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

[Gary Seven]

Roger Moore's presence is one of the few things I enjoy from the 1970s Bonds, although I do think it was a mistake to reconfigure Bond as The Saint on a theatrical budget, which is essentially what happened.



I agree conmpletely as this is something I noted as well, a long time ago.


I do recall listening in the the commentary (I think it was Live and Let Die) that they had to change the character of Bond a bit to fit Moore's style. I never quite liked that Bond was more like Simon Templar than Bond, but I still find the Moore movies enjoyable just not among my favorite Bonds.

 

[Worth]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

For Your Eyes Only could have been a James Bond masterpiece if Micahel G. Wilson had kept his fingers out of the script.

That's a bang-on analysis of For Your Eyes Only, though I don't think nearly so highly of Daylights and Licence. I think the one-two punch of Wilson's lacklustre writing and Glen's bland direction nearly torpedoed the series. I've read that Peter Hunt was originally approached to do Eyes Only and I can't help but wonder what he might have brought to it.


The 70s Bonds had faults too numerous to mention, but there was still a sense of style and outrageous extravagence that pretty much disappeared by the 80s. Tom Mankiwewicz may have been weak on story, but at least he brought some real wit to the dialogue, something that's been sorely lacking ever since - including the recent Haggis scripted entries. And Lewis Gilbert may have veered too far into slapstick territory, but he had the eye of a real filmmaker, unlike Glen, who shot everything as though it was a big budget TV episode.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Worth
I've read that Peter Hunt was originally approached to do Eyes Only and I can't help but wonder what he might have brought to it..

Peter Hunt was approached to direct both The Spy Who Love Me and For Your Eyes Only, but withdrew from both projects citing scheduling conflicts. In interviews before he died, Hunt admitted that his real reason for withdrawing were the changes to the scripts and a distrust of the producers. He had helped to develop The Spy Who Loved Me with Maibaum in their first collaboration since OHMSS and had agreed to direct it, but he resented the addition of Jaws and other changes that the producers imposed. By the time For Your Eyes Only came around the gloves were off, and he sincerely wanted his former trainee John Glen to get the promotion..

And Lewis Gilbert may have veered too far into slapstick territory, but he had the eye of a real filmmaker, unlike Glen, who shot everything as though it was a big budget TV episode.

I don't disagree.

For all his deficiencies, I did appreciate the vitality and energy that John Glen brought to the 1980s Bonds. In comparison the 1970s Bonds were downright fossilized.


I went to see The Man With the Golden Gun for the first time in 1974 expecting Ian Fleming's intense brainwash / manhunt / redemption plot. I had just seen Roger Moore on TV in The Man Who Haunted Himself (from 1970) and I thought, wouldn't it be great if he plays Bond as seriously as he plays the doppelganger in that film. Instead, I saw a light comedy that only hints at the darker, edgier story underneath, a light comedy that wouldn't even let Christopher Lee be evil. I thought the humor was stupid, tasteless and mean-spirited. I questioned why is there a southern sheriff on vacation, a car that attaches wings and flies, a car that somersaults to a slide whistle, a midget in a suitcase, two little schoolgirls who defeat a master class of karate experts, a hidden office in a sunken ship. What does any of this nonsense have to do with James Bond? And since when does James Bond beat up on women and shove begging children into the filthy river. You could feel the audiences disappointment in the jokes and in the action. It's as if Roger Moore's lighter presence isn't connecting with the material, or the material isn't supporting the actor. Nobody thought the film was funny in 1974, and everybody thought the action was lame.


The action is risible, the worst in the series. The boat chase stolen from Puppet On a Chain (1971) for Live and Let Die (1973) is repeated here -- repeated -- and it hasn't improved any. Roger Moore was not skilled in martial arts, and he couldn't bluff it. No actor should be put into a situation that undermines his performance and makes him look like a fake. The gun duel in Scaramanga's funhouse that opens and closes the film is exactly the sort of stroll-through-the-park skit that the The Avengers and The Saint did so often and so well on television in the 1960s. It's cute and armchair clever, but there's no suspense or excitement, and no believability. We can't believe that Roger Moore is at risk or that he's dangerous to anyone else. For an action-adventure movie, this gun duel between titans should have taken place outdoors and on the run, on a grueling and booby-trapped foot-course that challenges Bond's endurance and skills the way an actual target range or training field does. It's antecedent is of course the manhunt in The Most Dangerous Game (1932) which was considerably tougher. Compare Count Zaroff in that film to Scaramanga, and tell me who is the real hunter. Compare Scaramanga's funhouse to the interactive target range Dirty Harry faces in Magnum Force (1973).


