6/10
Beautiful landscapes in a so-so Bond adventure
4 October 2005
Let me say I like Roger Moore very much, because I grew up watching his films -he's the first Bond I've ever seen. Many people prefer Sean Connery, who is really unique, true... But how can I say Roger Moore is not good? I've also a lot of affection for Moore because I watched on TV, when I was a kid, "The Persuaders" series.

Although that his second Bond outing is not very good. That's not his fault at all, the screenplay is not good and the story itself is not very interesting. Everything is a little slower than usual, the film has neither the liveliness of "Live and let die" -the first Moore Bond flick- nor the liveliness of the previous episodes.

Here Bond has to face a refined assassin -that's all, there isn't a real thrilling intrigue

On the other hand landscapes and John Barry score are fantastic. Also the cast is strong, because Christopher Lee and Britt Ekland bring a lot of glamour. It's a pity that the movie doesn't match the usual standard.

At the time producers Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman didn't get along well with each other any more. In '75 their partnership broke up and let Broccoli alone at the command of 007 empire. Maybe this tensions had an influence on "The man with the golden gun", who knows...

Luckily in 1977 Bond came back with one of the best films of the series -"The spy who loved me", a real classic, the definitive Roger Moore entry as Bond.
56 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed