The Man with the Golden Gun, was small in story and scale, looking at times
Like a TV movie. TSWLM brought back the grandeur and scale of the
Old Bonds. -{ reinvigorated the series and brought in a whole new generation
Of Bond fans ( Younger, better looking fans, Like Me ! ) ) SPY was a game
Changer. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The Man with the Golden Gun, was small in story and scale, looking at times
Like a TV movie. TSWLM brought back the grandeur and scale of the
Old Bonds. -{ reinvigorated the series and brought in a whole new generation
Of Bond fans ( Younger, better looking fans, Like Me ! ) ) SPY was a game
Changer. {[]
The Man With The Golden Gun was somewhat of a rushed production. I think they were trying to cash in on the success of Live And Let Die and establish Roger Moore as Bond a bit too quickly. It was never going to be made on the scale of The Spy Who Loved Me. But with more time to hone the script, it would likely be (generally) viewed nowadays in a more positive light. Especially, if they had upped the action, cut back on the silly humour, and made it more of a one-on-one between Bond and Francisco Scaramanga.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Don't get me wrong, I like it, but I think it is very overrated. Whilst the lotus is iconic, the submarine scenes, whilst still enjoyable, are quite stupid. The villain has a large lair that can be submerged underwater. Wooden acting. It screams 70's bond, and I still like it, I just think it's incredibly overrated.
Yes, I think so too. I don't think it was even Moore's best, let alone one of the best of the series. One of my biggest issues is Barbara Bach. Yes, good looking as she is, I think her acting was rather weak, and she does not convince me as a Russian agent (and I don't suppose the producers could've given her a less obvious code name?). The whole "Anglo-Soviet co-operation" concept is somewhat flawed - General Gogol and M acting as though they were old friends? Really? The Egyptian scenes were somewhat slow moving too.
Last, but most certainly not least, I didn't see anything in there that reminded me of Fleming. Maybe I'm being too critical; maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist to appreciate 1970s Bonds, but for me personally, this ranks 20th out of the 23 films so far. The 70s was the weakest decade for Bond. The only 1970s Bond that was remotely decent was Live and Let Die.
Don't get me wrong, I like it, but I think it is very overrated. Whilst the lotus is iconic, the submarine scenes, whilst still enjoyable, are quite stupid. The villain has a large lair that can be submerged underwater. Wooden acting. It screams 70's bond, and I still like it, I just think it's incredibly overrated.
One of my biggest issues is Barbara Bach. Yes, good looking as she is, I think her acting was rather weak, and she does not convince me as a Russian agent
What!? You mean you weren't convinced by her KGB Karate Chop!
Personally, I like the femininity in her performance.
I'm confused as to why any Bond fan wouldn't like the film when it encapsulates everything one would desire & expect from a 'traditional' Bond film. It makes no sense to dislike it.
I wouldn't say I dislike it, although I'm not particularly fond of the Roger Moore Bond films in general, but I do feel it's somewhat overrated. The PTS deserves all the kudos it receives, and I, like most fans, was blown away when I first saw it when TSWLM was released in theaters. And there's no doubt that when it was released it was the most spectacular looking and lavishly appointed Bond film since YOLT. But I am not as enamored of Jaws and some other aspects of TSWLM as many fans. Although an iconic henchman, I find Jaws to be too cartoonish (the indestructability aspect is overblown), and Stromberg is a rather dull villain. Again, it's not a bad film, but to me it isn't the near perfect Bond film that some fans seem to think it is. In my opinion, TSWLM isn't even the best Roger Moore Bond film (I think both FYEO and OP are better). And I have to disagree with the notion that "it makes no sense to dislike it". We all have our preferences and I don't really believe it has to "make sense" for one to dislike any Bond film. Hell, there are even fans who dislike Goldfinger! That's about as senseless as things can get, don't you think? )
"Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
I wouldn't say I dislike it, although I'm not particularly fond of the Roger Moore Bond films in general, but I do feel it's somewhat overrated. The PTS deserves all the kudos it receives, and I, like most fans, was blown away when I first saw it when TSWLM was released in theaters. And there's no doubt that when it was released it was the most spectacular looking and lavishly appointed Bond film since YOLT. But I am not as enamored of Jaws and some other aspects of TSWLM as many fans. Although an iconic henchman, I find Jaws to be too cartoonish (the indestructability aspect is overblown), and Stromberg is a rather dull villain. Again, it's not a bad film, but to me it isn't the near perfect Bond film that some fans seem to think it is. In my opinion, TSWLM isn't even the best Roger Moore Bond film (I think both FYEO and OP are better). And I have to disagree with the notion that "it makes no sense to dislike it". We all have our preferences and I don't really believe it has to "make sense" for one to dislike any Bond film. Hell, there are even fans who dislike Goldfinger! That's about as senseless as things can get, don't you think? )
It seems to me that many of us Bond fans like our films to follow a fixed formula - A sly villain in some bizarre lair with a plan of epic proportions that 007 foils with the aid of wit, gadgets & action. All assisted by some buxom beauty. And there's nothing wrong with that. With some deviations along the way it's a plan that's served EON well over fifty years. With this in mind I felt it made no sense to dislike THE SPY WHO LOVED ME which is the epitome of that very Bond formula.
That said, I heartily agree that tonally a film like GOLDFINGER is the better blend. For example, Jaws is no less a ridiculous creation than Oddjob & frankly, Stromberg's plan is no less barmy than Goldfinger's. However, one never feels GOLDFINGER's characters or plot situations are ridiculous (or at least I don't) because Oddjob & Goldfinger retain an odd menace throughout. Jaws & Stromberg don't, though Curt Jurgens does his best with his nifty shark pool.
Moore's interpretation of Bond may be the catalyst for comedy but I'd say Messrs Broccoli, Gilbert & Wood are really the ones to blame for any levels of cartoonish nonsense.
I'm confused as to why any Bond fan wouldn't like the film when it encapsulates everything one would desire & expect from a 'traditional' Bond film. It makes no sense to dislike it.
I wouldn't say I dislike it, although I'm not particularly fond of the Roger Moore Bond films in general, but I do feel it's somewhat overrated. The PTS deserves all the kudos it receives, and I, like most fans, was blown away when I first saw it when TSWLM was released in theaters. And there's no doubt that when it was released it was the most spectacular looking and lavishly appointed Bond film since YOLT. But I am not as enamored of Jaws and some other aspects of TSWLM as many fans. Although an iconic henchman, I find Jaws to be too cartoonish (the indestructability aspect is overblown), and Stromberg is a rather dull villain. Again, it's not a bad film, but to me it isn't the near perfect Bond film that some fans seem to think it is. In my opinion, TSWLM isn't even the best Roger Moore Bond film (I think both FYEO and OP are better). And I have to disagree with the notion that "it makes no sense to dislike it". We all have our preferences and I don't really believe it has to "make sense" for one to dislike any Bond film. Hell, there are even fans who dislike Goldfinger! That's about as senseless as things can get, don't you think? )
After his first two outings (and seeing the comic direction EON's films were going by then) I was actually not looking forward to this one when it came out.
The PTS was classic E0N stunt work and the Union Jack chute was a good audience pleaser.
I even enjoyed the scenes with Rog in uniform and the submarine base (though why he would have to be in uniform escaped me). It's been so long since I've seen the film that many parts of it are a bit fuzzy now (which gives you an idea of my opinion of it - I don't even own a DVD of it). The fact it's basically a remake of YOLT (lazy writing there but at that point EON was just trying to make as much money as they could because they kept increasing the budgets), but it didn't bother me too much. I never liked Jaws only because the name was a blatant exploitation of Spielberg's film and worse they made him indestructible. Sure, Oddjob was over the top (bouncing gold bars off his chest), but he did get electrocuted. Jaws is thrown off a speeding train and just gets his clothes dusty - and even kills a real shark with his teeth. Moving on....
I always like Jergens, but he seemed too old for the part and even came across to me as being bored. He was just another pseudo Blofeld, instead of a real original villain.