The entire film is like that, one TV skit after another. Compare the set-pieces in The Man With the Golden Gun to those in The Fiction Makers (1968) and Vendetta for the Saint (1969), two-part episodes of the popular series that were recut into theatrical features. Perhaps that's what I enjoy about The Man With the Golden Gun today; it's not really a James Bond movie, it's Simon Templar under an assumed name, light, fluffy, stylish, innocuous, and with nothing unpleasant or disagreeable happening to spoil Guy Hamilton's day.

 

[Sam Favate]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Don't get me wrong. I like Daniel Craig. Think he's a

great choice for the role. However, I prefer the older

Bond films that had a bit of campiness to them and a

villain that was more of a comic-book/Austin Powers

bad guy than a modern day terrorist.

I grew up with Moore in the role too, but I can't agree. In the early days of home video, I watched all the Bond movies (on CED!) and loved the Connery films best (and have since gotten them on VHS twice and DVD/BD twice). And the best of those were From Russia With Love and Dr. No, which were cold war spy thrillers. I think Craig's Casino Royale was the best film since From Russia. I love the Moore movies too (Spy is my favorite, but I like all of his, except View to a Kill; and yes, Moonraker is cool). But Connery owns the role.

 

[Steve Christou]

When I was young The Spy Who Loved Me was my favourite Bond film, watched it a bunch of times at the cinema. But growing up I switched allegiance to Sean Connery and You Only Live Twice became my favourite and still is. I also have a soft spot for the bonkers mad unloved Moonraker, another Bond I watched many times at the cinema in my youth. All three directed by Lewis Gilbert btw, who's still around and 90 years old!

 

[Richard--W]

You Only Live Twice was the first James Bond movie I saw, in the summer of 1970 when it was re-released on a double-feature. It was my favorite then, but after catching up with the films that preceded it and immediately followed it, I found that those were better films and I enjoyed them more. It never gets played now. I listen to the soundtrack occasionally, which is lovely. Gilbert made the same Bond film three times (You Only Live Twice (1967), The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979)), and they got progressively worse. He source of inspiration was closer to Blake Edwards and Inspector Clouseau than to Ian Fleming. He had a gift for pictorial composition, seamless editing, and an upbeat energy that I appreciate. His films look pretty, but his creative and dramatic contribution to the franchise was a total washout. Sub-zero.


In fact, Moonraker (1979) was widely acknowledged as a near-fatal setback to the franchise. At least it has the out-of-control centrifuge scene, in which Bond emerges from the cockpit stumbling and shaken, refusing help from the stuck-up lady doctor who challenged him to try it. It is the one single instance of character interaction in Gilbert's Bond trilogy that is even remotely connected to how real people behave. The rest is extreme artifice. In all fairness, Gilbert's Bond films seem archaic now, the most artificial, contrived, and phony entries in the series. They are as dated as Roger Moore's bell-bottom pants. They creak. I find them impossible to watch.

 

[Paul_Scott]

Agree about the score on YOLT. The film itself is one of my least favorites in the series, but the score is a real winner.


Interesting post on FYEO, Richard. I didn't know any of the original story construction, and yes, that all sounds far superior. I used to have a higher regard for that one, but the extremely silly Lynn Holly Johnson elements drag it down precipitously. If the whole film were tongue-in-cheek, that kind of stuff wouldn't offend nearly as much as it does. But so much else of the film is quite thoughtful to it's premise, that that stuff just sticks out and grates all the more.


The film still has some lovely scenery, good supporting characters, and good set pieces- but I no longer see it as quite deserving of the rep it has because of the things that drag it down. Sad.



I also think the Dalton films are excellent and LTK one of the absolute best in the series. The story construction in that one is exceptionally tight- not much wasted business at all compared to most of the series. Everything contributes to the forward progression, and things set up pay off much later. Take Bonds assault on the Wave Crest- not only is it a kick-ass set piece, but it advances the plot, and becomes an intrinsic element in how he takes down the villain (which is accomplished more by wit, and a lot of tiny cuts, rather than a barrage of firepower). Bond in LTK acts the way I would expect a spy to function in the real world-especially when his profession is so out in the open the way it is for most of this series. For much of the film he is hiding in plain sight, and undermining the villains power base from within- like a termite.

My only complaint with the film is the absurdly abrupt way Bond devastates the Drug complex. One tiny table fire, and they immediately evacuate the whole complex. What? no fire extinguishers? That should have been thought out a lot more.

Still,other than that misstep, a very underrated entry.

 

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott


Interesting post on FYEO, Richard. I didn't know any of the original story construction, and yes, that all sounds far superior. I used to have a higher regard for that one, but the extremely silly Lynn Holly Johnson elements drag it down precipitously. If the whole film were tongue-in-cheek, that kind of stuff wouldn't offend nearly as much as it does. But so much else of the film is quite thoughtful to it's premise, that that stuff just sticks out and grates all the more.


