|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Trashing John Glen
| Trashing John Glen [message #218811] |
Mo, 06 Februar 2006 16:16 |
|
I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
some not. Let's look at Glen's history. He started out under the
tutelage of Peter Hunt in the old days of Bond. His style is very much
like Hunt's.
You guys need to understand that directors who start as editors tend to
be very technically oriented and don't care so much about actors'
performances. This can be fine so long as the actors are good enough
to concentrate on their own performances and ignore what the director
says about that aspect of it.
As much as we all loved Peter Hunt, myself included, we have to admit
that he had this problem too. OHMSS is marred by his rather
"over-directed" style; very studied fights, close continuity, etc.
It's not an actors' film at all. Fortunately, he was smart enough to
cast good people in it, if we except Lazenby.
Lazenby can be forgiven a lot for his weak-ish performance in the film
if we understand that Hunt is not used to giving direction to actors.
He's a guy who's been in an editing booth for ages trying to preen
footage that's been handed him. True, he had been doing second unit
directing, but that consisted mostly of insert shots, plate footage,
and the like.
At no point did he need to discuss deep character motivations, etc.
Rigg was enough of an actress to rise above this. So were Savalas and
the Ferzetti. Lazenby moves through the film pretty unconvincingly,
but probably largely because he doesn't really understand what he
should be doing. The fact that we get any performance out of him at
all is pretty remarkable.
Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical director
who was not concerned much about actors. If we see Connery in Marnie
we can get an idea of how he would have reacted in OHMSS. Connery
isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone else for that matter),
because Hitchcock isn't directing him the way some of the Bond
directors had.
Terence Young was a very actor-director with some technical expertise.
His hand-held performance from Connery was just what was necessary, and
Connery's performances are always best in his films. Young was not
terribly good on action sequences however; one exception is the fight
in FRWL that seems to have been largely staged by Hunt and fight
director Bob Simmons. A number of fights in Thunderball are just
sloppy (the PCS excepted).
We can trash Connery's "sleep-walking" performane in YOLT but I would
accuse Lewis Gilbert of not giving him a lot of character motivation.
Bond doesn't have a lot to do in this film (he's mostly window dressing
on sumptuous visuals), so it's easy for him to get lost. He's better
in DAF mostly because Guy Hamilton is on it, although DAF is the
precursor to the dumbass Moore era. My personal feeling is that
Connery would been less than his best in OHMSS because (at least at
that point in his career) he needed more direction than Hunt would have
given him.
To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
BY A MILE is OHMSS. Gold is interesting but has some AWFUL acting in
it (especially from Ray Milland). Hunt was clearly one of the greatest
editors who ever breathed but as a director he was only better than
average. OHMSS benefits tremendously from an excellent crew, an
outstanding script and some experienced actors. I'll wager that if
Terence Young had directed the dialogue scenes, Lazenby would have
continued in the role.
Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. When
we have an excellent actor in the film (Dalton), he can rise above it,
but if you have someone of dubious talent (Priscilla Barnes, Tanya
Roberts), it can be a disaster from a performance standpoint. Glen
also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
That doesn't mean he's a bad director. It means he's not the greatest
director ever. He did some great action scenes (the abduction of
Koskov in TLD stands out) and other stuff. It surprises me not at all
that Dalton would choose not to work with him.
Most editor-to-directors are like this. They make cold, technical
films and will excel only when given actors who can break through that.
James Cameron is another example. With DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, both
capable peformers, they made Titanic an interesting film. But look at
the peformances in something like True Lies and you'll see something a
little goofier.
I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
films.
You can see when Broccoli would fire directors, and I think his
instincts were right: Hamilton after TMWTTG, Gilbert after Moonraker,
Glen after LTK.
I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
who's good at both.
Eric
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218817 ] |
Mo, 06 Februar 2006 18:39 |
|
"Eric Grayson" <filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:060220061017335919%filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net...
>I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
> some not. Let's look at Glen's history. He started out under the
> tutelage of Peter Hunt in the old days of Bond. His style is very much
> like Hunt's.
>
> You guys need to understand that directors who start as editors tend to
> be very technically oriented and don't care so much about actors'
> performances. This can be fine so long as the actors are good enough
> to concentrate on their own performances and ignore what the director
> says about that aspect of it.
>
> As much as we all loved Peter Hunt, myself included, we have to admit
> that he had this problem too. OHMSS is marred by his rather
> "over-directed" style; very studied fights, close continuity, etc.
> It's not an actors' film at all. Fortunately, he was smart enough to
> cast good people in it, if we except Lazenby.
>
> Lazenby can be forgiven a lot for his weak-ish performance in the film
> if we understand that Hunt is not used to giving direction to actors.
> He's a guy who's been in an editing booth for ages trying to preen
> footage that's been handed him. True, he had been doing second unit
> directing, but that consisted mostly of insert shots, plate footage,
> and the like.
>
> At no point did he need to discuss deep character motivations, etc.
> Rigg was enough of an actress to rise above this. So were Savalas and
> the Ferzetti. Lazenby moves through the film pretty unconvincingly,
> but probably largely because he doesn't really understand what he
> should be doing. The fact that we get any performance out of him at
> all is pretty remarkable.
>
> Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical director
> who was not concerned much about actors. If we see Connery in Marnie
> we can get an idea of how he would have reacted in OHMSS. Connery
> isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone else for that matter),
> because Hitchcock isn't directing him the way some of the Bond
> directors had.
>
> Terence Young was a very actor-director with some technical expertise.
> His hand-held performance from Connery was just what was necessary, and
> Connery's performances are always best in his films. Young was not
> terribly good on action sequences however; one exception is the fight
> in FRWL that seems to have been largely staged by Hunt and fight
> director Bob Simmons. A number of fights in Thunderball are just
> sloppy (the PCS excepted).
>
> We can trash Connery's "sleep-walking" performane in YOLT but I would
> accuse Lewis Gilbert of not giving him a lot of character motivation.
> Bond doesn't have a lot to do in this film (he's mostly window dressing
> on sumptuous visuals), so it's easy for him to get lost. He's better
> in DAF mostly because Guy Hamilton is on it, although DAF is the
> precursor to the dumbass Moore era. My personal feeling is that
> Connery would been less than his best in OHMSS because (at least at
> that point in his career) he needed more direction than Hunt would have
> given him.
>
> To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
> BY A MILE is OHMSS. Gold is interesting but has some AWFUL acting in
> it (especially from Ray Milland). Hunt was clearly one of the greatest
> editors who ever breathed but as a director he was only better than
> average. OHMSS benefits tremendously from an excellent crew, an
> outstanding script and some experienced actors. I'll wager that if
> Terence Young had directed the dialogue scenes, Lazenby would have
> continued in the role.
>
> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. When
> we have an excellent actor in the film (Dalton), he can rise above it,
> but if you have someone of dubious talent (Priscilla Barnes, Tanya
> Roberts), it can be a disaster from a performance standpoint. Glen
> also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
>
> That doesn't mean he's a bad director. It means he's not the greatest
> director ever. He did some great action scenes (the abduction of
> Koskov in TLD stands out) and other stuff. It surprises me not at all
> that Dalton would choose not to work with him.
>
> Most editor-to-directors are like this. They make cold, technical
> films and will excel only when given actors who can break through that.
> James Cameron is another example. With DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, both
> capable peformers, they made Titanic an interesting film. But look at
> the peformances in something like True Lies and you'll see something a
> little goofier.
>
> I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
> for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
> made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
> very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
> most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
> films.
>
> You can see when Broccoli would fire directors, and I think his
> instincts were right: Hamilton after TMWTTG, Gilbert after Moonraker,
> Glen after LTK.
>
> I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
> serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
> things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
> who's good at both.
