I must say I had a hard time trying to give this book a rating. It has been somewhere between two to three stars out of five. I believe what makes it so hard is that giving it two stars seems to make the book sound so bad and three seems to make the book seem pretty good.
I have to admit, I felt a little apprehensive reading the first few sentences, but in the end I found it an interesting review, thank you.
I don’t believe it will change my mind on how I feel about the film. I don’t think the book’s intent is to change anybodies mind but it does make you go back and look at the film differently.
This is refreshing to read. The intent is not to change minds, but rather examine AVTAK's intriguing, if subtle, play with formulaic expectation. As I state in the book, "There's something about A View to a Kill, and this book is an exploration of what that something encapsulates." Given AVTAK's generally lukewarm critical response, the book cannot help but somewhat function as a "defence". First and foremost, it is an appraisal of AVTAK.
What hurts the film to me is I’m watching somebody play Bond that can’t play the character to their fullest ability. I just think Moore had reach his peak and it was one film to many.
Yes, that's a fair comment. And even Moore has joked retrospectively about his age in AVTAK. But to me, the dynamic (whether intentional or not) of older Bond / younger villains works effectively. Of course it isn't a dynamic that you could use for every Bond film, but as an experiment (inadvertent or otherwise) it works well. Even though Moore retains an essential level of Bondian composure, there feels to be more at stake for Bond this time round - there's more evident strain in the face - and these stakes reach a crescendo as Bond grips desperately to the Golden Gate Bridge.