The film still has some lovely scenery, good supporting characters, and good set pieces- but I no longer see it as quite deserving of the rep it has because of the things that drag it down. Sad.

Taking into account its inherent flaws, I think For Your Eyes Only is a better Bond film than most fans give it credit for. There's a real story there, which is more important to me than non-stop action. Some of the action, like dragging Bond and Malina under water across the coral reefs, comes from Fleming (Maibaum sneaks in that idea from the novel Live and Let Die). It is the only time Roger Moore doesn't send up the character. In previous films he takes James Bond seriously at odd moments here and there, but in For Your Eyes Only he's feeling the character and playing it straight throughout. A serious performance from Moore makes all the difference. In the next two entries he would return to comedy. Of course, I prefer my fan edit which removes the problematic stuff and runs about 22 minutes shorter. Shorn of padding and Lynn-Holly Johnson's ebullience, you might say the tone of the film is almost funereal.

 

[Nelson Au]

I was just working on another project for a client where I needed to crunch through some hours at the drawing board and on CAD. I like to play DVD's during these projects in my studio and I had not done a Bond marathon is a long while. It was great to play some of those audio commentaries this time from the Ulitmate Collection DVD set that I had not heard yet. I usually listen to the main commentary, but this time I played the alternate tracks on Thunderball and You Only Live Twice.
 

But then I just went on a straight out Roger Moore binge and listened to his commentary track which I had not heard yet. I was saving that for the right occasion. So I went from Live and Let DIe up to Moonraker, Say what you will about his Bond, but I have a new view of Moore the person now after listening to the commentary. I really enjoyed it. Octopussy is next, though not sure about From a View to a Kill yet.

 

Moonraker is not a favorite, but I imagine some of those shots in Brazil and other parts of the world must look stunning on blu ray, I guess I'll give the blu ray a spin and actually watch it!

 

I'm really glad that Roger Moore was willing and available to do the commentary tracks. He had a nice conversation with us as the viewer. And it was great to hear his point of view on the character in For Your Eyes Only. Not his favorite, but I think it's a favorite of many fans. He preferred the lighter Bond, but I liked him in FYEO much better.
 

Brosnan's commentary on Die Another Day was nice, but I would have liked to hear more from him on the other films he did, especially Goldeneye. Can't wait to see that on blu-ray.

 

[Robin9]

Originally Posted by Nelson Au

But then I just went on a straight out Roger Moore binge and listened to his commentary track which I had not heard yet. . . . . Say what you will about his Bond, but I have a new view of Moore the person now after listening to the commentary. . . . I'm really glad that Roger Moore was willing and available to do the commentary tracks. He had a nice conversation with us as the viewer. And it was great to hear his point of view on the character in For Your Eyes Only.

 

Tell us more! What was you opinion of him before and what is it now?

 

I've never met Roger Moore but I've seen him on TV chat shows several times and I've read his book about making Live And Let Die. He's always struck me as an exceptionally likable man, very modest, who makes fun of himself.

 

Roger Moore is also one of a very short list of movie stars like Clark Gable, Tyrone Power, David Niven and Rock Hudson whom no-one ever speaks unfavorably about. Once on TV I saw his ex-wife Dorothy Squires, famous for being a tough cookie who spoke her mind uncompromisingly, and she didn't criticize him at all. I think - it was a hell of a long time ago so I may be wrong - she finished by saying "cos he's a super guy."



 

 

[Nelson Au]

Well, I had already known about his work with UNICEF and how he hates guns. So it was kinda of ironic that his best known character is one who uses a gun and is in such a violent profession. He just played that part down. I already had a sense of him being a likable person. I saw a PBS show that covered his career.

 

But like you said, he comes off as a very likable person and modest and down to earth. What struck me the most is how old he sounds. But what a memory! I am impressed by the depth of people he remembers from earlier work he's done at the start of his career. People he mentions that he worked with who became friends. And his memories of all the ladies he worked with, the naughty prank he played on Jane Seymour.

 

He talks about the work that Ken Adam did for the production design, I wouldn't have thought that he would have been at the studio that early on to see the sketches.
 

I was struck by how much he liked The Spy Who Loved Me, it is his favorite of all the Bonds he made. And how he spoke about particular scenes in For Your Eyes Only and how he had some differences with John Glen to make Bond more tough, rather then "Roger Moore" Bond. He spoke about how he liked the more comedic side of Bond. And also how they made a deliberate effort to keep his Bond different from Connery's Bond.

