Blu-ray Review HTF BLU-RAY REVIEW: The Man with the Golden Gun (1 Viewer)

[Nelson Au]

 

Here's a definition:

It's a racing term. Certain horses run better on certain courses. HORSES FOR COURSES - "A mostly British expression urging someone to stick to the thing he knows best, 'horses for courses' comes from the horse racing world, where it is widely assumed that some horses race better on certain courses than on others. In 1898 a British writer noted in the first recorded use of the expression: 'A familiar phrase on the turf is 'horses for courses.'" From the "Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997, Page 339).

 

Or another definition that is much more appropriate:
 

Horses for courses means that what is suitable for one person or situation might be unsuitable for another.

 

I've heard George Martin use it to say how people prefer The Beatles White album as a double album, while he thought it would have been better as a single album. So I thought it seemed applicable here. Some like the FYEO pre-title sequence, others don't.
 

Thanks for the link to the post above, that was interesting to read. I had not realized Maibaum's story was diluted by Wilson. That is unfortunate.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Quote:


I didn't think it was funny. I found it stupid, trite, campy, and at odds with the rest of the film. Storywise, it makes no sense at all. The original pre-title sequence consisted of the sinking of the trawler followed by the machine-gun assault on the yacht which ended with a push into close-up of Malena's eyes. She's thinking about revenge. The opening bars of the title song "For Your Eyes Only" are heard over the extreme close-up of her eyes for a moment before the opening titles start. The helicopter / Blofeld camp was shot later and then the order was shuffled around because the producers wanted to start with their particular brand of humor. The whole thing is too desperate for a cheap laugh.

Hence, why I qualified my comment with "others may not agree". I agree that in context with the rest of the story it didn't make sense, since there was no other connection to Blofeld or his organization; however, I look at that opening as sort of a denoument to all of Bond's earlier clashes with Blofeld and a supposed farewell to the type of over-the-top "super" villain that populated a lot of Bond films. The story then starts proper, showing that the series is taking a more serious direction with less nutty, broad comedy and a more "realistic" type of villain for Bond to contend with. IMO, the intent was to show a clean break between Moore's old Bond and the "new" one they were supposedly going to build; however, I don't think the producers thought that FYEO was all that successful an experiment box office-wise, because they immediately returned to a more comedy-centric portrayal of the character. They decided that what drew audiences to Moore's Bond was the lighter, campier tone that most of the Moore films contained.  

 

[Worth]

The Eyes Only beginning was also something of a "screw you" to producer Kevin McClory, who had successfully sued for the rights to the Blofeld character and had begun prepping what would become Never Say Never Again with Sean Connery.returning to the role of Bond.

 

[Richard--W]

Worth, you hit the nail on the head.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

Hence, why I qualified my comment with "others may not agree". I agree that in context with the rest of the story it didn't make sense, since there was no other connection to Blofeld or his organization; however, I look at that opening as sort of a denoument to all of Bond's earlier clashes with Blofeld and a supposed farewell to the type of over-the-top "super" villain that populated a lot of Bond films. The story then starts proper, showing that the series is taking a more serious direction with less nutty, broad comedy and a more "realistic" type of villain for Bond to contend with. IMO, the intent was to show a clean break between Moore's old Bond and the "new" one they were supposedly going to build;

 

You're reading too much into it. The producers intended to say nothing of the kind. The opening title sequence doesn't say that. It's a just a bad comedy scene. It is true that after the criticism Moonraker received, the producers decided to make the next film more down-to-earth and realistic. That much was a conscious decision. They didn't decide to make all the films that way, just For Your Eyes Only. Moviegoers appreciated it. For Your Eyes Only was well-received and very successful.

 

however, I don't think the producers thought that FYEO was all that successful an experiment box office-wise, because they immediately returned to a more comedy-centric portrayal of the character. They decided that what drew audiences to Moore's Bond was the lighter, campier tone that most of the Moore films contained.

 

For Your Eyes Only was badly screwed up by Michael G. Wilson and a director who wasn't ready yet, but it was very successful at the box-office. Richard Maibaum wrote a serious script in which a slightly spooked James Bond feels his own mortality and tries to pull himself through it. There were also moments of subtle humor and irony, but none of this survived the producer's creative controls and Glen's oblivious direction. After For Your Eyes Only, the producers lightened up a little, perhaps in deference to Roger Moore, but they never returned to the same degree of campiness as before. Wilson continued to rely on Richard Maibaum to write the films, and continued to screw around with Maibaum's scripts instead of leaving them alone. Maibaum's humor derived naturally out of the drama of a situation, whereas Wilson's sense of humor was always to impose some dumb skit into the middle of things.

