughly entertaining affair, and whilst it does have a tendency to play a little broad at times its exotic and mischievous tone have me longing for the Bond films of old.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I'm not a fan of manciewicz. He gets a few lines of dialogue off, but his script for diamonds was a disaster. Live and let die wasn't much better. This movie nosedives into the ground.
No ones heart was in this movie behind the scenes. You do have a great performance by Christopher lee, but that's it. I love the scores of John Barry, but even he admits this one didn't work for him.
It would be 13 more years before James Bond was able to be relevant again
I personally loved Mank's work on Bond.
it's pacing is too slow...
the script doesn't play to Moore's strengths as an actor the way that his other Bond films did (sans AVTAK)....
M has a new found hatred for 007, for no apparent reason - that always throws me off....
It has a McGuffin that is pointless and feels shoehorned into the plot. The movie starts off being about Scaramanga hunting Bond, then it turns into a hunt for the Solex, then it turns back into Scaramanga hunting Bond, then back into Bond trying to recover the Solex... i get that with plots, come subplots - but Scaramanga and Solex were both fighting over the top billing in this film - which leaves you to wonder, what is the real plot of this movie?....
Returning a character such as JW Pepper really was pointless.. He was more believable being a southern hick sheriff in the bayou of Louisiana - but i can't picture that same man wanting to vacation in the Orient - plus his "pointy heads" comment is pretty disgusting - thankfully we hear it about 50 times......
also, the film's score is about as slow and lazy as the film's pace - certainly not one of Barry's best efforts (and even he admitted as such).....
the only highlights of the film were Moore and Lee, the rest was a complete mess.
I noted Moore's assured performance among other note worthy aspects to the film. And for the first time ever I preferred it to it's more lauded big sister LALD.
In all honesty, TMWTGG is one of my favourite Bond films. I realize it has many flaws, but I don't really care. It just hits the spot.
Quirky (including Barry's score, which is somewhat atypical but still distinctive), exotic, fun, with an especially edgy Roger Moore performance and a great villain in Lee's Scaramanga.
I don't agree with the majority who suggest this tougher performance did not suit Moore. I think he was bloody amazing in it personally.
I disagree. Kicking Locke off the cliff was one of Roger Moore's defining moments as James Bond.
Not really defining when it stands in complete contrast to every other scene he played as the character.
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/1974-maibaums-1st-try-at-scripting-a-moore-007-film/
But P2D, you did an excellent job of putting it into perspective: there is much to appreciate in this one!
Unmentioned was a favorite moment of mine: Bond sucker-punching his opponent at the karate school! A Connery-esque moment--Bond is NOT a gentleman!
I love the Lulu song. It is totally Bondian.
The golden gun prop was squandered. And James should have had Goldfinger's goldplated Colt .45 revolver as his sidearm.
Thanks for the good read, P2D. As a Bond fan, I love all the movies.
@DrunkIrishPoet, not sure I agree that being a Bond fan means you automatically love all the films. The evidence of these boards suggests quite the opposite is often true. Being a fan means you judge the films more critically than the average movie goer.
-I can't stand Britt Eckland (how hilaaarioous you are *slow clap*)
-I hate some of the comedy in the second half (*repeat slow clap*
-The direction feels bland (at least compared to what came before it) and I don't think the browny-green colour scheme holds up all that well.
The first half with Moore tracking the location of the Golden bullet has the potential of something special, but even the execution of that seems... fairly routine really.
Sorry but I think there are far more entertaining Bond films out there.
The other thing that struck me when rewatching Gun recently was how much of the Skyfall plot is borrowed from Gun. I assume it's drawn from the novel, although I've never read it.
I can't understand the disdain for Roger's performance in the film. Yes, it is slightly incongruous to how he developed the character in his other films, but within its own right the performance really stands out. I find it very difficult to see the Bond films as a series of film opposes to individual episodes with tenuous links to one another. Any attempt to find something cohesion in them is surely waste of time. It's better to judge them on there own merits and Roger Moore really delivers in this film; I'd be the first to pull him up if he under-delivered (as he tended to do).
Within the story, Bond is a slightly more reprehensible character, but the humour is never lost. Look at the Lazar scene: It's loaded with black humour and the scene is sharp and witty. However, it's dark and Roger never breaks a smile despite being humorous, confident and rather malevolent.
The same goes for the Anders scene in the hotel: He's still charming and nonchalant but he can turn on a dime; Bond isn't a man to be messed with. He's flinty by nature and the fact that Roger so capably shows this new dimension makes him so much more unpredictable. At the end of the scene he's brilliantly smooth but there is a hint of danger still there. It's helped along by a great turn by Maud Adams.
He's still comedic and light-hearted throughout the film, but he isn't overtly spoofing himself. His performance is taking it all very seriously, and for the audience it becomes easier for us to invest in the drama. Opposed to us acknowledging the whole thing is nonsense.
I know the film is a little slapstick, but the Roger Moore era had its charms. For me this shot is undeniably the Bond of old and the Bond I miss:
This film is undeniably entertaining, fun, sexy and mischievous. I understand why people don't like it but for me it's the strongest Roger Moore movie and the best film directed by Guy Hamilton within the Bond canon.