Pros and Cons: The Man with the Golden Gun

Absolutely_Cart

Was released in 1974, the 2nd Roger Moore film, and in this Bond entry, Bond meets his match with a highly skilled assassin in a duel. In the film's production, Harry and Cubby (the two founders of Eon) were at stark disagreement in the film's direction, and likewise, public opinion of the film is divided too. And with that, let's look at the pros and cons.

Pros
[list=*]
[*]Christopher Lee as Scaramanga, quirks and all - and Nick Nack too[/*]
[*]A golden gun made ordinary gold parts to hide the evidence. Brilliant.[/*]
[*]Had a great concept of Bond facing against his equal[/*]
[*]The maze duel game was very fascinating in a mysterious way[/*]
[/list]

Cons:
[list=*]
[*]Moore's darker more violent scenes feel forced and out of character[/*]
[*]The middle third of the film is a bunch of random gags to fill time[/*]
[*]The solar power bit was totally unnecessary Blame OPEC, lol.[/*]
[*]The dueling game finale could've been fleshed out more[/*]
[*]Weak women characters (Goodnight & Scaramanga's mistress)[/*]
[/list]

I think one reviewer totally nailed the head with this one sentence: "Scaramanga was the perfect mirror for the wrong Bond". This film would've been good for Dalton or Connery but Moore just isn't a ruthless assassin. If the film had a clearer vision of what it wanted to be and focused on it, it could've been great, but what we got instead just feels random and out of place all around.

AlphaOmegaSin

TMWTGG feels rushed sometimes, I think it's because it was released on the Heels of LALD -{ But it's got some good Set Pieces like Scaramangas Fun house, which still amazes me with it's Abstract Design -{

Absolutely_Cart

It was released just a year after LALD instead of the standard two year wait.

Scaramanga's fun house was such a great place. The fact that they spent so little time on it was perhaps the movie's greatest crime. As we've seen in movies like FRWL (the train) and SF (the abandoned house) the James Bond movies have that magic of focusing on one location for 30 minutes. I wish MWGG could have been like that.

AlphaOmegaSin

They kept Scaramanga's Back story from the Book as well -{

Higgins

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

[*]Moore was definitely not the right Bond for this concept[/*]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with that!

Sir Roger was the inly actor who was able to pull out this movie and he had a great chemistry with Lee.

Just rewatch that dinner conversation on the island again.

Absolutely_Cart

Higgins wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

[*]Moore was definitely not the right Bond for this concept[/*]

Sorry, but I have to disagree with that!

Sir Roger was the inly actor who was able to pull out this movie and he had a great chemistry with Lee.

Just rewatch that dinner conversation on the island again.

In the later parts of the movie itself, I think Moore did a more than capable job contending against Scaramanga. I agree with the dinner table scene. I just feel like when Scaramanga was belittling Bond with his words, more what he said applied to Connery's Bond than Moore's. And Moore is my favorite Bond, so I'm not saying this out of Connery bias.

Blackleiter

Besides Christopher Lee, there isn't really much that I like about TMWTGG. Oh wait, I just thought of something else - it's slightly better than AVTAK.

Absolutely_Cart

Key word: slightly

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Key word: slightly

Yes! )

Thunderpussy

A Quantum, if you will ?

Blackleiter

Thunderpussy wrote:

A Quantum, if you will ?

Barely.

chrisisall

I used to like it much better than I do now, but I still pull it out occasionally. The climactic duel of titans was a bit anti-climactic.

AlphaOmegaSin

And leaves a few Questions Marks. Did Bond climb down for his Walther, or was the Dummy carrying a fully loaded one?

Spoff

Pro: Britt Ekland in a bikini )

AlphaOmegaSin

That's always a Pro )

Absolutely_Cart

Spoff wrote:

Pro: Britt Ekland in a bikini )

Con: Mary Goodnight in a bikini

Barbel

) ) )

Absolutely_Cart

On my second viewing, it raised in my opinion. But in the third viewing it really sunk. Maybe it has to do with my mood but I found the film unfocused shallow and trivial.

Absolutely_Cart

I decided to watch this movie in tribute of Christopher Lee. Lee was great and JW added some laughs but I otherwise found it stale. The finale was supposed to be great but by then I was half asleep

Higgins

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

by then I was half asleep

mommy told you not to drink more than half a pint of beer over the weekend

AlphaOmegaSin

'Finds a Chair and sits down'

Please carry on you two

Matt S

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I decided to watch this movie in tribute of Christopher Lee. Lee was great and JW added some laughs but I otherwise found it stale. The finale was supposed to be great but by then I was half asleep

Moore's fantastic performance couldn't keep you interested? I know most people say Moore didn't settle into the role until TSWLM, but he's quite comfortable and confident as Bond here. He plays Bond very straight in this film, which maybe throws some people off because they're used to his humour. But he's very convincing as a serious Bond in this film to me and thoroughly keeps my interest through this film.

welshboy78

Its good entertainment but with a bit of a serious twist could have been great!!! E.g the dinner table scene

Highlights for me are the actual Golden Gun prop (now so iconic), Christopher Lee and the locations!!!