>
> Eric
Interesting post, although I don't agree with all of it. But well thought
out, just the same.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218832 ] |
Mo, 06 Februar 2006 22:00 |
|
Eric Grayson wrote:
> I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
> some not. Let's look at Glen's history. He started out under the
> tutelage of Peter Hunt in the old days of Bond. His style is very much
> like Hunt's.
>
> You guys need to understand that directors who start as editors tend to
> be very technically oriented and don't care so much about actors'
> performances. This can be fine so long as the actors are good enough
> to concentrate on their own performances and ignore what the director
> says about that aspect of it.
>
> As much as we all loved Peter Hunt, myself included, we have to admit
> that he had this problem too. OHMSS is marred by his rather
> "over-directed" style; very studied fights, close continuity, etc.
> It's not an actors' film at all. Fortunately, he was smart enough to
> cast good people in it, if we except Lazenby.
>
> Lazenby can be forgiven a lot for his weak-ish performance in the film
> if we understand that Hunt is not used to giving direction to actors.
> He's a guy who's been in an editing booth for ages trying to preen
> footage that's been handed him. True, he had been doing second unit
> directing, but that consisted mostly of insert shots, plate footage,
> and the like.
>
> At no point did he need to discuss deep character motivations, etc.
> Rigg was enough of an actress to rise above this. So were Savalas and
> the Ferzetti. Lazenby moves through the film pretty unconvincingly,
> but probably largely because he doesn't really understand what he
> should be doing. The fact that we get any performance out of him at
> all is pretty remarkable.
>
> Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical director
> who was not concerned much about actors. If we see Connery in Marnie
> we can get an idea of how he would have reacted in OHMSS. Connery
> isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone else for that matter),
> because Hitchcock isn't directing him the way some of the Bond
> directors had.
>
> Terence Young was a very actor-director with some technical expertise.
> His hand-held performance from Connery was just what was necessary, and
> Connery's performances are always best in his films. Young was not
> terribly good on action sequences however; one exception is the fight
> in FRWL that seems to have been largely staged by Hunt and fight
> director Bob Simmons. A number of fights in Thunderball are just
> sloppy (the PCS excepted).
>
> We can trash Connery's "sleep-walking" performane in YOLT but I would
> accuse Lewis Gilbert of not giving him a lot of character motivation.
> Bond doesn't have a lot to do in this film (he's mostly window dressing
> on sumptuous visuals), so it's easy for him to get lost. He's better
> in DAF mostly because Guy Hamilton is on it, although DAF is the
> precursor to the dumbass Moore era. My personal feeling is that
> Connery would been less than his best in OHMSS because (at least at
> that point in his career) he needed more direction than Hunt would have
> given him.
>
> To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
> BY A MILE is OHMSS. Gold is interesting but has some AWFUL acting in
> it (especially from Ray Milland). Hunt was clearly one of the greatest
> editors who ever breathed but as a director he was only better than
> average. OHMSS benefits tremendously from an excellent crew, an
> outstanding script and some experienced actors. I'll wager that if
> Terence Young had directed the dialogue scenes, Lazenby would have
> continued in the role.
>
> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. When
> we have an excellent actor in the film (Dalton), he can rise above it,
> but if you have someone of dubious talent (Priscilla Barnes, Tanya
> Roberts), it can be a disaster from a performance standpoint. Glen
> also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
>
> That doesn't mean he's a bad director. It means he's not the greatest
> director ever. He did some great action scenes (the abduction of
> Koskov in TLD stands out) and other stuff. It surprises me not at all
> that Dalton would choose not to work with him.
>
> Most editor-to-directors are like this. They make cold, technical
> films and will excel only when given actors who can break through that.
> James Cameron is another example. With DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, both
> capable peformers, they made Titanic an interesting film. But look at
> the peformances in something like True Lies and you'll see something a
> little goofier.
>
> I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
> for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
> made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
> very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
> most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
> films.
>
> You can see when Broccoli would fire directors, and I think his
> instincts were right: Hamilton after TMWTTG, Gilbert after Moonraker,
> Glen after LTK.
>
> I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
> serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
> things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
> who's good at both.
>
> Eric
I think Glen kind of suffered from the same thing Lazenby did -- they
were both thrust into major roles in a multi-million dollar series
where everybody else was already entrenched. In Glen's case, how much
acting direction could you give the cast after they'd already worked
together for four films?
But his main problem seemed to be that he was better at constructing
movies than creating them. Unlike Hunt, he was more interested in the
stunts than the tone and performances. And while the writers were
trying to move the series back to making spy films, he was directing
them like romps -- for instance, in Hunt's picture the ski chase is
shot for intensity, in Glenn's it's shot for comedy.
He kind of symbolized EON's problem in the seventies and eighties:
Instead of improving the films by making the stories better, they tried
to improve it by making bigger stunts.
In FYEO he does pretty well -- most of the shots are well-designed, and
have more than one thing happening at a time; most of the transitions
work. But by AVTAK he was coordinating all of these different film
units doing stunts and location shots and the finished product looks
like a TV film -- lots of master shots with inserts filmed later. They
were assembly line movies.
Then in TLD (which I do actually like overall, I should say), he was so
entrenched that he didn't even seem to notice there was a new Bond,
Moneypenny, etc., and didn't set the new actors up very well in their
scenes. It was almost seemed like he was hoping nobody would notice
that Lois Maxwell and Bernard Lee weren't there anymore. It was
impossible for Caroline Bliss to establish herself because she was
never really given the opportunity to make Moneypenny her own. And he
was still directing it as a big romp, while the story was supposed to
be a smaller, intense little spy movie. In some scenes like the Moscow
bathroom where Bond inspects the cello case, Dalton is playing the
scene intensely while Glen is shooting it like a comedy!
Dalton basically saves the film for me. His acting keeps the film from
becoming "Octopussy II."
It seemed like when he TRIED to make an intense spy film in LTK, either
the cut budget, the unfamiliar studio in Mexico, and/or his own desire
to keep it at a "romp" level conspired to flatten the story out. I
enjoyed the movie, overall, but it's too long and the performances are
really uneven.
Although it was a good thing, in some respects, because the Dalton
films seem more attached to the overall series than Brosnan's.
Brosnan's films feel to me like revival shows recreating scenes from
the last series, and don't really feel a part of the first EON films.
Almost like it's a different storyline. (To me, anyway.)
Maybe five Bond films is too much to ask for one director. How does one
guy keep his fifteenth scene in M's office fresh, and different from
all the others?
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218834 ] |
Mo, 06 Februar 2006 22:12 |
|
Thanks, Eric. Quite a lot of food for thought there, and very
well-argued. Not sure I've got a ready reply for yours or JHause's
posts just now, although I would note that Lewis Gilbert, in some of
his non-Bond films, is capable of directing well-acted,
character-driven drama, and it seems weird that this knack deserts him
as soon as he's helming a Bond movie. Anyway, a good post, and one
which will make me at least think about whether my anti-Glen attitude
isn't now an entrenched prejudice rather than a considered position...
Best
Phil
(His Columbus movie still sucked more wildly than almost anything I saw
that decade, though.)
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218839 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 01:59 |
|
Eric:
> > At no point did he need to discuss deep character motivations, etc.
> > Rigg was enough of an actress to rise above this. So were Savalas and
> > the Ferzetti. Lazenby moves through the film pretty unconvincingly,
> > but probably largely because he doesn't really understand what he
> > should be doing. The fact that we get any performance out of him at
> > all is pretty remarkable.
In fact, now that I think about it, Lazenby did complain that Hunt had
not given him nearly as much direction as he would have liked, although
as a newcomer, and by all accounts a rather arrogant one, he may have
expected far more attention on-set than a film veteran might have.
> > Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical director
> > who was not concerned much about actors. If we see Connery in Marnie
> > we can get an idea of how he would have reacted in OHMSS. Connery
> > isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone else for that matter),
> > because Hitchcock isn't directing him the way some of the Bond
> > directors had.
In fact, the last time I saw 'Marnie' I thought Connery was much
stronger and more charismatic than I'd remembered, although I think he
is miscast. However, I think there's a distinct falling-off in terms
of the performances in Hitchcock's movies after 'North by Northwest',
which makes me wonder whether his reputed disdain for actors was merely
an image he cultivated during the '30s, '40s, and '50s, but which
became the real Hitchcock from the 1960s onwards. He certainly seemed
to tire of stars during the 1960s, and his abandoned late-'60s project,
the truly shocking, taboo-breaking 'Kaleidoscope/Frenzy' was due to be
shot with unknowns in the lead roles. Up until 'North by Northwest'
he'd mananged not only to work with certain star names repeatedly, but
had also drawn some of their best, most nuanced performances from them
(think James Stewart in 'Vertigo'). After that, the actors *do* become
the 'cattle' to whom he'd jokingly referred before, and his lack of
interest in their performances becomes clearly visible.
However, I still think Alec McCowen's turn in 'Frenzy' is a piece of
comic genius.
> > To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
> > BY A MILE is OHMSS.
Oh, of course. It's true, sadly, of many of the Bond directors, even
those of the 1960s 'golden age', that they never achieved a great deal
outside the series. One thing I would say of the Brosnan-era directors
is that each of them can point to significant achievements outside the
franchise, which is probably healthy for the series in the long term.
>> None of Gilbert's directing jobs is very distinguished
I'd dispute that slightly. Although Gilbert doesn't bring the
character work evident in some of his other movies to his Bond entries,
he does show a keen visual sense at times, and has a sense of the epic.
The rooftop chase in YOLT still takes my breath away, whatever the
faults of the rest of the movie.
> > I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
> > serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
> > things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
> > who's good at both.
In effect I think they do: when you look at the amount of work done by
the second unit with the 'primary' director not even present I think
it's arguable that this is what's been going on for years.
JHause:
> Then in TLD (which I do actually like overall, I should say), he was so
> entrenched that he didn't even seem to notice there was a new Bond,
> Moneypenny, etc., and didn't set the new actors up very well in their
> scenes. It was almost seemed like he was hoping nobody would notice
> that Lois Maxwell and Bernard Lee weren't there anymore. It was
> impossible for Caroline Bliss to establish herself because she was
> never really given the opportunity to make Moneypenny her own.
In addition, the writing and direction in Bliss' two movies turn
Moneypenny from a cool, efficient secretary and game sparring partner
for Bond into an air-headed, lovelorn bimbette. It's hard to imagine
Lois Maxwell being humiliated as Bliss is in TLD (glasses askew, pat on
the backside, sighing hopelessly as Bond exits) or simpering into the
phone as she does in LTK (Maxwell would coolly have taken charge of the
situation). Bliss was badly served in what could have been a nice
little role, and Glen bears a lot of the blame for this IMHO.
> And he
> was still directing it as a big romp, while the story was supposed to
> be a smaller, intense little spy movie. In some scenes like the Moscow
> bathroom where Bond inspects the cello case, Dalton is playing the
> scene intensely while Glen is shooting it like a comedy!
Never thought of this before, but to me this scene now looks horribly
reminiscent of the lavatory sequence in 'Carry On Screaming'. I'd like
to put that down to unfortunate coincidence.
> Maybe five Bond films is too much to ask for one director. How does one
> guy keep his fifteenth scene in M's office fresh, and different from
> all the others?
As I've said elsewhere, I think two in a row might be enough. I can't
think of any action film franchise where a single director has made
more than two, or at the most three movies before going into an
artistic decline.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218841 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 02:23 |
|
>
> > > To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
> > > BY A MILE is OHMSS.
>
> Oh, of course. It's true, sadly, of many of the Bond directors, even
> those of the 1960s 'golden age', that they never achieved a great deal
> outside the series. One thing I would say of the Brosnan-era directors
> is that each of them can point to significant achievements outside the
> franchise, which is probably healthy for the series in the long term.
>
You guys need to see Hunt's film "Death Hunt." Lee Marvin and Charles
Bronson kicking each other's ass for two hours. That film is awesome.
Then for sheer laughs, see "Aces: Iron Eagle 3" by Glen. Bad movie
heaven.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218842 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 02:29 |
|
phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>>> Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical
>>> director who was not concerned much about actors. If we see
>>> Connery in Marnie we can get an idea of how he would have reacted
>>> in OHMSS. Connery isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone
>>> else for that matter), because Hitchcock isn't directing him the
>>> way some of the Bond directors had.
>
> In fact, the last time I saw 'Marnie' I thought Connery was much
> stronger and more charismatic than I'd remembered, although I think he
> is miscast. However, I think there's a distinct falling-off in terms
> of the performances in Hitchcock's movies after 'North by Northwest',
> which makes me wonder whether his reputed disdain for actors was
> merely an image he cultivated during the '30s, '40s, and '50s, but
> which became the real Hitchcock from the 1960s onwards. He certainly
> seemed to tire of stars during the 1960s, and his abandoned late-'60s
> project, the truly shocking, taboo-breaking 'Kaleidoscope/Frenzy' was
> due to be shot with unknowns in the lead roles. Up until 'North by
> Northwest' he'd mananged not only to work with certain star names
> repeatedly, but had also drawn some of their best, most nuanced
> performances from them (think James Stewart in 'Vertigo'). After
> that, the actors *do* become the 'cattle' to whom he'd jokingly
> referred before, and his lack of interest in their performances
> becomes clearly visible.
>
> However, I still think Alec McCowen's turn in 'Frenzy' is a piece of
> comic genius.
As is Barry Foster's.
There are just too many great performances in his films (Robert Walker,
Joseph Cotten, Vera Miles, Anthony Perkins, John Dall, Monty Clift
etc.) to dismiss.
Hitchcock's denigration of actors has now passed into movie legend,
but some of his greatest films have worked because of the central
performances. I don't believe this is either fluke or good fortune on
Hitch's part.
I happen to think Connery is pretty good in MARNIE as a sicko on
a par with Stewart's Scotty Ferguson.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks that Mr Rusk has forgotten his tie."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218844 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 03:38 |
|
Eric Grayson wrote:
> I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
> some not.
It's justified for AVTAK. To a lesser extent, TLD. FYEO and LTK
are great. Octopussy is his masterpiece. So in the grand scale
of things, I'd give him a 7.5/10 for directing. It's just that AVTAK
is soooo bad! How can a director go from one of the best, to
what's considered the worst Bond film ever?.
> You guys need to understand that directors who start as editors tend to
> be very technically oriented and don't care so much about actors'
> performances.
I thought Glen did a great job with the actors
(especially Moore). There were some great character
performances in all his films. What Guy Hamilton was
to Sean Connery, John Glen was to Roger Moore.
> I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
> for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
> made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
> very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
> most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
> films.
I agree, Hamilton's direction was a mixed bag on Moore's
first 2 films. However, Hamilton produced the best dialogue
I have seen in a Bond film. Goldfinger and TMWTGG have the
absolute best dialogue out of all Bond films. Even though
Golden Gun was an uneven piece, I'd still give it
an 8/10 because the dialogue and acting were just so strong.
> I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
> serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
> things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
> who's good at both.
I'd have Guy Hamilton for dialogue, and John Glen for action.
Hamilton was the Tarantino of his day, coming up wih fresh
dialogue. With the exception of AVTAK, Glen makes fast,
well paced action films.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218847 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 04:32 |
|
"JHause" <JHause [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139259655.524854.290620 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Eric Grayson wrote:
>> I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
>> some not. Let's look at Glen's history. He started out under the
>> tutelage of Peter Hunt in the old days of Bond. His style is very much
>> like Hunt's.
>>
>> You guys need to understand that directors who start as editors tend to
>> be very technically oriented and don't care so much about actors'
>> performances. This can be fine so long as the actors are good enough
>> to concentrate on their own performances and ignore what the director
>> says about that aspect of it.
>>
>> As much as we all loved Peter Hunt, myself included, we have to admit
>> that he had this problem too. OHMSS is marred by his rather
>> "over-directed" style; very studied fights, close continuity, etc.
>> It's not an actors' film at all. Fortunately, he was smart enough to
>> cast good people in it, if we except Lazenby.
>>
>> Lazenby can be forgiven a lot for his weak-ish performance in the film
>> if we understand that Hunt is not used to giving direction to actors.
>> He's a guy who's been in an editing booth for ages trying to preen
>> footage that's been handed him. True, he had been doing second unit
>> directing, but that consisted mostly of insert shots, plate footage,
>> and the like.
>>
>> At no point did he need to discuss deep character motivations, etc.
>> Rigg was enough of an actress to rise above this. So were Savalas and
>> the Ferzetti. Lazenby moves through the film pretty unconvincingly,
>> but probably largely because he doesn't really understand what he
>> should be doing. The fact that we get any performance out of him at
>> all is pretty remarkable.
>>
>> Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical director
>> who was not concerned much about actors. If we see Connery in Marnie
>> we can get an idea of how he would have reacted in OHMSS. Connery
>> isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone else for that matter),
>> because Hitchcock isn't directing him the way some of the Bond
>> directors had.
>>
>> Terence Young was a very actor-director with some technical expertise.
>> His hand-held performance from Connery was just what was necessary, and
>> Connery's performances are always best in his films. Young was not
>> terribly good on action sequences however; one exception is the fight
>> in FRWL that seems to have been largely staged by Hunt and fight
>> director Bob Simmons. A number of fights in Thunderball are just
>> sloppy (the PCS excepted).
>>
>> We can trash Connery's "sleep-walking" performane in YOLT but I would
>> accuse Lewis Gilbert of not giving him a lot of character motivation.
>> Bond doesn't have a lot to do in this film (he's mostly window dressing
>> on sumptuous visuals), so it's easy for him to get lost. He's better
>> in DAF mostly because Guy Hamilton is on it, although DAF is the
>> precursor to the dumbass Moore era. My personal feeling is that
>> Connery would been less than his best in OHMSS because (at least at
>> that point in his career) he needed more direction than Hunt would have
>> given him.
>>
>> To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
>> BY A MILE is OHMSS. Gold is interesting but has some AWFUL acting in
>> it (especially from Ray Milland). Hunt was clearly one of the greatest
>> editors who ever breathed but as a director he was only better than
>> average. OHMSS benefits tremendously from an excellent crew, an
>> outstanding script and some experienced actors. I'll wager that if
>> Terence Young had directed the dialogue scenes, Lazenby would have
>> continued in the role.
>>
>> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
>> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
>> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. When
>> we have an excellent actor in the film (Dalton), he can rise above it,
>> but if you have someone of dubious talent (Priscilla Barnes, Tanya
>> Roberts), it can be a disaster from a performance standpoint. Glen
>> also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
>>
>> That doesn't mean he's a bad director. It means he's not the greatest
>> director ever. He did some great action scenes (the abduction of
>> Koskov in TLD stands out) and other stuff. It surprises me not at all
>> that Dalton would choose not to work with him.
>>
>> Most editor-to-directors are like this. They make cold, technical
>> films and will excel only when given actors who can break through that.
>> James Cameron is another example. With DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, both
>> capable peformers, they made Titanic an interesting film. But look at
>> the peformances in something like True Lies and you'll see something a
>> little goofier.
>>
>> I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
>> for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
>> made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
>> very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
>> most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
>> films.
>>
>> You can see when Broccoli would fire directors, and I think his
>> instincts were right: Hamilton after TMWTTG, Gilbert after Moonraker,
>> Glen after LTK.
>>
>> I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
>> serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
>> things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
>> who's good at both.
>>
>> Eric
>
> I think Glen kind of suffered from the same thing Lazenby did -- they
> were both thrust into major roles in a multi-million dollar series
> where everybody else was already entrenched. In Glen's case, how much
> acting direction could you give the cast after they'd already worked
> together for four films?
>
> But his main problem seemed to be that he was better at constructing
> movies than creating them. Unlike Hunt, he was more interested in the
> stunts than the tone and performances. And while the writers were
> trying to move the series back to making spy films, he was directing
> them like romps -- for instance, in Hunt's picture the ski chase is
> shot for intensity, in Glenn's it's shot for comedy.
>
> He kind of symbolized EON's problem in the seventies and eighties:
> Instead of improving the films by making the stories better, they tried
> to improve it by making bigger stunts.
>
> In FYEO he does pretty well -- most of the shots are well-designed, and
> have more than one thing happening at a time; most of the transitions
> work. But by AVTAK he was coordinating all of these different film
> units doing stunts and location shots and the finished product looks
> like a TV film -- lots of master shots with inserts filmed later. They
> were assembly line movies.
>
> Then in TLD (which I do actually like overall, I should say), he was so
> entrenched that he didn't even seem to notice there was a new Bond,
> Moneypenny, etc., and didn't set the new actors up very well in their
> scenes. It was almost seemed like he was hoping nobody would notice
> that Lois Maxwell and Bernard Lee weren't there anymore. It was
> impossible for Caroline Bliss to establish herself because she was
> never really given the opportunity to make Moneypenny her own. And he
> was still directing it as a big romp, while the story was supposed to
> be a smaller, intense little spy movie. In some scenes like the Moscow
> bathroom where Bond inspects the cello case, Dalton is playing the
> scene intensely while Glen is shooting it like a comedy!
>
> Dalton basically saves the film for me. His acting keeps the film from
> becoming "Octopussy II."
>
> It seemed like when he TRIED to make an intense spy film in LTK, either
> the cut budget, the unfamiliar studio in Mexico, and/or his own desire
> to keep it at a "romp" level conspired to flatten the story out. I
> enjoyed the movie, overall, but it's too long and the performances are
> really uneven.
>
> Although it was a good thing, in some respects, because the Dalton
> films seem more attached to the overall series than Brosnan's.
I agree completely. Brosnan's movies always feel like a "Best of" Bond
rather than anything original. Although I like GE, it feels like they were
recreating a "Best of" Connery and Moore put together.
> Brosnan's films feel to me like revival shows recreating scenes from
> the last series, and don't really feel a part of the first EON films.
> Almost like it's a different storyline. (To me, anyway.)
>
They don't feel so British to me either, like they are competing with
American action films. When the original movies came out, it was completely
different than anything else out there. Now, they just seem like another
big-budgeted action film, like Mission Impossible or XXX. I think if they
stop competing for best action film and focus on story and suspense, they
will be better off, at least with most Bond fans. I've said it before and
I'll say it again, the Bourne movies were better Bond movies than the
current Bond movies. The fight scenes were intense, the directing taut and
tight, and the acting was pretty good too. Obviously, there was some
ludicrousness to it, but they were far more "down to earth" than DAD or TND.
> Maybe five Bond films is too much to ask for one director. How does one
> guy keep his fifteenth scene in M's office fresh, and different from
> all the others?
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218848 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 08:10 |
|
Eric Grayson wrote:
> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. [...] Glen
> also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
While I agree with most of your post, I'd just like to mention a detail
I saw in the documentary "Inside FYEO". Apparently, Roger Moore was
reluctant to have Bond ruthlessly kick Locque's car over the edge of
the cliff, and it took Glen a lot of discussion to persuade Moore to do
it. Glen considered this the one defining moment for Bond.