Bach was nice to look at, but she was totally unconvincing to me as a spy and she just can't act that well, though the role itself wasn't that really demanding.
Making Gogol and M into respectful chums made my head hurt....
The production values are obviously lavish as were the locations, but by that time one did not expect less from EON. The Lotus sub was a nice touch, though the action scenes it appeared in were just a repeat of Little Nellie with a different vehicle. Creative gadget but EON just painting by numbers.
All in all it was the perfect Rog/EON film for that time. Another big, loud, expensive travelogue with lots of action, cartoon characters and gadgets. They were just giving the audience what they expected from Bond films then and that was fine. For me personally, I'd rather watch FYEO or OP - my favorite Moore entries. If I want to watch a big, loud, action Bond film like this one, I'd watch TB. At least the plot is more realistic (stealing nuclear warheads still is unsettling to me) and the villains more realistic (save for the whole dressing in black for the minions - not very subtle outfits for your security around rich resorts in sunny climates). At least it seems more like Fleming territory whereas TSWLM is merely a lazy clone of Roald Dahl's work.
After his first two outings (and seeing the comic direction EON's films were going by then) I was actually not looking forward to this one when it came out.
The PTS was classic E0N stunt work and the Union Jack chute was a good audience pleaser.
I even enjoyed the scenes with Rog in uniform and the submarine base (though why he would have to be in uniform escaped me). It's been so long since I've seen the film that many parts of it are a bit fuzzy now (which gives you an idea of my opinion of it - I don't even own a DVD of it). The fact it's basically a remake of YOLT (lazy writing there but at that point EON was just trying to make as much money as they could because they kept increasing the budgets), but it didn't bother me too much. I never liked Jaws only because the name was a blatant exploitation of Spielberg's film and worse they made him indestructible. Sure, Oddjob was over the top (bouncing gold bars off his chest), but he did get electrocuted. Jaws is thrown off a speeding train and just gets his clothes dusty - and even kills a real shark with his teeth. Moving on....
I always like Jergens, but he seemed too old for the part and even came across to me as being bored. He was just another pseudo Blofeld, instead of a real original villain.
Bach was nice to look at, but she was totally unconvincing to me as a spy and she just can't act that well, though the role itself wasn't that really demanding.
Making Gogol and M into respectful chums made my head hurt....
The production values are obviously lavish as were the locations, but by that time one did not expect less from EON. The Lotus sub was a nice touch, though the action scenes it appeared in were just a repeat of Little Nellie with a different vehicle. Creative gadget but EON just painting by numbers.
All in all it was the perfect Rog/EON film for that time. Another big, loud, expensive travelogue with lots of action, cartoon characters and gadgets. They were just giving the audience what they expected from Bond films then and that was fine. For me personally, I'd rather watch FYEO or OP - my favorite Moore entries. If I want to watch a big, loud, action Bond film like this one, I'd watch TB. At least the plot is more realistic (stealing nuclear warheads still is unsettling to me) and the villains more realistic (save for the whole dressing in black for the minions - not very subtle outfits for your security around rich resorts in sunny climates). At least it seems more like Fleming territory whereas TSWLM is merely a lazy clone of Roald Dahl's work.
You Only Live Twice is the best version of the three over-the-top hijacking films -- You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker. They are essentially the same story with the details switched up. But The Spy Who Loved Me is a good Bond film. Moore works well, and the production pulls out many of the stops that had made the previous Moore films seem pedestrian. The problem with this film is that not all of the details work. It lacks the sweep of You Only Live Twice, for instance, and the villain is even more ho hum -- at least You Only Live Twice had Blofeld. The set pieces, while expensive, aren't as interesting. It is, however, a fun ride, and in parts, it is far more adventurous and romantic than many of Moore's films. It might have been better had it been made in the 1960s, but I wouldn't fault Moore's performance as Bond. He is as good here as in For Your Eyes Only.
For me, I wouldn't say it is overrated, it's just not one of my top favorites.
