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
Yeah I don't know if it was the photography or director or what but I've always felt that TMWTGG looks and feels cheap, like a B movie. Which is weird because in some scenes you can tell they had money, but most of the film just has this grotty grindhousey look to it imo, which I don't think is a good fit for the film at all (there are some exceptions though, the scenes on the beach for example are nice and exotic feeling). People say that about LTK but I don't think that film looked cheap. It just looked and felt like an 80s action movie, which given the locations and the script was perfect for it.
I think they knew TWMTGG wasn't great visually as well because TSWLM really looks and feels like a blockbuster. They righted so many wrongs with that film.
TMWTGG is an odd duck that looks like those sleazy Bond knock offs coming out of Asia in the 70's.
I remember thinking even as a teenager that something wasn't quite right about it.
It does look more exotic than LTK though which, despite some great aspects, really feels like a tv movie much of the time.
I agree there's some good location shooting, I find it hard to pinpoint what it is that's off but I agree with @Minion that there's just something sleazy about it. I think the general grotty, seedy atmosphere of the film/the production design just didn't suit Moore's Bond imo. Which is weird because we saw him tangling with a drug kingpin in a rough part of Harlem before and that felt fine. I don't know what it is but there's a real B movie vibe there for me and it's part of the reason I don't like the film. Probably just the lower budget and the poorly directed/put together slapstick sequences. I do love the kickboxing scene though.
I really just can't get into TMWTGG at all. Even the good bits make me angry because I see them as wasted potential and the film as a whole just feels poorly put together to me. DAD for example has loads of bad bits but for some reason seems to hold it together better imo, the crap bits seem to gel more consistently with the good scenes. Whereas in TMWTGG the bright spots stick out for all the wrong reasons.
From Moore's era there's a trilogy I enjoy. LALD (flawed but good), TSWLM (one of the very best) and OP (not quite as good but still brilliant). The rest I can take or leave and I'd say Gun is by far the weakest of his lot, if not the whole series.
I never really thought LTK looked cheap/like a TV movie, except maybe the bar fight. I think it's because the film is full of spectacle and great stunts, and Sanchez's mansion for example always felt really lavish and extravagent. It has a real 80s action movie vibe to it but that's one of the reasons it's my favourite. Pushes Bond out of his comfort zone into brave new territory but still has enough familiar elements to feel distinctly Bond.
LTK, though I'd say looks a bit like a Cannon Group film in terms of picture quality, grain and color, but with more elaborate stunts and action.
The film, however, feels somewhat constrained, as well as cheaper and smaller than it should be. I think the cinematography is lacking, in terms of shot composition. In this regard, the film doesn't have the great style of say, say, OHMSS. One of the things it lacks is more panoramic establishing shots: we appear in Beirut out of nowhere; in Macau, there is a fine dolly back/zoom-out shot, but a bigger look at the city from above would've been more impressive; and Hai Fat's house --and Bangkok in general-- gets a similarly modest introduction. On the other hand, I do like the film's typically gritty seventies look.
It's like Brock Lesnar : WWE needs him , Lesnar doesnt really need WWE and can charge accordingly.
Well summarized.
Hmm. Maybe.
I think the use of interior sets also adds to this "cheaper" feel. The whole first half hour mainly in Felix's house or in and around Key West for instance definitely has a small screen style to it in my view.
Like GG, LTK does feel rather constrained but MWTGG had the advantage of using more exotic locations in its story.
I'd have a Moore quartet rather than a trilogy though: TSWLM, MR, FYEO, OP. I think that sums up all the types of films that he's done as Bond, and I prefer OP to LALD myself.
I can see where you're coming from regarding the seedy element. I think it's the first film where we have an exposed buttock (at the club) replete with raunchy Benny Hill sound effect, not to mention 'Chew Me' a bit later as well as the sumo wrestler incident. I'd say a lot of this 'perception' of sleaze is also on account of Barry experimenting with a new sound though, rather than the aesthetics which I still contend are quite 'high class' Bond, at least in terms of Hamilton's entries. The car chase for example is magnificent, and again very atmospheric, but once more impacted by Barry's sound cue at the end. The film doesn't seem to have the budget of LALD, but it's quite a bit more colourful. It's very 70s though, that's for sure.
It's been a while since I've viewed it, but I'm tempted to do so again to see if I can notice what you're referring to in terms of establishing shots. I thought they did a pretty good job for the most part, but the film does have a slightly more 'hemmed in feel' compared to LALD.
I've always felt that the 70s films did this rather well though (although Gilbert was in another league) and it's only in the 80s with Glen that there was a noticeable change to a more 'close up' (and distinctly cheaper tv style) type of photography. My main criticism with the Glen entries (apart from FYEO which still retains that certain extravagance) is a tendency to film 'too tight' and close quarters, without properly establishing setting with wide angle shots. OP in India is a prime example, particularly during the rickshaw chase. The sets there were rather cheap too, especially when Bond got mixed up in the street show.
One way or the other, I find Glen's work on the Dalton films a lot better than on his first three films. TLD and LTK feel more competently made to me than the 80's Moore films.
(Rog fairs better in the 70's I'd say, his first four outings feel a lot fresher than his last three.)
There are some truly stunning shots in FYEO, e.g. when Melina and Gonzales are flying in to meet her parents, during the ski chase, when Bond arrives in Cortina, and of course the finale in Meteora.
Dalton's entrance brought some much needed energy to those final Glen films I'd say.
Though even those early 80's films have some really nice moments too of course ;)
Bang on the money! I happen to feel exactly the same way.
NSNA looks pretty poor. The locations themselves are good, but the way they are photographed make them look very un-glamorous. A bit like a naff holiday programme on tv.
It is a very mixed bag in that department, as is TLD come to think of it.
The Bratislava scenes remind me of The Third Man, the desert scenes are as exotic as you can get and the film overall evokes a Cold War atmosphere only matched by early 60's FRWL. And that one didn't even go behind the Iron Curtain.
Spot-on. FYEO has the best cinematography and makes the best use of its locations of any of the 80's Bond flicks. Only TLD compares in either regard.
I remember how impressed I was with Quantum during QOS. It was today's SPECTRE. They were mysterious and were infiltrated everywhere but it felt very real life. Especially the opera scene is one hell of a moment.
But then Spectre came and made it a second grade suborganisation of something that felt a lot less menacing.
In a world that doesn't like QOS and does like the classics from the 60's that's fine but for me, who likes both, that's as much of a sin than turning Ernst into a whiny kid.
I agree..Quantum itself seemed to me as SPECTRE was of old....the revealing of Blofeld and the easy way Bond brings the whole thing down ,does undermine the mystery and power that Mr White and Quantum had in CR & QOS.
You end up thinking 'is that it ? that's all Quantum was ? after all the build up ? '