--
Garmt de Vries.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218853 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 17:27 |
|
neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Eric Grayson wrote:
>
>>I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
>>some not.
>
>
> ...Octopussy is his masterpiece.
Surely you jest?
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218854 ] |
Di, 07 Februar 2006 17:51 |
|
It was a defining moment in that film,...that tough bit of characterisation
(on a par with Connery shooting Dent in DN) was quickly lost for all of
Moore's later films.
I agree with Paul...I can't believe anyone thought OP was even halfway
decent...let alone a Masterpiece!!!!
"Garmt de Vries" <g.devries [at] phys.uu.nl> wrote in message
news:1139296245.395018.10160 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Eric Grayson wrote:
>
>> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
>> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
>> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. [...]
>> Glen
>> also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
>
> While I agree with most of your post, I'd just like to mention a detail
> I saw in the documentary "Inside FYEO". Apparently, Roger Moore was
> reluctant to have Bond ruthlessly kick Locque's car over the edge of
> the cliff, and it took Glen a lot of discussion to persuade Moore to do
> it. Glen considered this the one defining moment for Bond.
>
> --
> Garmt de Vries.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218864 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 00:08 |
|
"Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ST3Gf.265329$OU5.87230 [at] clgrps13...
> neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>> Eric Grayson wrote:
>>
>>>I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
>>>some not.
>>
>>
>> ...Octopussy is his masterpiece.
>
> Surely you jest?
I'm hoping...
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that the Octopussy affair is just so...forgettable."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218870 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 01:24 |
|
Jabei wrote:
> It was a defining moment in that film,...that tough bit of
> characterisation (on a par with Connery shooting Dent in DN) was
> quickly lost for all of Moore's later films.
>
> I agree with Paul...I can't believe anyone thought OP was even halfway
> decent...let alone a Masterpiece!!!!
Easily one of the best villain's schemes in the series (so good Frederick
Forsyth stole it) and some nice Flemingesque sequences (the
palming at Sotheby's is great and the backgammon game is nice) and
ideas (the looting and faking of Russian art treasures). The climax has
a degree of tension absent from Glen's other efforts and Peter Lamont's
design work remains his best to date.
Yeah, admittedly it has too many awful moments, but it's still one of
Moore's better films.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas like football without motorcycle helmets."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218873 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 02:17 |
|
"Jabei" <jabei [at] btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dsaj5l$kch$1 [at] nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> It was a defining moment in that film,...that tough bit of
characterisation
> (on a par with Connery shooting Dent in DN) was quickly lost for all of
> Moore's later films.
I've seen that moment in FYEO many times and have never seen it as that
brutal, although others here seem to think so. It seems sort of a
once-removed way of killing someone.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218875 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 05:01 |
|
The problem I have with Glen is not his style of directing as much as it is
that he was allowed to direct too many Bond films in a row.
A workmanlike style of directing might be bearable in a OO7 film from time
to time but not several times in succession.
I guess the trouble was that the uninteresting style of Glen's 'template'
approach to directing OO7 was exaggerated by the visually exciting style's
that were evolving around him in other action film's. Glen never seemed to
experiment with style - odd in a pupil of Peter Hunt.
Like writer, Dick Maibaum, Glen seemed to dwell on past triumphs and was
frightened of breaking new ground.
As for OHMSS not being an actor's film, I agree inasfar as Lazenby's
performance is concerned but that's it. Rigg, Savalas, Ferzetti, Scoular and
even Steppat and Baker, deliver highly characterised performances that
elevate the film high above all it's fellows to date. Ferzetti's performance
in a single scene - in which a vast chunk of expository dialogue is relayed
in a short space of time - is testament to how Hunt relied on the talent of
an actor to make the scene work. Hunt's contribution as the Director was in
how he chose to 'block' the scene so that it was visually interesting as
well. Superb stuff.
As Rigg herself said in a contemporary promotional interview, OHMSS is an
epic among Bond films.
Glen's editng and second-unit direction added much to the film's impact but
Glen has never came close to equalling this success. I guess he was a little
more 'hungry' in 1969.
"Eric Grayson" <filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:060220061017335919%filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net...
>I see a lot of disrespect for Mr. Glen here. Some of it is justified,
> some not. Let's look at Glen's history. He started out under the
> tutelage of Peter Hunt in the old days of Bond. His style is very much
> like Hunt's.
>
> You guys need to understand that directors who start as editors tend to
> be very technically oriented and don't care so much about actors'
> performances. This can be fine so long as the actors are good enough
> to concentrate on their own performances and ignore what the director
> says about that aspect of it.
>
> As much as we all loved Peter Hunt, myself included, we have to admit
> that he had this problem too. OHMSS is marred by his rather
> "over-directed" style; very studied fights, close continuity, etc.
> It's not an actors' film at all. Fortunately, he was smart enough to
> cast good people in it, if we except Lazenby.
>
> Lazenby can be forgiven a lot for his weak-ish performance in the film
> if we understand that Hunt is not used to giving direction to actors.
> He's a guy who's been in an editing booth for ages trying to preen
> footage that's been handed him. True, he had been doing second unit
> directing, but that consisted mostly of insert shots, plate footage,
> and the like.
>
> At no point did he need to discuss deep character motivations, etc.
> Rigg was enough of an actress to rise above this. So were Savalas and
> the Ferzetti. Lazenby moves through the film pretty unconvincingly,
> but probably largely because he doesn't really understand what he
> should be doing. The fact that we get any performance out of him at
> all is pretty remarkable.
>
> Which brings me to an aside. Hitchcock was a very technical director
> who was not concerned much about actors. If we see Connery in Marnie
> we can get an idea of how he would have reacted in OHMSS. Connery
> isn't very good in Marnie (neither is anyone else for that matter),
> because Hitchcock isn't directing him the way some of the Bond
> directors had.
>
> Terence Young was a very actor-director with some technical expertise.
> His hand-held performance from Connery was just what was necessary, and
> Connery's performances are always best in his films. Young was not
> terribly good on action sequences however; one exception is the fight
> in FRWL that seems to have been largely staged by Hunt and fight
> director Bob Simmons. A number of fights in Thunderball are just
> sloppy (the PCS excepted).
>
> We can trash Connery's "sleep-walking" performane in YOLT but I would
> accuse Lewis Gilbert of not giving him a lot of character motivation.
> Bond doesn't have a lot to do in this film (he's mostly window dressing
> on sumptuous visuals), so it's easy for him to get lost. He's better
> in DAF mostly because Guy Hamilton is on it, although DAF is the
> precursor to the dumbass Moore era. My personal feeling is that
> Connery would been less than his best in OHMSS because (at least at
> that point in his career) he needed more direction than Hunt would have
> given him.
>
> To tie up the other points: Look at Hunt's other films. His best film
> BY A MILE is OHMSS. Gold is interesting but has some AWFUL acting in
> it (especially from Ray Milland). Hunt was clearly one of the greatest
> editors who ever breathed but as a director he was only better than
> average. OHMSS benefits tremendously from an excellent crew, an
> outstanding script and some experienced actors. I'll wager that if
> Terence Young had directed the dialogue scenes, Lazenby would have
> continued in the role.
>
> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves. When
> we have an excellent actor in the film (Dalton), he can rise above it,
> but if you have someone of dubious talent (Priscilla Barnes, Tanya
> Roberts), it can be a disaster from a performance standpoint. Glen
> also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and unchecked.
>
> That doesn't mean he's a bad director. It means he's not the greatest
> director ever. He did some great action scenes (the abduction of
> Koskov in TLD stands out) and other stuff. It surprises me not at all
> that Dalton would choose not to work with him.
>
> Most editor-to-directors are like this. They make cold, technical
> films and will excel only when given actors who can break through that.
