It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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've felt the same thing for years. SP is the biggest non-climactic offender, IMO. It's the ride getting there that I get the most pleasure from in a Bond film. Those examples from other posters above as to strong finishes I'll go with.
It makes one ponder why they don't just come up with something as captivating for the ending as far as huge stunt to cap the thing rather than for the precredit teaser. [/quote]
Why cant we have both? OHMSS and LTK did it!
I do think SP missed a trick by not having that fight sequence with Hinx at the end, instead of that lame boat vs chopper ending!
Why cant we have both? OHMSS and LTK did it!
I do think SP missed a trick by not having that fight sequence with Hinx at the end, instead of that lame boat vs chopper ending! [/quote]
Or how about reviving the old "sting in the tale" that used to populate the '70s films where Hinx could've popped up when Bond has that self-satisfied smirk while taking out the Aston Martin at the end.
[/quote]
Hinx pulls around the corner. Bond sees him they give that 4th wall smirk and we see the machine guns pop out the front and it ends with rapid gunfire.
Yes it's a stretch. I know.
I actually quite like the fisticuff finale in The World Is Not Enough as well as A View To A Kill. There is this feeling of fatigue and desperation that elevates them, for me atleast.
I've long said that SP's greatest sin is just wasted potential. It's an OK movie, for what it is. But with an unlimited budget, a very keen viewing public, and unprecedented talent both sides of the camera . . . well, it really should've been more than just OK.
I can't have you saying things like that about Tina. ;)
That part is assential viewing for sure. When we realize Goodnight has now placed Bond in great danger, that's a real butt clencher.
Asstill remember the thrill I felt watching the scene for the first time. Butt incredibly, it has become even more exciting today.
Bottom line is derriere only one Britt Ekland.
+1
Agreed. I've never liked it having watched it the other week, I must say, I find it as boring as ever. The only redeeming feature is Christopher Lee as Scaramanga, IMO. Moore kicking that kid in the face too.
I disagree.Lee is excellent in this film as Scaramanga.Like Bond,hes charming and well spoken but is extremely deadly in an instant.The way he quickly turns from engaging dinner host,to the way he gets the drop on Bond in the dinner scene is my favourite scene in the film.
Despite the scripts shortcomings and his slightly anti-climactic death,i would rate him as the best of Moores Bond villains.
He's good at being charming and all that, but never deadly enough. He doesn't have the charismatic menace that comes through in so many of his other films. I think the filmmakers made a mistake in trying to make Scaramanga Bond's evil mirror-image. There's far more sizzle in a scenes like Scaramanga fondling Andrea's face with his golden gun. The character's fetishism and perversity should have built up instead of his charm and gentlemanly qualities. Bond villains are at bottom freaks and monsters.
It also doesn't help that Walken and Moore don't have much chemistry together. It sometimes feels like they're acting in different rooms. The same could be said for Moore alongside Grace Jones or Tanya Roberts. The only performer Moore has much of a rapport with in the film is Patrick Macnee.
Part of the reason I think Lee plays it right is that he displays, as said before, a certain charm and relaxation, and this quality is consistent with Scaramanga's luxurious lifestyle, his reputation and his confidence in his own abilities as a marksman. He could've taken a page from, say, Sanchez, and played certain moments with a greater sense of menace and rage —provided the script allowed for them, which this one doesn't in the same way as LTK does—, but this would've diminished the similarity between Bond and Scaramanga that is embedded, by accident or by design, in the film. Part of the charm of the film has to do with the fact that Scaramanga is like Bond. Both their jobs involve death, and they're good at them. They both have women, gadgets. Both operate mostly by themselves (no real henchman army for this villain). So it's fun to see these two characters who exude a certain cool go up against each other.
Had Scaramanga been, for instance, a psychotic like Zorin, a sense of distance would've been created between 007 and Scaramanga, and between the audience and Scaramanga. It's just as it happens in AVTAK, where we side with Bond and see the demented Zorin from afar, someone to be feared, and a fairly unrelatable figure. Whereas in this particular film, I think it's more gratifying to see these two cool-headed professionals in opposition to each other.
I would say the opposite. Someone like Dr. No is more menacing because he isn't bothering to be charming or even superficially human. The best Bond villains have something monstrous about them. Lee was a great Dracula and knew something about playing monsters, but in TMWTGG he was so relieved to depart from playing monsters that he made Scaramanga too ingratiating.
