The Man with the Golden Gun

Name: The Man with the Golden Gun
Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller
Released: December 20, 1974
Duration: 125 min
Rating: 43
Cast: Christopher Lee, Roger Moore

1974

METASCORE

Mixed or average reviews based on 11 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 54 Ratings

See All

6.2

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.2	Your Score
6.2	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 54 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

The Man With The Golden Gun

Now Playing: The Man With The Golden Gun

Movie Details & Credits

United Artists | Release Date: December 20, 1974 | PG

Starring: Christopher Lee, Roger Moore

Summary: James Bond is led to believe that he is targeted by the world's most expensive assassin while he attempts to recover sensitive solar cell technology that is being sold to the highest bidder.

Director: Guy Hamilton

Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Thriller

Rating: PG

Runtime: 125 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

The Guardian Michael Hann

Live and Let Die borrowed from blaxploitation; The Man with the Golden Gun took a couple of kicks at kung fu, though in a distinctly half-hearted fashion. Read full review

James Berardinelli

Rarely does The Man with the Golden Gun take anything seriously. Mary Goodnight is as clumsy as they come. Pepper and Nick Nack are cartoonish. There are more jokes-per-minute than in any other Bond film. Even John Barry's score is less earnest than usual, and the opening song is ridiculous. Read full review

Empire Ian Freer

Whilst this takes itself a little too lightly it has a lot going for it. Read full review

Dave Kehr

Roger Moore is a pastry chef's idea of James Bond; but Christopher Lee as the archetype of the evil antagonist makes this 007 outing just about bearable. Read full review

Nora Sayre

Mr. Moore functions like a vast garden ornament. Pedantic, sluggish on the uptake, incapable of even swaggering, he's also clumsy at innuendo. If you enjoyed the early Bond films as much as I did, you'd better skip this one. Read full review

Time Out London Staff (Not Credited)

Roger Moore's interpretation of Bond is blandness personified. It is left to Christopher Lee, playing a kind of Westernised, Dracula-esque Fu Manchu, to lend some semblance of style and suavity as Scaramanga, the man with a hideout in Red China and a hankering after the status of gentleman. Read full review

Phil Perello

Roger Moore's second outing as 007 does not do the subject matter justice. Or the character. Or any paying member of the audience. Read full review

SEE ALL 11 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Akhinesh

Mar 17, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The man with the golden gun was not so great film but I rate 100% because I love James Bond film series and Sean Connery and Roger moree was great James Bond actors. Roger moree really so great actor and his film **** was filmed in India and I'm born in india. James Bond was a masterpiece… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Kai82

Dec 20, 2020

A divisive James Bond movie. For some it is one of the weakest and for others it is an excellent one. This is because of Christopher Lee as Francisco Scaramanga / The man with the golden gun and his right hand man Herve Villechaize as Nick Nack (he is introduced as his servant but I will sayA divisive James Bond movie. For some it is one of the weakest and for others it is an excellent one. This is because of Christopher Lee as Francisco Scaramanga / The man with the golden gun and his right hand man Herve Villechaize as Nick Nack (he is introduced as his servant but I will say he is his close friend, right hand and a really dangerous). He also got really famous later on in the TV series Fantasy Island. Back to the movie: It is the ninth movie and is staring Roger Moore but you can also say that Scaramanga is also a main character as you learn a lot about him. After the amazing intro which gives you a great insight into Scaramanga and Nick Nacks relationship and abilities the story starts when a golden bullet engraved with 007 is received by the MI6. They believed it was send by Francisco Scaramanga who is a legendary assassin and a myth as nobody knows much about him. He is possibly the most dangerous assassin on the planet and his skill might even be a deadly challenge for James Bond. Because of this James Bond is relived of his current mission to find a scientist who has the knowledge to solve the energy crisis. So starts the story. The story itself would be pretty weak but Roger Moore and Christopher Lee made it excellent. You always know it will end with a final duel of these two as they play a cat and mouse game. It is so enjoyable too watch how the characters enfold in the story. It is driven by the actors and this made me ignore all the other problems. For the cast we have Roger Moore in his second movie as James Bond. He improved and has become the James Bond we know and love (I wont bring up the Sean Connery or Roger Moore topic). As I already said Christopher Lee is also the main actor here or close to it. He gets a lot of attention and you learn a lot about him. An enjoyable and unforgettable performance and he reached the heights of the best James Bond Villains (best in the Roger Moore era with Jaws for me). Remark: Do you know that he was the step cousin of the James Bond author Ian Fleming? Herve Villechaize as Nick Nack delivers also a great performance. He is often forgotten in the list of best henchman / lieutenants. He is clever, dangerous and I do not want to have him as enemy. Richard Loo is the second antagonist of the movie and made a good performance. Clifton James returns as Sheriff Pepper. I so much enjoyed his stereotype parody performance. They also established the humor to the James Bond movies the Roger Moore era is famous for. Here are so many good jokes I wont spoil. Also the locations were amazing. This time we got Hong Kong, Macau and Thailand. Visually impressive and worth to visit in real life. Bonus for the MI6 headquarter in Hong Kong;-). This movie is full of interesting gadget and devices and I think I will not give you a spoiler free description here. Overall this is an excellent James Bond movie that I recommend. Be however warned as it is divisive. Like I said before for some it is a low point but I had no one ever see or heard criticizing Christopher Lees performance.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

imthenoob

Nov 12, 2019

I put this up there in my top 5 Bond films. Christopher Lee is a fantastic villain who comes off as an equal to Bond and not an inferior one trying to get us to buy into his hype. I love that Lee's character makes it clear from the jump that he is out for Bond, thus making Bond on edge andI put this up there in my top 5 Bond films. Christopher Lee is a fantastic villain who comes off as an equal to Bond and not an inferior one trying to get us to buy into his hype. I love that Lee's character makes it clear from the jump that he is out for Bond, thus making Bond on edge and fully expecting a challenge from a worthy foe, rather than someone hiding behind the curtain.

It's a fun and entertaining movie that totally lives up. It's the best film that Moore does as Bond and an instant classic IMO.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

kheas

Mar 18, 2019

Warts and all, to me, this is one of Roger Moore's best outings as Bond. It has everything needed to make a great Bond film, A solid villain, outstanding allies and even a believable macguffin in the Solex Agitator. It has it's problems but it's a solidWarts and all, to me, this is one of Roger Moore's best outings as Bond. It has everything needed to make a great Bond film, A solid villain, outstanding allies and even a believable macguffin in the Solex Agitator. It has it's problems but it's a solid entry.http://latetothegame.blog/2019/02/28/key-movies-of-my-life-james-bond-edition-the-man-with-the-golden-gun-1974… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

HeroicAge616

Oct 26, 2021

Thanks to Christopher Lee's fantastic villain, The Man with the Golden Gun is memorable, if not perfect.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

VidyaBum

Oct 22, 2021

Having watched 25 Bonds from Dr.No to Skyfall, I place this one at 13/25.

The Man With the Golden Gun is fascinating to cricitise because there is so much to say. Right from his start with Live and Let Die, Moore entered like a dog in a bowling game. His first movie was terrible and it wasHaving watched 25 Bonds from Dr.No to Skyfall, I place this one at 13/25.

The Man With the Golden Gun is fascinating to cricitise because there is so much to say.

Right from his start with Live and Let Die, Moore entered like a dog in a bowling game. His first movie was terrible and it was in great part due to him playing his old role and being a pompous prancing bourgeois.

For Golden Gun, they decided to force him to be serious, to be hard. And boy, did he catch that boat and ride it. We get to see Roger Moore threaten people with castration by rifle, we get to see him slap a woman in the face HARD, he threatens, he beats, he throws, it's a movie that aims to correct the excesses of the last one by whole new excesses in the other direction.

And Moore delivered. He really did a great job on a movie that was decidedly against his style.

However, Golden Gun had other problems. I often complain about the villains falling flat, well not here: Christopher Lee not only makes a good villain, but most importantly, we're rid of the old daring 00 agent VS Evil CEO/Scientist/madman. Scaramanga is a brilliant mirror to James Bond, a killer to a killer, a woman user to a womanizer, a man famous for his skills to one equally famous. The famous "we're not so different, you and I" speech comes from this movie, and by God, they really did it justice. Or they would have.

