John Glen

MrBond

I was just Thinking for myself why so many people don't like John Glen as a director. I mean he made 5 movies and 4 of them was really good. I think he kept Bond alive when they gained cash and stayed with the same crew throughout the 80's. So what do people think he did wrong?

DaltonCraig007

The films themselves are good, it's just that his directing/cinematography are mindblowingly dull, colourless and lifeless.

MrBond

What do you mean? His movies ( especially OP and TLD ) have a lots of colors. And his directing was very straight forward and good.

4EverBonded

DaltonCraig007 said:
The films themselves are good, it's just that his directing/cinematography are mindblowingly dull, colourless and lifeless.

Which I think the regular moviegoing public didn't fuss about much.
And in general I liked the films and don't find him a bad director. I especially like TLD.

CraterGuns

Agreed, TLD is best picture.

Glen had little (or no) flair; very much the "journeyman" director. He got the job done, at any rate.

John McTiernan shoud've directed LTK.

DaltonCraig007

MrBond said:
What do you mean? His movies ( especially OP and TLD ) have a lots of colors. And his directing was very straight forward and good.

imo these films had a very, very dull and lifeless cinematography. compared TB, FRWL, OHMSS with FYEO, AVTAK, TLD, OP and LTK, and you'll see the difference. I have never seen such a boring director as Glen. he has such a boring, by the numbers style, it sometimes puts me off his films.

and you just proved my point with 'his directing was straight forward'. Straight-forward means dull and lifeless. in movies you expect to be surprised by the directing/cinematography.... straight-forward means by-the-numbers directing, no surprise, nothing. That's not what movie directing is about.

John Glen is a very safe, boring, typical director. He was lucky he had good scripts and actors, otherwise the 80's would be by far the worst decade of Bond films.

MrBond

So your movie experience can be put off if you know that the director is dull. Even if the movie itself is exciting?
Octopussy is a prime example of a lifefull movie which did surprise me the first time i watched it.

But i can agree that he played it safe in AVTAK, put other then that. No.

DaltonCraig007

http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

MrBond

DaltonCraig007 said:
http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

But John Glen doesen't handel the cinematography. Alan Hume did that during the early 80's.

DaltonCraig007

MrBond said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

But John Glen doesen't handel the cinematography. Alan Hume did that during the early 80's.

the point is the 5 1980's films just look very bad. They have great scripts, great music and great acting performances, but that's it. the technical aspect of the 80's Bond films are simply appalling.

DarthDimi

What I love about the Glen films is that of all five, no two are alike. He directed two very different Bond actors, worked with three different composers and told five very different stories. Glen had the balls to even try out something vastly different and new with LTK. I salute him for that.

Dull? Disagree. Camera work, editing, photography... they are all fine IMO. I admit that when I was 12, I wasn't too excited about them either but growing up, I learned to appreciate the material these films offer. Also, Glen's the director. He can't be held accountable for every aspect of the filmmaking involved.

Virage

DaltonCraig007 said:

MrBond said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

But John Glen doesen't handel the cinematography. Alan Hume did that during the early 80's.

the point is the 5 1980's films just look very bad. They have great scripts, great music and great acting performances, but that's it. the technical aspect of the 80's Bond films are simply appalling.

Well we can't just pin that on Glen can we? Anyway aren't you the one that DEFENDS the Moore films?

DarthDimi

@Virage

Defending films doesn't mean you can't partially criticise them. Defending them as if they are 110 % perfect would be dumb and DC ain't no dummy. ;-)

MrBond

DaltonCraig007 said:

MrBond said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

But John Glen doesen't handel the cinematography. Alan Hume did that during the early 80's.

the point is the 5 1980's films just look very bad. They have great scripts, great music and great acting performances, but that's it. the technical aspect of the 80's Bond films are simply appalling.

Well, it isn't just his responsibilities. As you know it is a lots of other persons who handles those things.

I think john glen did a great job with the films he directed.

thelordflasheart

Of the five he's done I can only remember FYEO, TLD, and LTK well. I only saw OP once when it first came out (consolation prize for not being able to get into NSNA!) and I've never seen AVTAK.

When I finally saw FYEO I was surprised that it had a bit of visual flair; not much but it was there. But that was gone by Dalton's time and the films were very by-the-numbers, at least visually. Rewatching TLD in a theatre a while back surprised me as I would expect a Bond film to look classy and travelougue-y and TLD looked neither. Nor did LTK when I rewatched it recently. There were some nice shots and scenery but it wasn't photographed very well.

However, what Glen was good at was building the narrative as the film went. I think that LTK has one of the best "journeys" of any Bond film; you really feel that there's a conclusion at the end and that Bond has earned his victory. That's pretty impressive especially given how formulaic Bond films are. I think that Glen does deserve a lot of credit for that - I mean, a lot of the Bond films look dull. Other than the 60s I think the only films I can think of that have beautiful cinematography are GE, CR, and QOS.

CraigMooreOHMSS

He's inconsistent, but when he's good, he's really good. TLD was an improvement on the grim directorial style Glen had for the last three Moore flicks. It had a bit more life about it that can be attributed to many other factors too. LTK was dull again, but I actually think it works in its favour. The gritty texture and almost basic camera angles add to the film for me when they took away from some of his others. Odd viewpoint that's hard to explain.

bondsum

DaltonCraig007 said:
http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

This could also be directed at Michael David Apted whose TWINE seriously was all those things and more. EON made a mistake not asking Glen back to direct a Brosnan movie, IMO. It seems like Glen took the rap for their scaling back on production values, such as shooting LTK in Mexico and not Pinewood. I honestly feel if Glen had been involved in TND, TWINE or the awful DAD then some of us Bond fans might think better of those movies.

MrBond

bondsum said:

DaltonCraig007 said:
http://screenmusings.org/Octopussy/index.htm

95% of the shots of OP are dull, colourless, boring. Even when there are colours in the shot, the camera lenses are of very bad quality, and/or very badly chosen, as it makes these colours look dull.

This could also be directed at Michael David Apted whose TWINE seriously was all those things and more. EON made a mistake not asking Glen back to direct a Brosnan movie, IMO. It seems like Glen took the rap for their scaling back on production values, such as shooting LTK in Mexico and not Pinewood. I honestly feel if Glen had been involved in TND, TWINE or the awful DAD then some of us Bond fans might think better of those movies.

Well the problem is that Glen did so many movies that the concept became tired. Just like it became with DAD. So they did the right thing to put in a new director for GE.

But Glen did a good job to keep the movies inside the frame of money and location. And he delivered movies that was most of them good and all of them were different to eachother.

00Beast

All of John Glen's Bond movies are in my top ten, believe it or not. I really enjoy them, and sometimes find it hard to understand how people can't like them, but then again, I'd be a hypocrite if I did say that. Anyway, LTK is #2, AVTAK is #3, FYEO, is #6, OP is #7, and TLD is #10. That speaks for itself as to why I enjoy the Glen movies. They just work!

bondsum

MrBond said:
Well the problem is that Glen did so many movies that the concept became tired. Just like it became with DAD. So they did the right thing to put in a new director for GE.

Notice that I didn't include GE in my list, MrBond, which I agree needed a new direction after LTK. Trouble was this new direction quickly became muddled once Campbell had left and was replaced with a succession of inadequate directors.

Despite what some Bond fans might think round here, Brosnan's movies lacked creative cohesion and as a consequence felt disjointed. Nothing we can fix now, but I honestly feel John Glen could have helped resolve the mess made after Campbell's departure on GE. He really was a good "action director" and had an excellent understanding for good narrative and what made Bond work. Give me John Glen over Lee Tamahori, Roger Spottiswoode or Michael Apted any day.

It's a shame he's not given the credit and respect he deserves anymore.

royale65

Glen is an unimaginative director. He lets the story unfold in a no frills kinda way, which works well, unless the story is weak – A View To A Kill. You get to focus on the characters and situations, more than the spectacle, which after the seventies excess, proved a welcome relief. He’s dab hand an action as well, due to work as editor/2nd unit director on previous Bond movies. The locations were very good in Glen’s Bond movies, but Glen and Hume somehow managed to make them look ordinary. I think the dwindling budget on the Bond had something to do with it. Also, on the first three that he has done, the camera is on soft focus; although I expect that has more to do with Moore’s advancing years than anything else. ;-)

I thought Glen was a safe pair of hands. And he directed three of my top ten films, so he can’t be all bad.

thelivingroyale

OP is in my top 10, LTK and TLD are my favourite 2 Bond films. I think he was a good director, and he had variety (FYEO/TLD is cold war thriller Bond, OP is classic all rounder Bond, AVTAK is campy OTT Bond, and LTK is dark, gritty, different, serious but classic Bond).

MrBond

royale65 said:
Glen is an unimaginative director. He lets the story unfold in a no frills kinda way, which works well, unless the story is weak – A View To A Kill. You get to focus on the characters and situations, more than the spectacle, which after the seventies excess, proved a welcome relief. He’s dab hand an action as well, due to work as editor/2nd unit director on previous Bond movies. The locations were very good in Glen’s Bond movies, but Glen and Hume somehow managed to make them look ordinary. I think the dwindling budget on the Bond had something to do with it. Also, on the first three that he has done, the camera is on soft focus; although I expect that has more to do with Moore’s advancing years than anything else. ;-)

I thought Glen was a safe pair of hands. And he directed three of my top ten films, so he can’t be all bad.

He did the best of a situation when the Bond movies didn't get so high budget and when other competing franchises popped up. He was what the series needed, something safe. The same reason why Moore was kept onboard thru the 80's.

Baltimore_007

John Glen directorial ratings

For Your Eyes Only 8
Octopussy 6
A View to a Kill 2
The Living Daylights 8
License to Kill 6

Glen always seemed to have a thing with birds and pigeons and anything with feathers that flew if you noticed, and started out in 1981 with a most fine Bond adventure with a James Bond actor who redeemed himself from previous mishaps only to fall short again soon after and disappeared off the radar. Octopussy was a bit stale and nowhere near the success of first time out, AVTAK, the least said the better, big black mark for Mr Glen that year (and all involved), before Director and a new Bond were back with force and put together a most enthralling and entertaining Bond release in 1987 in Tim Dalton's debut as 007. Sadly Glen was not able to leave the 1980s as Bond director as he entered it, as License to Kill was a bit of a letdown and seemed so far detached from Bond at times. All said it was a bit of a mixed bag from Glen that decade, but he did do some fine work

DRush76

The films themselves are good, it's just that his directing/cinematography are mindblowingly dull, colourless and lifeless.

If that was the case to me, then three of his five movies wouldn't be on my top ten Bond movies list. And two of them are on my list of top five Bond films.

License to Kill was a bit of a letdown and seemed so far detached from Bond at time.

And you solely blame Glen . . . instead of the screenwriters and the producers?

DRush76 said:
The films themselves are good, it's just that his directing/cinematography are mindblowingly dull, colourless and lifeless.

If that was the case to me, then three of his five movies wouldn't be on my top ten Bond movies list. And two of them are on my list of top five Bond films.

License to Kill was a bit of a letdown and seemed so far detached from Bond at time.

And you solely blame Glen . . . instead of the screenwriters and the producers?

I agree.You can't blame glen for ltk not being a good film. The script and casting of so many bad american actors doesn't help the director.

DoubleOhhSeven

Although I enjoyed all of Glen's films I'll have to agree with @DaltonCraig about their lack of style. Glen was so bland his films almost looked like they were tv movies or something.

Getafix

I get where some of the criticism is coming from here. The production values in the 80s Bonds sometimes felt a bit iffy. They lack some of the gloss of the very early films. But having said that, so do several of the 70s films. Perhaps only TSWLM matches the production standards of say, GF. However, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy and The Living Daylights are IMO all top notch Bond movies. License to Kill and A View to a Kill are not my favourites but they're interesting films with plenty of enjoyable elements. Overall, when you take all his 5 films together I think Glen's achievement was actually pretty substantial. 5 great to decent movies, all with a strong and distinct identity and yet all very much in the Bond tradition. Respect.

BAIN123

Give me John Glen over Lee Tamahori, Roger Spottiswoode or Michael Apted any day.

This may suprise you @Bondsum but I agree. Glen had his faults but his films were (on the whole) better written and better made.

He can't beat Martin Campbell though as you say ;)

RogueAgent

I just got tired of the bird gag being repeated in consecutive films, but i do not dislike his work or him.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements