There's something about that The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)!

12357

Comments

  • Posts: 1,146


    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
    [/quote]

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited November 2014 Posts: 5,080

    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.

    [/quote]

    That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
    That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o [/quote]
    Rog gave us the Bond of HIS vision, and HIS strengths as a performer. At his best moments he was brilliant.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
    That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o
    Rog gave us the Bond of HIS vision, and HIS strengths as a performer. At his best moments he was brilliant.
    [/quote]

    Indeed. If there's one thing Moore did, it was that he proved that the Bond series can live on without Connery, and for that, he has nothing but (in the words of Stromberg) "my most profound thanks".
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dear oh dear. @doubleohdad is either very dumb or a massive wind up merchant. Perhaps both.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Right. he stated he did not understand what I was stating, so I quoted him to show his comment so he could reply to that, in all sincerity.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Oh, dumb, yes, that I am, but also curious to explain/discuss the other side of the observation.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Right. he stated he did not understand what I was stating, so I quoted him to show his comment so he could reply to that, in all sincerity.

    That didn't help.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I haven't the foggiest what you're going on about.
  • Posts: 1,146
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
    That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o
    Rog gave us the Bond of HIS vision, and HIS strengths as a performer. At his best moments he was brilliant.

    Indeed. If there's one thing Moore did, it was that he proved that the Bond series can live on without Connery, and for that, he has nothing but (in the words of Stromberg) "my most profound thanks".
    [/quote]

    Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    There's quite a few things from the Fleming novels that seem to come straight out of the Moore era. When I first read MR, I heard many here say it was maybe the most realistic/down to earth Fleming novel (atleast compared to the movie adaption). Yet this army of bald Drax' men with Hitler moustaches... seems more Moore than Craig, IMO.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.
    Roots? As in DN & FRWL?
    Look, as a literary Bond, Moore failed. In fact all Bond movies fail from that perspective except Connery's first two, and arguably Dalton's two. On the 'anti-chuckle-metre' we can include Craig's. On the 'nothing-unrealistic-O-metre' all Bond movies and books fail.
    You need to stop trying to prove s**t and just let it come come down to your own personal preferences. THOSE are valid. Try talking more about what you like in the Bond series a bit more than what you don't- it's more fun for all that way. Or use constructive, rather than DEstructive, criticism.
    K?

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Construction was never @doubleohdad's strong suit. :)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,289
    True the production was rushed, yes Barry's score was thrown together (But his 'thrown-together stuff' is still better than most other artist's time-languished pieces), the slide whistle, the Goodnight ineptness (Damn I still like her though, and I actually find her funny), and JW happening to be vacationing in that 'pointy-headed' part of the world... it's 70's B-movie paradise, Bond style! =D>
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
    That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o
    Rog gave us the Bond of HIS vision, and HIS strengths as a performer. At his best moments he was brilliant.

    Indeed. If there's one thing Moore did, it was that he proved that the Bond series can live on without Connery, and for that, he has nothing but (in the words of Stromberg) "my most profound thanks".

    Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.[/quote]

    I don't think you grasped my point. I'm disputing the quality of the Moore films, what I'm saying is that, and this cannot be denied, the Moore films were a success and the general public took to him, and he went on to be the longest serving Bond actor (whether you think that is a good thing or otherwise, I don't particularly care.)
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 3,511
    To me, the "something" about TMWTGG is a heavy dose of schizophrenia. It's got some very, very good points (Christopher Lee as Scaramanga, Nick Nack and Maud Adams) mixed in with some very, very bad ones (JW Pepper, the Kung Fu schoolgirls, Mary Goodnight's brainlessness.) The gorgeous islands are offset by the cheesy funhouse...the potentially classic pistol duel weakened by the way too obvious wax dummy. Every time the film comes up with a great corkscrew car stunt, it feels compelled to add some stupid slide whistle to negate its own awesomeness. TMWTGG is one of the best "Bad" Bonds out there, but in the end, bad is bad and Bond should be better than that.
  • edited November 2014 Posts: 908
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Moore's take is not about slavish authenticity.
    That is what @Getafix said in the first place! #-o
    Rog gave us the Bond of HIS vision, and HIS strengths as a performer. At his best moments he was brilliant.