But I think there's something superficial in this concept. I don't find Scaramanga charming, because at bottom he's just a sociopath who gets off on killing people. That's all he is when you get down to it. His hedonism is shallow and empty, like his sense of style, because it masks an inner void.
He is profoundly different from Bond, who operates out of a sense of patriotism and the knowledge that he's killing people who want to do his country harm. Bond is not a sadist and he doesn't enjoy killing in cold blood. Scaramanga does, and he fetishizes guns and death, as the film shows in its few really effective moments (and as Fleming did). At bottom then he is a monster, and there is certainly something psychotic or sociopathic in his difference to human life. Lee's performance is almost a denial of this, and the film doesn't go as far as it could have in showing the evil of the character or making him as scary and dangerous as he should be. There's one good scene where Bond angrily tells off Scaramanga for claiming they're similar, but the rest of film doesn't call BS on Scaramanga's pretensions as effectively, and neither does Lee.
Interesting thoughts. I think for me, the fact this is fiction we're watching allows for a certain latitude in how the characters in the story are judged or perceived. This creates the possibility of acknowledging that Scaramanga's reprehensible qualities, while at the same time still appreciating the character's resourcefulness, skill, charisma, style. It's the same with several other fictional villains, not just in Bond films.
The similarities between 007 and Scaramanga, which I mentioned in my previous post, are admittedly superficial, to some extent. Generally speaking, they have to do mostly with the fact both their jobs involve the act of killing, and with their somewhat similar lifestyles. They are not related to their sense of morality and their underlying motivation for doing their respective jobs. For me, however, this doesn't negate the enjoyment that comes from seeing these parallels at play throughout the film.
Bond rightly tells off Scaramanga at the lunch scene, because as you say, deep down, they are not really the same. But what's intriguing about that moment is that Scaramanga's words still suggest the possibility that Bond could become like that, given the circumstances. For Scaramanga, killing began not as act of pure sadism and hedonism, but as revenge against someone who harmed a creature that was "his only real friend". One could have moral reservations about the concept of revenge, but the motivation for his first kill wasn't cruel and cold-hearted. Did that moment eventually cause him to become evil, or did it merely reveal the innate evil within him? He says he "discovered that I enjoyed killing people even more", which sounds like he was like that all along, but the film seems to hint at an unhappy, lonely childhood, so I think there's some room for debate there. Given that, and Bond's violent and dangerous profession, could 007's moral compass become similarly corrupted one day? Could the frequent exposure to the death of friends, colleagues and lovers, not to mention the deaths he himself causes, eventually take a toll on him?
Now, I don't think we're meant to think that's a real possibility, but merely to entertain the uncomfortable thought. It's fuel for the story, and food for thought. In this context, the superficial similarities between Bond and Scaramanga --their resourcefulness and charisma, women, gadgets, their appreciation of the finer things in life-- become a symbol of that idea.
Lastly, regarding the film failing to explore Scaramanga's dark side thoroughly, I agree they could've done more with that, but as I suggested in my previous post, it's a trade off. You gain the dramatic intensity of showing that, and you lose a certain sense of fun in the dynamic between Bond and Scaramanga, as well as reducing certain parallels between the characters (had Bond been a hero and Scaramanga an outright monster, irredeemably despicable, this would've been a fairly different film). Both approaches are feasible. It's possible the one we didn't get would've been better, but I'm not completely sure. It could certainly make for one terrific Bond film, though.
Speaking of Moore's tenure, I must be one of the few people on this planet who actually prefers his lesser praised entries, TMWTGG, MR, OP and AVTAK, to his more popular entries LALD, TSWLM and FYEO.
He first directly runs into Bond 3/4 through the movie and doesn't want to kill him and doesn't even seem the least bit concerned with him. I agree that more could have been done to build the tension. The great payoff at the climax seems a bit unearned.
Tee Hee and Baron Samedi are the highlights of LALD in my opinion, hilarious yet threatening the both of them!
True, however, right after the murder of Kalba, the character takes a u-turn into comic relief and goof and remains there for the rest of the film.
I'd probably agree with OHMSS being #1, if only Lazenby were not cast. Since he is, it can never reach that high in my rankings.