> James Cameron is another example. With DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, both
> capable peformers, they made Titanic an interesting film. But look at
> the peformances in something like True Lies and you'll see something a
> little goofier.
>
> I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
> for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
> made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
> very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
> most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
> films.
>
> You can see when Broccoli would fire directors, and I think his
> instincts were right: Hamilton after TMWTTG, Gilbert after Moonraker,
> Glen after LTK.
>
> I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
> serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
> things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
> who's good at both.
>
> Eric
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218876 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 06:59 |
|
Yeah, I thought Hunt did a terrific job. Today some of the blue
screening might look bad, and you can see the wires on some stunts (ie:
watch Bond's leg in the ski chase when he dives off the ski path
through the trees to hide, and almost falls down the cliff -- the
safety rope is EXTREMELY visible).
But Hunt did a lot of clever things and was working outside of the box.
The fistfights are cranked and edited to a ridiculous level, where the
combatants punch three times in a row with the same fist, etc., but it
works. The film has incredible energy despite its length.
The smartest thing Hunt did was have George Baker dub Lazenby's voice
for a third of the film, when Bond "assumes" the voice of Hilary Bray.
When you think about it, there was no need for it story-wise, since
Baker's character and Blofeld only communicated by letter. But it
allowed the middle section of the film, which relied more on dialogue
and humor, to use a better-trained voice for punchlines and
double-entendres.
And Hunt's action scenes DID focus on character, so they're still
intense 35 years later, while Glen's focused on the stunts and gags.
In Glen's defense, he HAD to focus on that stuff more -- his stories
didn't have a lot of well-drawn characters, and the more you cut to a
sixty year-old, slightly overweight Roger Moore during a big ski chase,
the more ridiculous it looks.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218883 ] |
Mi, 08 Februar 2006 17:01 |
|
Mac said:
"Yeah, admittedly it has too many awful moments, but it's still one of
Moore's better films. "
And that succinctly sums up the tenure of Roger Moore as James Bond.
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay
this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands'
three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he
reflected
that it was a pity Mr. Big's henchmen didn't take that honky out and
waste him back in '73."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218897 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 00:47 |
|
neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Eric Grayson wrote:
>
> > I find it much easier to trash Guy Hamilton, who is capable of better,
> > for tripe like LALD and most of TMWTTGG, and Lewis Gilbert, who just
> > made go-through-the-motions films. None of Gilbert's directing jobs is
> > very distinguished, and Hamilton, after doing such an excellent job on
> > most of Goldfinger, is just inexcusably lax in his first two Moore
> > films.
>
> I agree, Hamilton's direction was a mixed bag on Moore's
> first 2 films. However, Hamilton produced the best dialogue
> I have seen in a Bond film. Goldfinger and TMWTGG have the
> absolute best dialogue out of all Bond films. Even though
> Golden Gun was an uneven piece, I'd still give it
> an 8/10 because the dialogue and acting were just so strong.
I'd agree that the dialogue in TMWTGG is a saving grace for the film,
but I don't really see how Hamilton can receive too much credit for
that. Surely, the writers?
Pete
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218898 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 02:21 |
|
<neolib007 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139279912.754321.295740 [at] g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I agree, Hamilton's direction was a mixed bag on Moore's
> first 2 films. However, Hamilton produced the best dialogue
> I have seen in a Bond film. Goldfinger and TMWTGG have the
> absolute best dialogue out of all Bond films. Even though
> Golden Gun was an uneven piece, I'd still give it
> an 8/10 because the dialogue and acting were just so strong.
>
>
>> I've often felt that Bond films should have two directors like the
>> serials of old had. One for dialogue and one for action. The two
>> things require different techniques and seldom do you find one director
>> who's good at both.
>
> I'd have Guy Hamilton for dialogue, and John Glen for action.
> Hamilton was the Tarantino of his day, coming up wih fresh
> dialogue. With the exception of AVTAK, Glen makes fast,
> well paced action films.
>
That's funny, I thought the writers came up with the dialog? Last I
checked, they write the script, that thing with the words that the actors
say, and the director figures out how to translate it from page to screen
with some cohesion, excitement, and intensity. Oh, and the actors, they
provide the emotion, although the director can help.
Draugnar
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218902 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 03:03 |
|
But it is just so cold-blooded. Bond is no longer being threatened (a cop
would be obligated to try and save him), he might have gotten info from him
(the man surely knew something more), or 007 could easily have just shot him
between the eyes, fast and painless. Instead, he kicks him over a cliff to
suffer a much slower and terrifying death, as an obvious act of revenge ("I
believe you left this with Ferrara...")
Draugnar
"Carcharias" <carcharias_1966 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PEbGf.326$Sb.121 [at] trndny03...
>
> "Jabei" <jabei [at] btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:dsaj5l$kch$1 [at] nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> It was a defining moment in that film,...that tough bit of
> characterisation
>> (on a par with Connery shooting Dent in DN) was quickly lost for all of
>> Moore's later films.
>
> I've seen that moment in FYEO many times and have never seen it as that
> brutal, although others here seem to think so. It seems sort of a
> once-removed way of killing someone.
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218903 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 03:08 |
|
Draugnar wrote:
>
> That's funny, I thought the writers came up with the dialog? Last I
> checked, they write the script, that thing with the words that the actors
> say, and the director figures out how to translate it from page to screen
> with some cohesion, excitement, and intensity. Oh, and the actors, they
> provide the emotion, although the director can help.
>
I guess no one told you that a director can be part of the
writing/dialogue process. I know you can't believe it, but
it's true. Ask Quentin Tarantino if you don't believe me.
A director can make changes to that thing that comes out of
the actor's mouth. Oh, and the actors can be told what emotions
to show by a director. Guy Hamilton told Roger Moore how to act in
TMWTGG and John Glen did the same thing in FYEO.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218904 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 03:18 |
|
Bond films have writers? I never would have guessed.
Is it a coincidence that the Guy Hamilton films have the best dialogue?
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218908 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 13:17 |
|
neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Bond films have writers? I never would have guessed.
>
> Is it a coincidence that the Guy Hamilton films have the best
> dialogue?
I think THUNDERBALL has the smartest dialogue in the series.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas doesn't like being taken for a ride."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218909 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 13:23 |
|
neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Draugnar wrote:
>
>
>>
>> That's funny, I thought the writers came up with the dialog? Last I
>> checked, they write the script, that thing with the words that the
>> actors say, and the director figures out how to translate it from
>> page to screen with some cohesion, excitement, and intensity. Oh,
>> and the actors, they provide the emotion, although the director can
>> help.
>>
>
>
> I guess no one told you that a director can be part of the
> writing/dialogue process. I know you can't believe it, but
> it's true. Ask Quentin Tarantino if you don't believe me.
> A director can make changes to that thing that comes out of
> the actor's mouth. Oh, and the actors can be told what emotions
> to show by a director. Guy Hamilton told Roger Moore how to act in
> TMWTGG and John Glen did the same thing in FYEO.
It's a collaborative medium; dialogue is not set in stone. The actors
have as much input because they are the ones charged with delivering
that dialogue convincingly. Case in point being the Indianapolis speech
in JAWS. The idea came from John Milius (uncredited), but the speech
was actually written (and brilliantly delivered) by Robert Shaw. Okay, so
Shaw was also a writer, but it's the same with most actors, they must
feel (and sound) comfortable.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas doesn't like the baum, the atomic baum..."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218910 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 13:44 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:450q6sF4cvs6U1 [at] individual.net...
> neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>> Bond films have writers? I never would have guessed.
>>
>> Is it a coincidence that the Guy Hamilton films have the best
>> dialogue?
>
> I think THUNDERBALL has the smartest dialogue in the series.
