Why is TMWTGG just a......eh film?

MilleniumForce

Let's face it, TMWTGG is rarely number 1 on anyone's list. But it's often in the middle.

It's not bad, it's not great. It's not very memorable, and most non bond fans probably know it as the one with the bridge jump. But why???

What is it that stops people from putting it near the top and the bottom of their favourites list?

James Suzuki

I have the same feeling with FYEO. My Favourite Bond film, and Film of all time. But No-one seems to mention it at all on these forums much. TMWTGG is a good solid film. I actually prefer it to Goldfinger and Thunderball. I bought the John barry Soundtrack CD the other day. Was surprised how much I enjoyed the tracks.

Firemass

Honestly, I thought it was considered by many to be the worst Bond film.

It would rank higher on my list if JW Pepper wasn't included in the car chase. And delete that slide-whistle sound effect.

Great cast. Great locations. Intriguing story. TMWTGG is one of the coolest Bond films IMO.

I should also mention that one of my friends has long rated TMWTGG as his favorite Bond film. I asked him recently if it was still #1 and he said, "yup!"

DevilMayCare007

If TMWTGG had a good 2nd half it would probably be #10 on my list. Christopher Lee was an amazing villain and Moore did a good job.

Blackleiter

It's near the bottom of my list - the only Bond film I enjoy less is AVTAK.

Firemass

Blackleiter wrote:

It's near the bottom of my list - the only Bond film I enjoy less is AVTAK.

What's your excuse this time? Obviously, Moore's age isn't a "factor" in TMWTGG…

James Suzuki

Firemass wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

It's near the bottom of my list - the only Bond film I enjoy less is AVTAK.

What's your excuse this time? Obviously, Moore's age isn't a "factor" in TMWTGG…

Ouch. I'm a Moore fan and I love this film but I still understand the reasons people don't like.
-It lacks action. Whatever action you do see is tainted by slow-gags like with Kung Fu scene or few and far between each other.
-Its silly.
-RM hasn't found his Bond yet. James jumps from comical to downright angry and annoyed with Maud in the hotel.
-The Title Song is painful. Even if the score is good.
-Mary Goodnight. putting aside how hot she looks in that bikini, is irritating as hell. She feels like she belongs in a Pink Panther movie.
Apart from its faults its still a good film.

Firemass

Just kidding Blackleiter…I can easily see why TMWTGG bothers some people.

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

Just kidding Blackleiter…I can easily see why TMWTGG bothers some people.

Blackleiter dislikes Moore with 77% less intensity than Higgins dislikes Dalton. Approximately.

James Suzuki

chrisisall wrote:

Firemass wrote:

Just kidding Blackleiter…I can easily see why TMWTGG bothers some people.

Blackleiter dislikes Moore with 77% less intensity than Higgins dislikes Dalton. Approximately.

Something like that. )

Gassy Man

It feels and looks like a small, lackluster production. Still, it has more eye candy than many modern Bond movies -- Scaramanga's island home is wonderful, the little seaplane is interesting, and the Queen Elizabeth set is inspired. Like the overrated Goldeneye, it offers an intriguing premise: What if 007 goes up against a world-class assassin of equal or better skill? But unlike that film, The Man with the Golden Gun actually spends much more time with the villain, developing him to a greater level as a character.

The problem is, like Goldeneye, it still never really lives up to the premise. We don't truly see them dueling back and forth, one upping each other to keep the plot moving, so much as going through the machinations that ultimately and predictably will put them in some sort of one-on-one confrontation with predictable results. It's not the worst of the Bond films, but it's definitely in the bottom half.

Higgins

chrisisall wrote:

Blackleiter dislikes Moore with 77% less intensity than Higgins dislikes Dalton. Approximately.

You've gotten that approximately right

James Suzuki

Gassy Man wrote:

It feels and looks like a small, lackluster production. Still, it has more eye candy than many modern Bond movies -- Scaramanga's island home is wonderful, the little seaplane is interesting, and the Queen Elizabeth set is inspired. Like the overrated Goldeneye, it offers an intriguing premise: What if 007 goes up against a world-class assassin of equal or better skill? But unlike that film, The Man with the Golden Gun actually spends much more time with the villain, developing him to a greater level as a character.

The problem is, like Goldeneye, it still never really lives up to the premise. We don't truly see them dueling back and forth, one upping each other to keep the plot moving, so much as going through the machinations that ultimately and predictably will put them in some sort of one-on-one confrontation with predictable results. It's not the worst of the Bond films, but it's definitely in the bottom half.

Great comment there Gassy Man. Some insight there. I agree that the concept of Bond meeting his match with an assassin was underdone. I would love to see EoN approach this concept

broadshoulder

Gassy Man wrote:

It feels and looks like a small, lackluster production. Still, it has more eye candy than many modern Bond movies -- Scaramanga's island home is wonderful, the little seaplane is interesting, and the Queen Elizabeth set is inspired. Like the overrated Goldeneye, it offers an intriguing premise: What if 007 goes up against a world-class assassin of equal or better skill? But unlike that film, The Man with the Golden Gun actually spends much more time with the villain, developing him to a greater level as a character.

f.

Good points. When it came out the Far East was a spectacular destination with Hong Kong,Macau and Bangkok leaping off the screen. The music CD is quite wonderful.


I rate it above the Brosnan Bonds

Gassy Man

{[]

M 'n' M

I think the other problem is the story. It all starts well with the scaramanga contract on bond but then falls apart with the solar plot and the tokenistic blowing up of the villains den. Oh - and sheriff pepper , the jah jah Binks of the bond series

James Suzuki

M n M wrote:

I think the other problem is the story. It all starts well with the scaramanga contract on bond but then falls apart with the solar plot and the tokenistic blowing up of the villains den. Oh - and sheriff pepper , the jah jah Binks of the bond series

Yeah. The Plot felt rushed. And the whole cat and mouse scenario of Bond and scaramanga takes a backseat to the Solex Agitator. Something which causes most of us to yawn in our seats

Moore Than

James Suzuki wrote:

Yeah. The Plot felt rushed. And the whole cat and mouse scenario of Bond and scaramanga takes a backseat to the Solex Agitator. Something which causes most of us to yawn in our seats

No yawning from me. We take our electricity supply for granted these days, but that was not the case back then, certainly in the UK. There was an oil crisis, fuel was scarce, the government imposed a three day working week in order to reduce electricity consumption. I vividly remember the regular power cuts. So, a device that could harness energy from the sun was particularly relevant to the time.

broadshoulder

Moore Than wrote:

James Suzuki wrote:

Yeah. The Plot felt rushed. And the whole cat and mouse scenario of Bond and scaramanga takes a backseat to the Solex Agitator. Something which causes most of us to yawn in our seats

No yawning from me. We take our electricity supply for granted these days, but that was not the case back then, certainly in the UK. There was an oil crisis, fuel was scarce, the government imposed a three day working week in order to reduce electricity consumption. I vividly remember the regular power cuts. So, a device that could harness energy from the sun was particularly relevant to the time.

Your right of course - context is everything

It was headline news at the time. Just like the world was geared for unilateral nuclear war at the time of octopussy

James Suzuki

True. I guess we forget that TMWTGG was made for an audience in 1974.

Higgins

.... and TMWTGG was made for the big screen.

Seeing it on a crappy little tv (like Sir Miles does - therefore he likes the small and tearful Dalton outings) will likely miss you out a lot of the sheer eyecandy that is in TMWTGG -{

Thunderpussy

Come on James 1974

Thunderpussy

I remember a special on ITV on the release of Moonraker, at the
Time I hadn't seen TMWTGG. The clip of the car jump, still blew
My mind thought it was freaking amazing ! -{

James Suzuki

Thunderpussy wrote:

Come on James 1974

Filmed in 74, came out 75? Anyway. Always learning, ae Tp?

Thunderpussy

) As always.

Higgins

James Suzuki wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

Come on James 1974

Filmed in 74, came out 75? Anyway. Always learning, ae Tp?

"The Man with the Golden Gun was premiered at the Odeon Leicester Square in London on 19 December 1974" :v

chrisisall

broadshoulder wrote:

I rate it above the Brosnan Bonds

In honour of YOU, I think that I shall end every one of my posts from now on with:
"... at least it was better than For Your Eyes Only." )

broadshoulder

chrisisall wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

I rate it above the Brosnan Bonds

In honour of YOU, I think that I shall end every one of my posts from now on with:
"... at least it was better than For Your Eyes Only." )

Sorry but I don't rate them,They make my teeth itch and bring me out in hives. There are some here who don't rate Moore, there's some here who don't rate Dalton....i don't like the Brozzers

In a successful discussion group people have different opinions. That's why its called a discussion group.

chrisisall

broadshoulder wrote:

.i don't like the Brozzers

LOL, and in most every instance, no matter the film being discussed, you must find a way to work in that you don't like Brosnan's films.

Well, at least they're better than FYEO.
)

DEFIANT 74205

MilleniumForce wrote:

Let's face it, TMWTGG is rarely number 1 on anyone's list. But it's often in the middle.

It's not bad, it's not great. It's not very memorable, and most non bond fans probably know it as the one with the bridge jump. But why???

What is it that stops people from putting it near the top and the bottom of their favourites list?

It's quite a bit lower than the middle on my list, but not quite at the very bottom. I do have a soft spot for this film, given that it is the very first Bond film I saw - on a TV, mind you, rather than on the big screen (I'm not THAT old!), and it's partially filmed in my former hometown of Hong Kong. I did enjoy at least the beginning of the film - the confrontation with Ms Anders at the Peninsula Hotel; the shooting outside Bottoms Up; the meeting with M and Q aboard the Queen Elizabeth, and the meeting with Lazar in Macau ... but I don't think there's much else to like aside from that.

Like most Bond films, I had hoped that this would be a little more like the novel. The idea of Bond taking on an infamous assassin as a test of his abilities is a great one, but I think the execution was rather poor.

James Suzuki wrote:

I have the same feeling with FYEO. My Favourite Bond film, and Film of all time. But No-one seems to mention it at all on these forums much. TMWTGG is a good solid film.

For Your Eyes Only is, in my view, the best of the Roger Moore films, by quite some margin. Along with Live and Let Die, it is the closest any Roger Moore Bond film has been to the novels of the same name.

broadshoulder

chrisisall wrote:

broadshoulder wrote:

.i don't like the Brozzers

LOL, and in most every instance, no matter the film being discussed, you must find a way to work in that you don't like Brosnan's films.

Well, at least they're better than FYEO.
)

Tsk tsk tsk...