    Indeed. If there's one thing Moore did, it was that he proved that the Bond series can live on without Connery, and for that, he has nothing but (in the words of Stromberg) "my most profound thanks".

    Everyone's perspective is different, and to me he made the whole thing a chuckle, and the roots of the series were more balanced. IMO.[/quote]

    "There's quite a few things from the Fleming novels that seem to come straight out of the Moore era. When I first read MR, I heard many here say it was maybe the most realistic/down to earth Fleming novel (atleast compared to the movie adaption). Yet this army of bald Drax' men with Hitler moustaches... seems more Moore than Craig, IMO."

    To me MR (the novel) is Flemings homage to John Buchans books complete with all this "after all we are British gentlemen" attitude. You know the way spy novels were written before the likes of Eric Ambler showed us how to do it without being unintentional funny.
  • Posts: 1,146


    I don't think you grasped my point. I'm disputing the quality of the Moore films, what I'm saying is that, and this cannot be denied, the Moore films were a success and the general public took to him, and he went on to be the longest serving Bond actor (whether you think that is a good thing or otherwise, I don't particularly care.)[/quote]

    All of which are absolutely undeniable. Not gonna dispute facts, nope.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2014 Posts: 15,534
    Saying which Bond films are the best made ones is pretty obvious. No one is going to say DAD or TMWTGG or DAF are the pinnacle of movie making.

    However, to say which Bond films are the best Bond films is a lot more subjective. Given the variety of the style in the 6 tenures, and even within tenure, everyone is entitled to say which Bond film they think is best. Heck, I'm sure if we look hard enough we'll find people who prefer DAD above the other 22 films? Are they wrong? No, since no Bond film will ever satisfy everyone. Some may be liked by a larger group of people, but each film will have it's fans and detractors. That's the beauty of the Bond franchise.
  • Posts: 1,146
    With respect, Dalton, it's pretty clear to me that Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca and Citizen Kane are better films than Ishtar, Gigli and other films that have been ripped critically, and even though I like James Bond films, it's pretty easy to point out the ones which…are lacking.

    There are lousy pictures that I have a fondness for. THere's a diabolical picture called Monster Squad that I enjoy despite it's awful, horrid lapses in quality, but I'm not gonna sit here and state that Monster Squad is as good as Chinatown, as another example of a quality film, and for me it's easy to state that there are reasonable differences in quality among the 20-odd Bond films.

    My opinion, I understand that.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2014 Posts: 15,534
    That's not what I said. I'm saying no one can say for a fact which Bond film are better Bond films than others. You can't go to someone who ranks DAD higher than OHMSS that 'that's factually wrong'. Sure OHMSS is the best made film of the 2, but that's not the point. We're ranking the films as Bond films and most probably on a fun-ometer basis. If some peoplesays the Moore films are the best Bond films, and I am one of those people, they are entitled to it. We're not saying the Moore films are better made, but are better Bond films. Same as anyone ranking any of the 23 Bond films in 1st spot. I don't rank the films by their cinematic values, but on whether or not I enjoy them more than others Bond movies.
  • Posts: 1,146
    I certainly can understand ranking films with one's heart.

    Yep.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited November 2014 Posts: 15,534
    Unless I'm mistaken, most members I see ranking the films in various threads rank them on whether they like this or that Bond film and if they were entertained by them. People who change their ranking don't go 'hmmm, weird this film is not as well made as it was 5 months ago' because the films don't change, it's the members' appreciation for one of the film that rises or diminishes.

    If you rank the 007 outings only by how well made they are, that's sad, because your ranking will never change, since the films are what they are and will never change. You'll never watch a 'bad' Bond (in your opinion) and think 'wow, this film is much more entertaining than I remember' because for you all that matters is the cinematic craft, not the fun factor ( which is essential in terms of Bond).
  • Posts: 1,146
    That's not really true. I had distain for OHMSS for many years, but as I grew older the films grew in stature for me, given the level of filmmaking involved, which in my opinion was not matched until Casino Royale.