A big part of the reason that "Thunderball" is an exceedingly worthy entry
of "The Big Four." I am flummoxed as to its being so underrated in this
forum.
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he knows a little about women..."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218911 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 13:47 |
|
Mac wrote:
> neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> > Draugnar wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> That's funny, I thought the writers came up with the dialog? Last I
> >> checked, they write the script, that thing with the words that the
> >> actors say, and the director figures out how to translate it from
> >> page to screen with some cohesion, excitement, and intensity. Oh,
> >> and the actors, they provide the emotion, although the director can
> >> help.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I guess no one told you that a director can be part of the
> > writing/dialogue process. I know you can't believe it, but
> > it's true. Ask Quentin Tarantino if you don't believe me.
> > A director can make changes to that thing that comes out of
> > the actor's mouth. Oh, and the actors can be told what emotions
> > to show by a director. Guy Hamilton told Roger Moore how to act in
> > TMWTGG and John Glen did the same thing in FYEO.
>
> It's a collaborative medium; dialogue is not set in stone. The actors
> have as much input because they are the ones charged with delivering
> that dialogue convincingly. Case in point being the Indianapolis speech
> in JAWS. The idea came from John Milius (uncredited), but the speech
> was actually written (and brilliantly delivered) by Robert Shaw. Okay, so
> Shaw was also a writer, but it's the same with most actors, they must
> feel (and sound) comfortable.
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas doesn't like the baum, the atomic baum..."
The later Hamilton films were funny because of Tom Mankiewicz. He's the
son of Joe Mankiewicz and the nephew of Herman Mankiewicz. (Herman
wrote Citizen Kane, Joseph wrote and directed All About Eve). Tom
inherited a gift for sharp, hilarious dialogue, but he's never shown
much interest in plot or character, which is also evident in the later
Hamilton films. He also gagged up the first couple of Superman movies
and LadyHawke for director Richard Donner. He went on to write and
direct Dragnet, and is pretty much retired now, except for the
occasional "Hart to Hart" reunion.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218917 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 21:39 |
|
JHause wrote:
> The later Hamilton films were funny because of Tom Mankiewicz. He's
> the son of Joe Mankiewicz and the nephew of Herman Mankiewicz. (Herman
> wrote Citizen Kane, Joseph wrote and directed All About Eve). Tom
> inherited a gift for sharp, hilarious dialogue, but he's never shown
> much interest in plot or character, which is also evident in the later
> Hamilton films. He also gagged up the first couple of Superman movies
> and LadyHawke for director Richard Donner. He went on to write and
> direct Dragnet, and is pretty much retired now, except for the
> occasional "Hart to Hart" reunion.
His adaptation of THE EAGLE HAS LANDED also has the Mankiewicz
touch in the Larry Hagman character. Some great dialogue.
Interesting that the "Named after your father perhaps?" line isn't
actually in Mankiewicz screenplay and it has been suggested that
it was the input of one Big Tam Connery...
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas believes many non-biological things can be accomplished
during beer commercials -- such as 10 minutes of a football game..."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218918 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 22:06 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:451nkrF4gi4cU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> Interesting that the "Named after your father perhaps?" line isn't
> actually in Mankiewicz screenplay and it has been suggested that
> it was the input of one Big Tam Connery...
Awesome! Did not know that! Good for you, Mr. Connery.
I'd love to know all the lines he contributed. It's been said that Connery
and Terence Young often worked with the dialogue to add a bit of wit.
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas believes many non-biological things can be accomplished
> during beer commercials -- such as 10 minutes of a football game..."
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that Coach Ditka said it best when he exclaimed ""If God had wanted man to
play soccer, He wouldn't have given us arms..."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218919 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 22:34 |
|
Tom Zielinski wrote:
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to
> slay this particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing
> a Morlands' three ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As
> he waited for the delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on
> his lungs, he reflected that Coach Ditka said it best when he
> exclaimed ""If God had wanted man to play soccer, He wouldn't have
> given us arms..."
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks Ditka's opinion doesn't count for much, he
coached a game called "football" in which the ball seldom
actually has contact with a foot..."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218921 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 00:04 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:451qqcF4gv3gU1 [at] individual.net...
>> Tom Zielinski
>> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to
>> slay this particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing
>> a Morlands' three ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As
>> he waited for the delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on
>> his lungs, he reflected that Coach Ditka said it best when he
>> exclaimed ""If God had wanted man to play soccer, He wouldn't have
>> given us arms..."
>
>
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas thinks Ditka's opinion doesn't count for much, he
> coached a game called "football" in which the ball seldom
> actually has contact with a foot..."
Well..."Handball" was taken...
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that he was really a bigger fan of baseball anyway..."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218922 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 23:52 |
|
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in
news:46-dnVexr98DtHTeRVn-vA [at] comcast.com:
>
> "Paul Clarke" <jim_caerleon [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> ...Octopussy is his masterpiece.
>>
>> Surely you jest?
>
> I'm hoping...
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to
> slay this particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a
> Morlands' three ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he
> waited for the delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his
> lungs, he reflected that the Octopussy affair is just
> so...forgettable."
Looking back at it years later, I do think that Octopussy could have
been stronger if they had somehow brought over a little more of the
serious side of FYEO, and played down the light comedy a little more.
Surely Roger was starting to look particularly geriatric, and some of
the menacing action sequences with the Indian assassins could have been
perhaps a little less gimicky, but I suppose they wouldn't have seemed
Moore-era Bond enough. A few of the cheesier gags could have gone, but
there weren't any double-taking pigeon sequences or that horrible
talking parrot that nearly ruins FYEO for me.
However, I thought that much of the film had a real air of espionage
thriller to it. About the only thing I genuinedly don't like about that
film was the whole Russian maverick general. The idea is interesting,
and very topical for its day, but the actor and the script for his part,
though strong at the time, have really dated badly. He's such a stock
villain, and impossible to believe. There may actually be fanatical
warmongers of that stripe in the world, but somehow, I just can't
believe in them nearly as much as I can believe in the slow burning
quiet-lipped reptilian warmonger type. That sort of cold-blooded
intensity always creeps me out more than an overacting hot-head
performance.
I know a lot of people feel the whole amazonian island thing was
ludicrous, but I thought it was an interesting notion, and at least it
got us away from some of the standard hotel room sequences we'd seen
perhaps a little too much of over the years. Probably the weakest part
of that setup for me was the cheezy crocodile sub thing. The rest was
pretty cool, sexism aside.
I even liked all that circus stuff. A little ludicrous, but I thought
Glen managed to make the circus segments seem nicely sinister, right
down to Moore's sad clown. And those knife-throwing brothers were great
henchmen. Those scenes of the 00 clowns running from the brothers were
almost as dark as the forest scene in Moonraker (one of the highlights
of that films).
All in all, a flawed film with a few too many phoned-in performances of
a less than perfect script, but an atmospheric film with fewer cheesy
elements than most of Moore's run. Could have been brilliant if they had
replaced the lamentable minijet PCS with the scene of 009 running from
the brothers instead, and returning after the credits to see him crash
through the embassy French doors. That alone would have put the film on
par with the Dalton films.
Yeah, there was a good movie in there, and it's not even hard to find.
It just needs some judicious trimming.
Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
counts Octopussy as one of Moore's strongest outings
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218923 ] |
Do, 09 Februar 2006 23:58 |
|
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in news:450q6sF4cvs6U1
[at] individual.net:
> neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
>> Bond films have writers? I never would have guessed.
>>
>> Is it a coincidence that the Guy Hamilton films have the best
>> dialogue?
>
> I think THUNDERBALL has the smartest dialogue in the series.
I concur. The dialogue was sharp, and aside from the overuse of the
underwater sequences (which was the producers' faults more than the
director's or editor's, as it turns out), the action was tight and bold,
and many of the effects used still look pretty good, even though a fair bit
of it is obvious to us now. The film is bold and suspenseful, and I thought
it capitalized on both the flavour of FRWL and the more popular flavour of
TB. It managed to capture elements of both rather brilliantly. It stands as
oen of my all time favourites, right up there with OHMSS and FRWL. If they
dared to sneak in there and trim down the underwater sequences for a
rerelease, I daresay they'd have a winner on their hands.
Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
perhaps a little too chatty today
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218924 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 00:03 |
|
"Garmt de Vries" <g.devries [at] phys.uu.nl> wrote in
news:1139296245.395018.10160 [at] z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> Eric Grayson wrote:
>
>> Glen, like Hunt, comes from the same background. It is no wonder we
>> get lifeless performances from the cast. Glen is looking for shot
>> setup and continuity. Let the actors work it out for themselves.
>> [...] Glen also allows Moore's natural aloofness to tromp onward and
>> unchecked.
>
> While I agree with most of your post, I'd just like to mention a
> detail I saw in the documentary "Inside FYEO". Apparently, Roger Moore
> was reluctant to have Bond ruthlessly kick Locque's car over the edge
> of the cliff, and it took Glen a lot of discussion to persuade Moore
> to do it. Glen considered this the one defining moment for Bond.
And he was bloody right. That film absolutely cemented Moore's Bond as an
efficient if not completely cold-blooded assassin. Moore needed smart
directing so badly, and Glen managed to get a brilliant performance out of
him with almost no mugging and all of the comedic elements being supplied
by the cast regulars and extras. Thank goodness. Now if only they could
have lost the closing parrot sketch and the Telly lookalike gag.
Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
really likes that movie
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218925 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 00:26 |
|
Tom Zielinski wrote:
>> "Vargas thinks Ditka's opinion doesn't count for much, he
>> coached a game called "football" in which the ball seldom
>> actually has contact with a foot..."
>
>
> Well..."Handball" was taken...
I think "Safe Rugby" has a nice ring to it.
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to
> slay this particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing
> a Morlands' three ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As
> he waited for the delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on
> his lungs, he reflected that he was really a bigger fan of baseball
> anyway..."
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas likes the speed and grace of Basketball."
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218926 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 00:28 |
|
Lee Edward McIlmoyle wrote:
> Looking back at it years later, I do think that Octopussy could have
> been stronger if they had somehow brought over a little more of the
> serious side of FYEO, and played down the light comedy a little more.
Yeah, definitely. Stuff like the Tarzan yell, the Barbara Woodhouse
"Sit" to the tiger, and the gorilla suit teleportation shouldn't be in a
Bond movie.
> However, I thought that much of the film had a real air of espionage
> thriller to it.
Some of it did, yeah, I think you're right. Some of the scenes in the
pre-credits sequence, with the 00 agent dying were very well done. But
for me the campiness does it in.
> Could have been brilliant if they had
> replaced the lamentable minijet PCS with the scene of 009 running from
> the brothers instead, and returning after the credits to see him crash
> through the embassy French doors. That alone would have put the film on
> par with the Dalton films.
Agreed. Some good, sinister secret agent stuff.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218927 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 00:17 |
|
"Blofelds Cat" <nospam [at] myplace.com> wrote in
news:43e96d0f$0$3696$5a62ac22 [at] per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> The problem I have with Glen is not his style of directing as much as
> it is that he was allowed to direct too many Bond films in a row.
>
> A workmanlike style of directing might be bearable in a OO7 film from
> time to time but not several times in succession.
>
> I guess the trouble was that the uninteresting style of Glen's
> 'template' approach to directing OO7 was exaggerated by the visually
> exciting style's that were evolving around him in other action film's.
> Glen never seemed to experiment with style - odd in a pupil of Peter
> Hunt.
>
> Like writer, Dick Maibaum, Glen seemed to dwell on past triumphs and
> was frightened of breaking new ground.
I'd have to concur. Glen produced some good films, but it was up and
down at best, and I think it's safe to say that he shouldn't have been
used stright throught the 80s as it worked out. He started pretty well,
but I think the series could have stood for an interim director for
perhaps Octopussy but definitely A View To A Kill, and perhaps Licence
to Kill as well. I'm pretty Happy with FYEO and TLD, and even like OP a
good deal, but Glen just couldn't sustain it, especially with those
lacklustre scripts. Maibaum could still hit a few out of the park, but
his best work was well and truly behind him.
> As for OHMSS not being an actor's film, I agree inasfar as Lazenby's
> performance is concerned but that's it. Rigg, Savalas, Ferzetti,
> Scoular and even Steppat and Baker, deliver highly characterised
> performances that elevate the film high above all it's fellows to
> date. Ferzetti's performance in a single scene - in which a vast chunk
> of expository dialogue is relayed in a short space of time - is
> testament to how Hunt relied on the talent of an actor to make the
> scene work. Hunt's contribution as the Director was in how he chose to
> 'block' the scene so that it was visually interesting as well. Superb
> stuff.
>
> As Rigg herself said in a contemporary promotional interview, OHMSS is
> an epic among Bond films.
>
> Glen's editng and second-unit direction added much to the film's
> impact but Glen has never came close to equalling this success. I
> guess he was a little more 'hungry' in 1969.
Just wanted to add my nodding head to this part.
Lee Edward McIlmoyle,
agrees
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218930 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 00:56 |
|
Paul Clarke wrote:
> Lee Edward McIlmoyle wrote:
> > Looking back at it years later, I do think that Octopussy could have
> > been stronger if they had somehow brought over a little more of the
> > serious side of FYEO, and played down the light comedy a little more.
>
> Yeah, definitely. Stuff like the Tarzan yell, the Barbara Woodhouse
> "Sit" to the tiger, and the gorilla suit teleportation shouldn't be in a
> Bond movie.
>
> > However, I thought that much of the film had a real air of espionage
> > thriller to it.
>
> Some of it did, yeah, I think you're right. Some of the scenes in the
> pre-credits sequence, with the 00 agent dying were very well done. But
> for me the campiness does it in.
>
> > Could have been brilliant if they had
> > replaced the lamentable minijet PCS with the scene of 009 running from
> > the brothers instead, and returning after the credits to see him crash
> > through the embassy French doors. That alone would have put the film on
> > par with the Dalton films.
>
> Agreed. Some good, sinister secret agent stuff.
Any time the climactic fight involves a troup of performing gypsy girls
who look right out of an 80's Jazzercize class beating the shit out of
dozens of armed guards with machine guns, and then Bond arriving
unnoticed in a hot air balloon with the colors of the national flag,
count me out.
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218932 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 01:06 |
|
Lee Edward wrote:
> Maibaum could still hit a few out of the park, but
> his best work was well and truly behind him.
FWIW, I've always thought that Maibaum was great at adapting Fleming's
material for the screen, on occasion (GF) even managing to improve on
the original, but when left to come up with story and plot ideas from
scratch he tended to flounder.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
| Re: Trashing John Glen [message #218933 ] |
Fr, 10 Februar 2006 01:16 |
|
Tom wrote:
> A big part of the reason that "Thunderball" is an exceedingly worthy entry
> of "The Big Four." I am flummoxed as to its being so underrated in this
> forum.
Is it underrated? Certainly the criticism that some of the underwater
bits drag strikes me as valid, although the first time I saw the film
it was one of the butchered prints without the Barry soundtrack to
those scenes, and the feeling that the film was slow might have stuck
with me more than it would have if I'd seen the full version. However,
I can't recall seeing much other *serious* criticism of the movie on
this forum, and I certainly don't remember it appearing particularly
low on many people's lists of favourite Bond films.
Best
Phil
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 21:14:29 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 2,84520 Sekunden |