 

[Andy_G]

Well gee Richard, you must not be much fun in book discussions! I think Edwin's reading of the opening of FYEO is perfectly plausible.

 

[Richard--W]

Edwin's reading is not plausible because it credits the producers with more intellect and planning than they are capable of.

 

You should hear me during script analysis with the writer and the actors.

That's when I'm really fun.

 

[Andy_G]

You're assuming that the producers had to have intended for that meaning in order for it to be plausible. I think in the case of a film, that isn't necessarily so.

 

[Osato]

May have to watch the film tonight in honor of Christopher lee.

 

[Osato]

Is there a good resource for more information about the cut trick camera scene from this film?

Here is the only still that I have ever seen:
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/539720c3e4b067f59011ec5a/t/53abfca3e4b006ce07f692da/1403780257675/

Hope the link works ok.
Michael Wilson mentions in the extras that very little outtake footage survives for this film. A shame.

 

[Osato]

Clearly that is Desmond's Q and carthorpe in the background?

 

[James 'Tiger' Lee]

Another Bond thread ruined by a troll

 

[Osato]

Giving this one another spin tonight in honor of Roger.

A fine looking blu Ray!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Nice, I just watched it earlier in the week. I've now watched all of Roger's 70s entries this week, and I think Golden Gun is still my favorite of that batch. And since I like all of the 70s ones more than all of the 80s ones, I guess that means Golden Gun is my favorite Moore film. But Moonraker is pretty close. I don't think it's nearly as outlandish as it seems. OK, the lasers in space are a little silly, but all of the ideas up until that point are pretty solid - in some ways less outlandish than some other Bond villain plots.

 

[Osato]

Some vintage on set interviews have just been posted:

Archive Interviews

Watch archive interviews from the set of The Man With The Golden Gun

www.mi6-hq.com

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Some vintage on set interviews have just been posted:

Archive Interviews

Watch archive interviews from the set of The Man With The Golden Gun

www.mi6-hq.com

Thank you for these. Very cool to see. This is one of my favorite Bond movies despite the fact it's one of the most unpopular.

 

[Osato]

Thank you for these. Very cool to see. This is one of my favorite Bond movies despite the fact it's one of the most unpopular.

Same here!!!

 

[Jeffrey D]

I always like to read a thread on Bond films- no matter the topic of which film it is, the threads always expand into which film or which Bond is preferred. I have all the films on disc (I don’t have Never Say Never Again), but have only seen-
Goldfinger
Live And Let Die
For Your Eyes Only
Golden Eye
Skyfall
Spectre
Obviously I have to get busy watching all the others, including Golden Gun.

 

[Osato]

I always like to read a thread on Bond films- no matter the topic of which film it is, the threads always expand into which film or which Bond is preferred. I have all the films on disc (I don’t have Never Say Never Again), but have only seen-
Goldfinger
Live And Let Die
For Your Eyes Only
Golden Eye
Skyfall
Spectre
Obviously I have to get busy watching all the others, including Golden Gun.

I’ve been slowly watching them again in order. I don’t think there’s a month that goes by that I don’t watch one.

On her majesty’s secret service is next for me.

These interviews make me want to go straight in to watching the man with the golden gun though.

 

[Tommy R]

I’ve mentioned it in other Bond threads, but I never tire of saying, that this is my favorite Roger Moore Bond film, and not so far down on my overall Bond rankings. I absolutely ADORE this movie. 70’s Bond at its finest. It has a sort of surreal quality to it that made Guy Hamilton’s films unique. Though I like aspects of the post-TSWLM era of Bond, I think that they’re missing a certain something, and the fact that John Glen says TSWLM was his favorite Bond movie shows in his films, and I think that made his era a little dull, especially when Dalton came along, who deserved a director with a fresher take.

Sorry for the tangent, but yeah, TMWTGG is awesome!

 

[Osato]

I’ve mentioned it in other Bond threads, but I never tire of saying, that this is my favorite Roger Moore Bond film, and not so far down on my overall Bond rankings. I absolutely ADORE this movie. 70’s Bond at its finest. It has a sort of surreal quality to it that made Guy Hamilton’s films unique. Though I like aspects of the post-TSWLM era of Bond, I think that they’re missing a certain something, and the fact that John Glen says TSWLM was his favorite Bond movie shows in his films, and I think that made his era a little dull, especially when Dalton came along, who deserved a director with a fresher take.

Sorry for the tangent, but yeah, TMWTGG is awesome!

It’s hard to go wrong with Roger for me.
I watch this one a lot.

Christopher Lee is great. I live a lot of the music. The action is fun too.
I understand the criticisms of the films but they don’t bother me either.