    But I do understand what you're saying about seeing a picture with one's heart. Thereby the Monster Squad analogy. It is what it is, but I had fun with it.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,440
    chrisisall wrote: »
    True the production was rushed, yes Barry's score was thrown together (But his 'thrown-together stuff' is still better than most other artist's time-languished pieces), the slide whistle, the Goodnight ineptness (Damn I still like her though, and I actually find her funny), and JW happening to be vacationing in that 'pointy-headed' part of the world... it's 70's B-movie paradise, Bond style! =D>

    Now that is an apt way to put it, @chrisisall! a Bond B-movie. Not that I like those a lot. But that certainly fits the description. Along with @BeatlesSansEarmuffs saying that TMWTGG is schizophrenic. Some parts are so bad and some are quite good. A mixed B movie bag of a Bond film. :)
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    That's not really true. I had distain for OHMSS for many years, but as I grew older the films grew in stature for me, given the level of filmmaking involved, which in my opinion was not matched until Casino Royale.

    But I suppose as one grows older, you begin to appreciate the craft of film much more. OHMSS is (in my opinion) the best James Bond film in terms of cinematic craft (but it is also the one I enjoy most), but as you grow older, I suppose you begin to notice things in a film (such as the jump cuts in OHMSS, etc.) that you perhaps did not notice when you were your younger self.
  • Posts: 1,146
    That's not really true. I had distain for OHMSS for many years, but as I grew older the films grew in stature for me, given the level of filmmaking involved, which in my opinion was not matched until Casino Royale.

    But I suppose as one grows older, you begin to appreciate the craft of film much more. OHMSS is (in my opinion) the best James Bond film in terms of cinematic craft (but it is also the one I enjoy most), but as you grow older, I suppose you begin to notice things in a film (such as the jump cuts in OHMSS, etc.) that you perhaps did not notice when you were your younger self.

    Agreed on OHMSS. For example, the assault on Pitz-Gloria does have a shot where Bond is in the right foreground beginning his (pretty cool) slide as he fires the Browning machine gun, but the memorable reverse shot where he slides/fires does not actually happen until later in the sequence!

    As much as I like Connery as Bond, objectively-speaking OHMSS is at the very least better than two of the Connery films, YOLT and DAF, though I have a great deal of loyalty to YOLT, OHMSS is simply such a well-directed and well-shot film, very nearly a Bond film that could have happened in reality, which is a remarkable achievement considering the spectacle that is the Bond Universe.

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    That's not really true. I had distain for OHMSS for many years, but as I grew older the films grew in stature for me, given the level of filmmaking involved, which in my opinion was not matched until Casino Royale.

    But I suppose as one grows older, you begin to appreciate the craft of film much more. OHMSS is (in my opinion) the best James Bond film in terms of cinematic craft (but it is also the one I enjoy most), but as you grow older, I suppose you begin to notice things in a film (such as the jump cuts in OHMSS, etc.) that you perhaps did not notice when you were your younger self.

    Agreed on OHMSS. For example, the assault on Pitz-Gloria does have a shot where Bond is in the right foreground beginning his (pretty cool) slide as he fires the Browning machine gun, but the memorable reverse shot where he slides/fires does not actually happen until later in the sequence!

    As much as I like Connery as Bond, objectively-speaking OHMSS is at the very least better than two of the Connery films, YOLT and DAF, though I have a great deal of loyalty to YOLT, OHMSS is simply such a well-directed and well-shot film, very nearly a Bond film that could have happened in reality, which is a remarkable achievement considering the spectacle that is the Bond Universe.

    I must agree with that. The flight to Piz Gloria, both the first time with Bunt and later with Draco, are some of the best examples of cinematography in the series.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Yes, that's a magnificent scene, especially those amazing, Lean-ish wide shots of the skiers, the Alps and the avalanche damage.

    Later, there is also a fantastic match-dissolve where Tracy being dragged away in the snow is perfectly reflected in the window at MI6, with Bond behind the window itself.
    Absolutely inspired.
  • Posts: 14,103
    Something about Mary Goodnight I liked, in spite of her flaws, is that she is one of the few Bond girls who actively pursue Bond instead of the other way round. She was poorly written, sure, but this at least was an interesting approach.
Sign In or Register to comment.