I also liked the character of Nick Nack and the setting in Hong Kong was simply wonderful.

With a great villain, a strong Moore, good theming and style, this would be a wonderful Bond. And then there's the 3 big problems.

1: The Cop Character. Now you can like him or hate him, I hate him with a passion, but I suspect someone at EON who wrote plots was humiliated by the american police at some point, because there is the humiliation of the police in Diamonds, then the horribly stupid, ugly, redneck cop character in Live and Let Die, and now that same character, is somehow in Thailand and this time, doesn't just provide bad comic relief, he gets on Bond's car, and latches on to the movie for 15 whole minutes, killing everything.

2: The comic relief. This is where the movie gets a bit schizophrenic. Golden Gun is a decidedly very dark Bond in several ways. But they tried to balance it out with the aforementioned cop, with the extremely stupid "noob agent" bond girl they shoehorned in, with lots of just disruptive scenes and moments that kill the mood.

3: The kung-fu, and if I mentioned schizophrenia with the comic relief, it's nothing compared to this. After some 25% of the movie being a very dark and interesting Bond take, we have a (very stupid) scene where instead of finishing off Bond when he's down, someone orders that he gets "taken to school". The "school" is a martial arts school, where Bond wakes up surrounded by three women cleaning his nails and body(???), he then sees two students fight and murder one another(?????) and then is invited to fight, after which, realising he can't win, he jumps out a barbed window, not having any idea if he's on the 1st or 6th floor(??????), where a fellow agent just instantly finds him, picks him up, while his two 15 year old nieces destroy the entire 40-ish student body with their kung-fu(????????????). After that, the agent drives away, leaving Bond behind in some of the dumbest comedy I've ever seen, and the viewer is served with a long chase sequence. It's a massive WTF moment, perhaps one of the biggest in the series. This entire part lasts about 20 minutes, and considering the movie came out in 1975, this is one of the worst cases of cramming something popular to latch on to a fad.

There are other issues like the very strange directing for the last part of the movie where it feels like Moore and Lee are having a casual friends talk while Lee exposes his Evil Plan, and it's a bummer that they just sort of drop the very interesting "we're not so different, you and I" conversation, that was clearly not going Bond's way.

But really, the 20 minutes of terrible kung-fu, the 15 minutes of redneck cop, and the generally bad comic relief, all killed the vibe of a movie that could have stood as one of the greatest Bonds. The end result is a fascinating, but ultimately failed Bond movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

amheretojudge

May 8, 2019

Hamilton and Moore are changing the game, the result is one of the worst chapter of the franchise, so there's that record now, to break.

The Man With The Golden Gun Hamilton is behaving like some angenieux filmmaker. Usually when you go behind the camera for the first time, what you wishHamilton and Moore are changing the game, the result is one of the worst chapter of the franchise, so there's that record now, to break.

The Man With The Golden Gun

Hamilton is behaving like some angenieux filmmaker. Usually when you go behind the camera for the first time, what you wish to make and what comes out creates a long distance between the audience and the characters. For, how you are pretending the scene to come off and how it actually does is the grey area where a qualified maker aims to bridge. And in here, along with this issue, Guy Hamilton, the director, has lost the complete balance on humor. This is probably the worst to come across in the franchise. In a sense that it is not only not funny but also clearly wrong.

It is more expressive about the offense that casts as a pseudo reaction than a purposeful message it tries to pass on- by the way, don't look for it, you'll be scrapping for hours before you find anything and if you do, then you've gone so deep that you are reading between the lines that doesn't exist. Roger Moore revisiting his character signifies his incapabilities in global scale. Now, I remember that this was the reason why I never fully understood his stardom, with questionable dialogue deliveries to an outrageously loud innuendos that makes you livid, he is surprisingly the anchor of the film.

The Bond girl phenomenon is once again, showcased as an object than a being and along with a weak antagonist that isn't even correctly motivated, the supporting characters are also dragging this down way too low; how far are they going to rely upon old cameos that are supposed to make you laugh. The Man With The Golden Gun sounds corny as it actually is, the fired shots are empty just like a reason to produce this film, except for the box office results which too is among the lowest, this time.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

SEE ALL 13 REVIEWS