1, GE 2, CR 3, SF 4, TWINE 5, Spectre 6, TMWTGG 7, DAD 8, LALD 9, AVTAK 10, LTK 11, Octopussy 12, Moonraker 13, TLD 14, GF 15, QOS 16, Tomorrow 17, FYEO 18. TSWLM Not seen much: Dr. No, Russia, Thunderball, Twice, Majesty.
1: Brosnan 2: Craig 3: Moore 4: Dalton 5: Connery and 6: Lazenby
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,819MI6 Agent
edited February 2015
This very topic highlights that each Bond era, reflects different audience moods as well as artistry and technical dexterity.
I'm biased. I am one of those "Bond is Sci Fi" fans, citing films like YOLT, MRK, DAD and of course TSWLM as clear examples. The story is not original - baddie will blow up the world so he can create his own Utopia. Moonraker repeats this in space as Spy does it underwater. However though the story is obvious, the casting, gadgets miniatures, locations and visuals make it a big scale treat of a film. From Sir Roger and Ms Bach rattling around the pyramids, to zooming across Sardinia in the Boatus the film keeps its travelogue promises. The Liparus and Stomberg's semi tarantula like Atlantis complex are pure sci fi in concept, but u
Ta Bond Sci Fi, like Spectres volcano complex, and one film away Drax's Space station. It's humour is tongue in cheek, engaging and all in all the film is a fun ride. Over the top? A bit full of itself? Excess to a new level? Oh yes, all of the above.
But that is what makes it such a great, fun, escapist, Bond Film. Overrated? No.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
You Only Live Twice is the best version of the three over-the-top hijacking films -- You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me, and Moonraker. They are essentially the same story with the details switched up. But The Spy Who Loved Me is a good Bond film. Moore works well, and the production pulls out many of the stops that had made the previous Moore films seem pedestrian. The problem with this film is that not all of the details work. It lacks the sweep of You Only Live Twice, for instance, and the villain is even more ho hum -- at least You Only Live Twice had Blofeld. The set pieces, while expensive, aren't as interesting. It is, however, a fun ride, and in parts, it is far more adventurous and romantic than many of Moore's films. It might have been better had it been made in the 1960s, but I wouldn't fault Moore's performance as Bond. He is as good here as in For Your Eyes Only.
You Only Live Twice is a guilty pleasure, The Spy Who Loved Me is a real pleasure.
The Spy Who Loved Me rules. {[]
I really do enjoy YOLT a lot, but it falls short mainly due to Sean Connery's lacklustre performance, Bond's Japanese disguise, and Donald Pleasance's weak Blofeld.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
After his first two outings (and seeing the comic direction EON's films were going by then) I was actually not looking forward to this one when it came out.
The PTS was classic E0N stunt work and the Union Jack chute was a good audience pleaser.
I even enjoyed the scenes with Rog in uniform and the submarine base (though why he would have to be in uniform escaped me). It's been so long since I've seen the film that many parts of it are a bit fuzzy now (which gives you an idea of my opinion of it - I don't even own a DVD of it). The fact it's basically a remake of YOLT (lazy writing there but at that point EON was just trying to make as much money as they could because they kept increasing the budgets), but it didn't bother me too much. I never liked Jaws only because the name was a blatant exploitation of Spielberg's film and worse they made him indestructible. Sure, Oddjob was over the top (bouncing gold bars off his chest), but he did get electrocuted. Jaws is thrown off a speeding train and just gets his clothes dusty - and even kills a real shark with his teeth. Moving on....
I always like Jergens, but he seemed too old for the part and even came across to me as being bored. He was just another pseudo Blofeld, instead of a real original villain.
Bach was nice to look at, but she was totally unconvincing to me as a spy and she just can't act that well, though the role itself wasn't that really demanding.
Making Gogol and M into respectful chums made my head hurt....
The production values are obviously lavish as were the locations, but by that time one did not expect less from EON. The Lotus sub was a nice touch, though the action scenes it appeared in were just a repeat of Little Nellie with a different vehicle. Creative gadget but EON just painting by numbers.
