I like this film, but I got to agree that some details spoiled the whole thing.
If I could change the movie, here what I'd do :
- Take off the stupid sheriff
- Make Mary a little more intelligent and don't make her fall in love with Bond.
- Forget about the teenage girls getting rid of the fighters
- Take the sound effect off of the stunt
....And there we got the perfect Bond.
I wouldn't have him promise the boy money, then push him in the river. I don't think that was very nice, he coukd have given the child something. The bits you don't like are actually some of my favourite bits. i love the Sheriff, and i like the girls doing karate.
shareYou're right. I forgot about the kid being pushed in the water.
That was out of place too.
It was out of place for the smooth Roger Moore version of Bond, but not for the Brosnon and Daniel Craig versions who are both nearer the Book version.
Bond in the books was a cold and callous man who would think nothing of breaking the arm of slender woman if he thought it would make her talk. He is very much a no nonsense guy in the book who would have pushed the kid in the water before he had a chance to raise the Elephant and talk about 50 Baht.
@Gemma_Philips: Very true.
Also, the redneck sheriff, Goodnight's overall ditziness, and the teenaged girls doing karate are definitely the corniest, most "un-Bondlike" parts of the movie. Wish they would've left all that out. Alas…
I agree with what you've listed, but I'd add one more
Personally I would have made the movie's story closer to that of the original Fleming novel, as I think it worked far better.
For those who haven't read it, in the book, Bond was brainwashed by agents of SMERSH (a Russian anti-spy organisation) to kill M. He fails, and spends several months being deprogrammed. M, in a spate of being a dick, decides to test Bond to see if he's really back to normal, by sending him to locate, hunt and kill Scaramanga, the world's greatest assassin.
The plot is simple but at the same time, complex. It's simply 'Where's Waldo' but with guns and a criminal underworld. Bond has to infiltrate Scaramanga's ring of friends, become one of them, and take him out with danger around every corner.
The movie's plot of the Solex Agitator was dull and very 70's, just giving Bond a reason to track down Scaramanga when, like I said, I think the novel's plot was simpler and better through it's subtle complexities.
I partially agree. The sound effect needs to go. Goodnight definitely needs some IQ points.I liked Culpepper, although he could be a little less stereotypical, but he was consistent with his character from Live and Let Die.The girls I liked, although they could have been more of an assistance rather than taken over. but I guess they went for the funny take. Also, I think he pushed the kid for two reasons - He didn't have any money (unless the bad guys took his clothes but left his wallet.) and he didn't want to take the kid on his getaway.
Game over, man, game over!
Add some action sequences. Take out the flying car and third nipple
shareRescue the bellydancer
shareChristopher lee was a great Bond villain. He's in the wrong movie
shareAin't that the truth.
Frankly, I don't think -any- of the Moore movies are redeemable. The whole comic tone was just -wrong- for Bond.
And worst of all... it makes cheapens Lee's performance. It's like having a straight man in a comedy. It makes the straight man look like a stiff.
[deleted]
Take Scaramanga out of the energy crisis subplot and this film would become one of the very best in the series. The last act on the island is a mess because they combined the two subplots together and it just didn't work.
shareMy take:
-Change the theme song at the start. Lulu's song was horrendous and it's *beep* puns are a joke to the series. It's a cheesy as hell song that wasn't fit for the movie. The ending version was a ton better. Maybe keep that but change the first one. Alice Cooper's version of the song was perfect. Plus he was far more popular than Lulu was in '74. Perfect timing.
-Switch the girls around or at least get someone other than Ekland. Maud was awesome and could have easily been the lead but if not at least get an actress who could act. Plus making Mary not so idiotic would be helpful too.
-Take Pepper out. If they were to put someone from LALD in it put Geoff Holder back in as Samedi for a short WTF scene with the score cue from that movie they used for pepper. If he was to have been kept alive he might as well should have been used. IMO anyways.
-Take out the sound effect for the jump.
-I'd change the location entirely. Never was crazy about Thailand and in there, Australia or one of the rural pacific islands would have been better.
