The Man with the Golden Gun

007__#9__First of all, I really like Christopher Lee, I liked his charismatic bad guy a lot. At the beginning I couldn't get into the story, it was too confusing in a Hamilton way again, but as time went on it got better and better. The action was good, a couple of scenes (the car chase and the jump with the propeller over the river) were excellent, the villain's mansion with the labyrinth was impressive. Thank God that the final typical Bond exaggerated mass brawl was missing, only a one-on-one duel. That's why it's a four-star overall. (10/01/2005)

Roger Moore is back and definitely in better shape. It's a shame that the writing doesn't follow suit. Moore has moved on from trying to be like Sean Connery's Bond. His character is no longer a wannabe macho man but brings an interesting variety of self-deprecating sarcasm. Christopher Lee as the main villain is oozing charisma, which is the second reason why I’m giving it a 4, despite the film’s noticeable shortcomings and the second appearance of Clifton James (why?). (08/03/2016)

Christopher Lee is clearly the best Bond villain ever! That's why it's a shame his Scaramanga isn't seen more in The Man with the Golden Gun... Besides Lee, John Barry's music (he definitely composed the best "stuff" for this film, for The Living Daylights with Timothy Dalton, and for Goldfinger), the great Bangkok car chase, and Moore being in pretty good physical shape (we all still believe him here), this Bond film doesn't really stand out. Still, I won't give it a three because it wasn't boring. P.S. Scaramanga's minion-dwarf was getting on my nerves, that dumbass. Was that the screenwriters' intention? (03/30/2010)

Roger Moore is simply a cool guy and in addition, this time he got a great villain with Christopher Lee's face. Scaramanga is one of the most iconic Bond adversaries, and it's not just because of the golden gun he owns, but also because of how he was portrayed. At times, it's maybe a bit too much fun, but I'm glad there aren't as many gadgets here and they're not so disruptive. For me, it's definitely one of the best Bond films, if I exclude the most recent ones. (03/06/2014)

The second Moore outing is better, but there is already a sense that a change of director is needed. The script is too monotonous and weak, without any significant additions. It all feels “same old-same old", and it doesn’t matter that the villain is incredibly charismatic. Bond changes locations, occasionally seduces or shoots someone – it basically depends only on the gender of the person in question – and that's it. It is more understandable and even than the previous installment, but it still feels like a farce. (04/30/2014)