All in all it was the perfect Rog/EON film for that time. Another big, loud, expensive travelogue with lots of action, cartoon characters and gadgets. They were just giving the audience what they expected from Bond films then and that was fine. For me personally, I'd rather watch FYEO or OP - my favorite Moore entries. If I want to watch a big, loud, action Bond film like this one, I'd watch TB. At least the plot is more realistic (stealing nuclear warheads still is unsettling to me) and the villains more realistic (save for the whole dressing in black for the minions - not very subtle outfits for your security around rich resorts in sunny climates). At least it seems more like Fleming territory whereas TSWLM is merely a lazy clone of Roald Dahl's work.
Comments
Like a TV movie.
Old Bonds. -{ reinvigorated the series and brought in a whole new generation
Of Bond fans ( Younger, better looking fans, Like Me !
Changer. {[]
I can't believe that you really wrote this 8-)
Even worse - you really believe it to be true
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The Man With The Golden Gun was somewhat of a rushed production. I think they were trying to cash in on the success of Live And Let Die and establish Roger Moore as Bond a bit too quickly. It was never going to be made on the scale of The Spy Who Loved Me. But with more time to hone the script, it would likely be (generally) viewed nowadays in a more positive light. Especially, if they had upped the action, cut back on the silly humour, and made it more of a one-on-one between Bond and Francisco Scaramanga.
Indeed.
She hardly ever seems to get credit for her part in the film nowadays.
www.metaltalk.net for Daily Metal News, Reviews and Opinions. \m/
Yes, I think so too. I don't think it was even Moore's best, let alone one of the best of the series. One of my biggest issues is Barbara Bach. Yes, good looking as she is, I think her acting was rather weak, and she does not convince me as a Russian agent (and I don't suppose the producers could've given her a less obvious code name?). The whole "Anglo-Soviet co-operation" concept is somewhat flawed - General Gogol and M acting as though they were old friends? Really? The Egyptian scenes were somewhat slow moving too.
Last, but most certainly not least, I didn't see anything in there that reminded me of Fleming. Maybe I'm being too critical; maybe I'm too much of a traditionalist to appreciate 1970s Bonds, but for me personally, this ranks 20th out of the 23 films so far. The 70s was the weakest decade for Bond. The only 1970s Bond that was remotely decent was Live and Let Die.
So yes, it's overrated.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Don't get me wrong.
Her acting is absolutely wooden - but who cares? :x
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What!? You mean you weren't convinced by her KGB Karate Chop!
Personally, I like the femininity in her performance.
I wouldn't say I dislike it, although I'm not particularly fond of the Roger Moore Bond films in general, but I do feel it's somewhat overrated. The PTS deserves all the kudos it receives, and I, like most fans, was blown away when I first saw it when TSWLM was released in theaters. And there's no doubt that when it was released it was the most spectacular looking and lavishly appointed Bond film since YOLT. But I am not as enamored of Jaws and some other aspects of TSWLM as many fans. Although an iconic henchman, I find Jaws to be too cartoonish (the indestructability aspect is overblown), and Stromberg is a rather dull villain. Again, it's not a bad film, but to me it isn't the near perfect Bond film that some fans seem to think it is. In my opinion, TSWLM isn't even the best Roger Moore Bond film (I think both FYEO and OP are better). And I have to disagree with the notion that "it makes no sense to dislike it". We all have our preferences and I don't really believe it has to "make sense" for one to dislike any Bond film. Hell, there are even fans who dislike Goldfinger! That's about as senseless as things can get, don't you think?
It seems to me that many of us Bond fans like our films to follow a fixed formula - A sly villain in some bizarre lair with a plan of epic proportions that 007 foils with the aid of wit, gadgets & action. All assisted by some buxom beauty. And there's nothing wrong with that. With some deviations along the way it's a plan that's served EON well over fifty years. With this in mind I felt it made no sense to dislike THE SPY WHO LOVED ME which is the epitome of that very Bond formula.
That said, I heartily agree that tonally a film like GOLDFINGER is the better blend. For example, Jaws is no less a ridiculous creation than Oddjob & frankly, Stromberg's plan is no less barmy than Goldfinger's. However, one never feels GOLDFINGER's characters or plot situations are ridiculous (or at least I don't) because Oddjob & Goldfinger retain an odd menace throughout. Jaws & Stromberg don't, though Curt Jurgens does his best with his nifty shark pool.
Moore's interpretation of Bond may be the catalyst for comedy but I'd say Messrs Broccoli, Gilbert & Wood are really the ones to blame for any levels of cartoonish nonsense.
1. Thunderball 2. FRWL 3. Casino Royale 4. TLD 5. OHMSS 6. SkyFall 7. GF 8. TSWLM 9. GE 10. FYEO
Speak for yourself, Higgins! EON is still making plenty of money from this old fart!
Blasphemy! The contrast between Connery and Moore alone would lift YOLT above TSWLM. (IMO of course!
+1.
The PTS was classic E0N stunt work and the Union Jack chute was a good audience pleaser.
I even enjoyed the scenes with Rog in uniform and the submarine base (though why he would have to be in uniform escaped me). It's been so long since I've seen the film that many parts of it are a bit fuzzy now (which gives you an idea of my opinion of it - I don't even own a DVD of it). The fact it's basically a remake of YOLT (lazy writing there but at that point EON was just trying to make as much money as they could because they kept increasing the budgets), but it didn't bother me too much. I never liked Jaws only because the name was a blatant exploitation of Spielberg's film and worse they made him indestructible. Sure, Oddjob was over the top (bouncing gold bars off his chest), but he did get electrocuted. Jaws is thrown off a speeding train and just gets his clothes dusty - and even kills a real shark with his teeth. Moving on....
I always like Jergens, but he seemed too old for the part and even came across to me as being bored. He was just another pseudo Blofeld, instead of a real original villain.
Bach was nice to look at, but she was totally unconvincing to me as a spy and she just can't act that well, though the role itself wasn't that really demanding.
Making Gogol and M into respectful chums made my head hurt....
The production values are obviously lavish as were the locations, but by that time one did not expect less from EON. The Lotus sub was a nice touch, though the action scenes it appeared in were just a repeat of Little Nellie with a different vehicle. Creative gadget but EON just painting by numbers.
All in all it was the perfect Rog/EON film for that time. Another big, loud, expensive travelogue with lots of action, cartoon characters and gadgets. They were just giving the audience what they expected from Bond films then and that was fine. For me personally, I'd rather watch FYEO or OP - my favorite Moore entries. If I want to watch a big, loud, action Bond film like this one, I'd watch TB. At least the plot is more realistic (stealing nuclear warheads still is unsettling to me) and the villains more realistic (save for the whole dressing in black for the minions - not very subtle outfits for your security around rich resorts in sunny climates). At least it seems more like Fleming territory whereas TSWLM is merely a lazy clone of Roald Dahl's work.
Yes to this! {[]
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1: Brosnan 2: Craig 3: Moore 4: Dalton 5: Connery and 6: Lazenby
I'm biased. I am one of those "Bond is Sci Fi" fans, citing films like YOLT, MRK, DAD and of course TSWLM as clear examples. The story is not original - baddie will blow up the world so he can create his own Utopia. Moonraker repeats this in space as Spy does it underwater. However though the story is obvious, the casting, gadgets miniatures, locations and visuals make it a big scale treat of a film. From Sir Roger and Ms Bach rattling around the pyramids, to zooming across Sardinia in the Boatus the film keeps its travelogue promises. The Liparus and Stomberg's semi tarantula like Atlantis complex are pure sci fi in concept, but u
Ta Bond Sci Fi, like Spectres volcano complex, and one film away Drax's Space station. It's humour is tongue in cheek, engaging and all in all the film is a fun ride. Over the top? A bit full of itself? Excess to a new level? Oh yes, all of the above.
But that is what makes it such a great, fun, escapist, Bond Film. Overrated? No.
+1.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
The Spy Who Loved Me rules. {[]
I really do enjoy YOLT a lot, but it falls short mainly due to Sean Connery's lacklustre performance, Bond's Japanese disguise, and Donald Pleasance's weak Blofeld.
+1 -{