 

I grew up with Moore's Bond and his was the first Bond film I saw in the theater, The Man with the Golden Gun was the first I saw when I was old enough to know what was going on. But the very first Bond I saw in a theater was OHMSS! I knew Connery had played Bond. But it wasn't till later that I really came to appreciate Connery as Bond because it was more in line with the books. What was also interesting to hear is how influential a director like Guy Hamilton and particularly Lewis Gilbert liked to do the goofy comedic bits. He recounts them, though I forget a particular scene now, he says how he loved that bit or this bit of comedy. So they played up Moore's strengths. So I don't see it as Moore being the guy who made the Bond films less serious. That was probably a big take away.

 

I have to listen to what he says in Octopussy and From a View to a Kill. Particularly the last Bond film he made. I may buy his book now, his memoir.

 

[Richard--W]

Roger Moore is a gracious gentleman and a charming presence on the screen, but I wonder if he wasn't -- isn't -- too nice and gentle to play James Bond. I've listened to the commentaries, too, and ask myself, where did he get the notion that James Bond is the straight face in a comedy? Didn't he see the difference between Simon Templar and James Bond? He plays both characters as if they were the same.

 

[Nelson Au]

Yes, I happen to have one DVD set of The Saint. I've never been able to sit and watch all of it! I watched a few, and I can see what you mean Richard.

 

[bosque]

TMWTGG always seemd to have the lamest of endings for a major movie let alone for a Bond movie. Christopher Lee's villain gets bumped off almost of-screen and a good 20 minutes before the film limps to a close. And I can still remember watching TMWTGG when it was released in 1974 and feeling that the business with Scaramanga stalking Bond through the hall of mirrors was like something filched from an episode of Patrick Mcnee's Avengers TV show. However, having said all that, speaking to other Bond fans it's clear that those who grew up with Moore as Bond rather than Connery viewed him in a much more favorable light.

 

[Edwin-S]

 

So I don't see it as Moore being the guy who made the Bond films less serious.

 

Since they adapted to Moore's comedic strengths, I would think that...yes....Moore is responsible for the Bond films becoming less serious. There was always humour in the Bond series, but with Connery it was dryer and more urbane, while with Moore it was more broad . For example, I remember a scene in DAF where Bond tells some thug to get rid of a girl. He promptly picks her up, carries her to the window and throws her out, even though they are twenty+ stories up. She lands in a swimming pool. Bond's response is just a dry (I'm paraphrasing), "I meant by the door".

 

With Moore, the emphasis on comedy for its own sake became more pronounced. The worse thing is that the emphasis on broad comedy reduced the Bond series to parody; until the result was shit like "Moonraker" and "A View to a Kill".

 

 

[Nelson Au]

Well, Edwin, I'll give you that. It's true the producers and writers and directors all played up to Moore's strengths.

 

Wasn't Connery's line like, "Exceptionally fine shot." And the thug said, "I didn't know there was a pool there". But I agree, the Connery comedy was dry, and smarter too. Though the chase scene in the space buggy at the training center was pretty broad. I'll have to see it again!

 

I particularly like the line in Goldfinger when M tells Bond that Colonel Smithers is giving the briefing here.

 

[Edwin-S]

 

 

Wasn't Connery's line like, "Exceptionally fine shot." And the thug said, "I didn't know there was a pool there". But I agree, the Connery comedy was dry, and smarter too. Though the chase scene in the space buggy at the training center was pretty broad. I'll have to see it again!

 

The last line about not knowing there was a pool there rings a bell, so my memory of what Connery said just prior to that is obviously faulty. For some reason I thought he said by the door. It's been quite awhile since the last time I saw DAF. I also have to concur that the buggy chase was pretty broad, but I don't think anything in a Connery Bond ever came close to being as over top as Moore's stuff.

 

I'm not totally down on Moore. He had lots of good stuff as well. Others may not agree, but I think that opening scene with Blofeld in FYEO is classic.

 

 

Blofeld: Mr. Bond! Mr. Bond! We can do a deal! I'll buy you a delicatessen....in stainless steel!

Blofeld: Pleaase!

Bond: All right.(pats head) Keep your hair on.

Blofeld: Put me down! Put me down!

Bond: Oh! You want to get off?

 

Drops him down the chimney.


Too funny.

 

[Richard--W]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwin-S

... I think that opening scene with Blofeld in FYEO is classic.

 

 

Blofeld: Mr. Bond! Mr. Bond! We can do a deal! I'll buy you a delicatessen....in stainless steel!

Blofeld: Pleaase!

Bond: All right.(pats head) Keep your hair on.

Blofeld: Put me down! Put me down!

Bond: Oh! You want to get off?

 

Drops him down the chimney.

Too funny.



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.

 

[Nelson Au]

"Horses for courses", as they say.

 

That description for how FYEO was to start sounded much more in line with the film. Though I liked that they include the shot of Bond at Teresa's grave.

 

[Richard--W]

I don't know what "horses for courses" means, but see post 38 above.