-The solar crap of a plot stunk and needed to go. Just make it about Bond's ass being on the line.
-Most important take out the scene with Andrea where he goes ape and tries to break her arm. Connery could have done it but Moore looked so out of place and not right doing that.
Have Andrea wear a bikini
shareCongratulations. You've just removed the ONLY four things that saved this Bond film from the pits, and succeeded into becoming the most obvious troll ever.
Those four items are the fun things that make great Bond films.
You want to dumb 007 films down to their present state of super dullness.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
I think your main problem is that you think that James Bond is an old playboy doing silly jokes in a tuxedo...
So of course you like these 4 items and you think every James Bond film should have them included.
You've been used to Moore dumb films too much.
If you learn about James Bond character, you'll find out that he's a serious spy, violent and psychologically weak.
He's not a debonair joker having fun with sherrifs.
I wouldn't say you're a troll if you were not in the james bond section.
But you are. (Probably lost your way...).
Go and have fun on the Dukes of Hazzard page.
Just because you want to change the film versions of Bond into dullness, don't expect sane people to want to do that. You're getting your way, because the modern Bond movies are dull and without great scenery.
By the way, the book Bond is not a serious spy. Felix is the serious one, and Bond is a bumbling spy relying on luck. You can say it's different all you want, but you can't change facts. Your type has managed to brainwash enough young people into accepting your trolling as fact, because you control freaks never relent, but that just makes you control freaks.
Go ahead and keep making your inferior dull Bond movies. There's no one with money enough and inspiration enough to challenge you.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!
Modern Bond movies are cold and realistic. And what you don't understand is that's the exact way Bond was created in the fisrt place.
They departed from the real Bond in the 70's and 80's with Moore, in order to entertain children and people like you.
Now they're doing real cinema again, and of course your gadget/fun/jokes/old Moore tastes are not satisfied...
Well Thylacine, the 60's James Bond movies were not all that "cold and realistic"--
Back then, James Bond movies were part travelogue—the movies were global in scale and our hero had his adventures in exotic, far away places the average moviegoer could only dream about.
James Bond movies were also filled with all sorts of cool, futuristic gadgets—jet propelled bullets, portable helicopters, cigarette guns, laser pens—you name it. Not to mention fantastic sports cars that were rigged with all sorts of little toys.
James Bond movies were also filled with an assortment of beautiful women—usually bikini or lingerie clad. There was no shortage of cheesecake for our hero to indulge himself in.
James Bond movies were also big budget, filled with fantastic action stunts and massive, detailed sets.
In short, James Bond was the typical male fantasy of the 60’s—a swinging, globe trotting secret agent who found adventure and excitement around every exotic corner. He had it all—good looks, women, adventure, you name it.
Flash forward several decades and things change dramatically. Cheap airfare puts the exotic far away places in reach of the masses.
Cool gadgets are everywhere and cheap. Everyone has them in one form or another.
Political correctness does away with traditional cheesecake in Bond movies. Our hero can’t be jumping in and out of bed with a host of attractive women. Also, women are not mere baubles to run around in bikinis and lingerie for half the movie. They must be equal with James Bond, agents in there own right who can kick ass just like any man.
Big budget action movies are the norm these days, not the exception. Special effects are computer generated and there is no need for detailed, expensive sets.
James Bond has became a pointless movie franchise—long past its prime. Watered down and outdated.
So I wouldn't hold up the original movies from the 60's as something pure, cold, realistic, etc.
AE36
I agree with what you said : No matter which movie we talk about, James Bond is always about exotic locations, over the top plot, fantasy, gadgets and fun.
But in every film, you can also find seriousness, plot, investigations and a bit of realism.
What makes the James Bond franchise so appealing is the right balance between fantasy and realism.
In the man with the golden gun, and most of Moore films, the balance is not there. In this film in particular, there's too much of stupid girl, ridiculous henchman, plotholes and foolish allies to be as great as other entries.
Wouldn't change any thing except to get you off of bashing good movies.
Have your Mommy fix you a special lunch 4 tomorrow.🍭 share