Nick Nack is amusing and great but maybe a bit too much comedy.

One thing I really hate is the fun house set looks a bit naff and dated now, Pepper and his antics and the terrible theme tune!!

If one Bond film had to be remade it would be this one for me. Bags of potential but rushed and mediocre.

PS - my young one loves it!!

Absolutely_Cart

Matt S wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I decided to watch this movie in tribute of Christopher Lee. Lee was great and JW added some laughs but I otherwise found it stale. The finale was supposed to be great but by then I was half asleep

Moore's fantastic performance couldn't keep you interested? I know most people say Moore didn't settle into the role until TSWLM, but he's quite comfortable and confident as Bond here. He plays Bond very straight in this film, which maybe throws some people off because they're used to his humour. But he's very convincing as a serious Bond in this film to me and thoroughly keeps my interest through this film.

They tried to make Bond dark and ruthless. Moore didn't like excessive violence and it became awkward. There were a lot of scenes like violently interrogating Scaramanga's wife that just feel out of place in a Moore film. FYEO was dark but even in that movie, Moore's Bond had heart and some class.

Writers fault. Not Moores

broadshoulder

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

[

There were a lot of scenes like violently interrogating Scaramanga's wife that just feel out of place in a Moore films

.

Scaramanga's wife? Mrs Scaramanga?

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

[Writers fault. Not Moores

I'm a big fan of Tom Mankiewicz and the fact that Harry drove him to apolexy on this film. The writers do what the producers tell them to do?

AlphaOmegaSin

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I decided to watch this movie in tribute of Christopher Lee. Lee was great and JW added some laughs but I otherwise found it stale. The finale was supposed to be great but by then I was half asleep

Moore's fantastic performance couldn't keep you interested? I know most people say Moore didn't settle into the role until TSWLM, but he's quite comfortable and confident as Bond here. He plays Bond very straight in this film, which maybe throws some people off because they're used to his humour. But he's very convincing as a serious Bond in this film to me and thoroughly keeps my interest through this film.

They tried to make Bond dark and ruthless. Moore didn't like excessive violence and it became awkward. There were a lot of scenes like violently interrogating Scaramanga's wife that just feel out of place in a Moore film. FYEO was dark but even in that movie, Moore's Bond had heart and some class.

Writers fault. Not Moores

They were never married. She was just his Mistress.

DevilMayCare007

Everything is bad about this movie except Sir Christopher Lee. This had potential, but unfortunately they rushed it.

AlphaOmegaSin

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

Everything is bad about this movie except Sir Christopher Lee. This had potential, but unfortunately they rushed it.

Even the Soundtrack and Locations?

Both are my favourite Parts of the Film.

HatThrowingHenchman

Pro:
- Roger Moore as a convincing Bond
- J.W.'s return
- great locations esecially scaramanga's island
- scaramanga is a solid villain
- classic lightness of a Bond-movie

Con:
- stereotypical/hysterical bond girl
- Nick Nack isn't really a threat (what should be the main purpose of a henchman)
-{

DevilMayCare007

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

DevilMayCare007 wrote:

Everything is bad about this movie except Sir Christopher Lee. This had potential, but unfortunately they rushed it.

Even the Soundtrack and Locations?

Both are my favourite Parts of the Film.

The soundtrack was ehhh, but I believe John Barry barely had time to work on it ? And the locations were okay, but I did like scaramanga's playhouse

Matt S

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Matt S wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I decided to watch this movie in tribute of Christopher Lee. Lee was great and JW added some laughs but I otherwise found it stale. The finale was supposed to be great but by then I was half asleep

Moore's fantastic performance couldn't keep you interested? I know most people say Moore didn't settle into the role until TSWLM, but he's quite comfortable and confident as Bond here. He plays Bond very straight in this film, which maybe throws some people off because they're used to his humour. But he's very convincing as a serious Bond in this film to me and thoroughly keeps my interest through this film.

They tried to make Bond dark and ruthless. Moore didn't like excessive violence and it became awkward. There were a lot of scenes like violently interrogating Scaramanga's wife that just feel out of place in a Moore film. FYEO was dark but even in that movie, Moore's Bond had heart and some class.

Writers fault. Not Moores

Moore is hardly violent in the film. Scaramanga is the only person he kills in the entire film! This is the least violent Bond film. One of the best scenes is when he explains that he doesn't kill for pleasure and only on the strictest orders from his government. And that holds true in this film since the only person he kills in the person he is ordered (or rather implied by M) to kill. I don't know what you're talking about with Scaramanga's wife, since Scaramanga was not married.