80 replies to this topic

[Judo chop]

Do I gather that you're not a big fan of TWINE?

No, I'm really not. But I do try to look at the positives, namely that we’ve seen Bond go as low as he’ll ever get.

The World Is Not Enough = The Worst Is Behind Us.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Do I gather that you're not a big fan of TWINE?

No, I'm really not. But I do try to look at the positives, namely that we’ve seen Bond go as low as he’ll ever get.

The World Is Not Enough = The Worst Is Behind Us.

I hope you are right, hope Bond will never get that low again!

[Zorin Industries]

My take on the film....(which I like dearly).

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry984580

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, my friend, Zorin, I just finished watching AVTAK again. It was the first time in I guess three or four years. I had seen it, of course, during its first run in the theaters as a teenager. At that time I was disappointed. I don´t even know anymore why - I think I was a bit (as many more at that time) tired of the old Bond formula. Then, years later, when it came out on DVD, I watched it again and found it equally disappointing - with too many Bond clichés and a Sir Roger who definitely was too old for the part.

But... wonder oh wonder - this time I liked it a lot. I thought that it moved much faster, more effectively. There is barely a dull moment, it´s constantly changing locations and offering action scenes that are quite good. Even the dreaded back projections which took me out of the movie before look pretty good on the Ultimate Edition DVD. Of course, Stacey Sutton or Tanya Roberts, I should say, remains IMO the weakest Bond girl of them all, with her constant owl makeup and rather onedimensional phrasing of her dialogue.

And Sir Roger (whom I deeply admire, who was the first Bond I ever saw - TSWLM - and who will always define a lot for me what Bond is all about), well, he is so much better in this than I had remembered. Despite his re-styled look (with his dark tan in sharp contrast to his extremely blond hair and his intensive blue eyes, due to colored contact lenses I´m sure) and some a bit rusty movements, Sir Roger delivers a very fine last Bond performance. Most of all, he really tries to have as much fun as possible. The seriousness of some parts of FYEO and OP have gone. AVTAK just wants to deliver solid thrills and pure entertainment.

Maybe the mine finale suffered during the first theatrical run because of INDY 2´s superior mine sequence. And maybe the plot - while very well working - owes a little too much to previous Bond films.

But, I must confess, I like AVTAK. Better than expected. Which makes me think about my ranking again. Hmmm, which Bond film do I like less than AVTAK?

[Turn]

...Sir Roger delivers a very fine last Bond performance. Most of all, he really tries to have as much fun as possible. The seriousness of some parts of FYEO and OP have gone. AVTAK just wants to deliver solid thrills and pure entertainment.

The latter part hits on what I think is part of the problem with AVTAK. FYEO and OP had a much better balance of the somewhat serious and fun.

There are several scenes that try to be serious that are hurt by the goofy parts and that makes AVTAK all over the place. You have a serious escape from a burning building intercut with a drunk watching it from below. What did that add?

You have a comic firetruck chase with Bond dangling like Harold Lloyd all over the place, inept cops, a bridge raising that seems like another Keystone Cops moment crossed with a Blues Brothers outtake and then a few minutes later you have Zorin and Scarpine cold-bloodedly gunning down innocent miners and laughing about it.

I thought Moore seemed least Moore-like in AVTAK. He seems more subdued than usual, save for his interplay with Tibbett and some of the scenes at Zorin's villa. The rest of the time the Rog I know and love seems to disappear.

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

This film with DAF and TMWGG is the biggest insult to the character of Ian Fleming. I can't understand how one could be so harsh with DAD or TWINE and incense this "thing" called a Bond film ! After Octopussy, Sir Roger would be leaving. For him and for Bond.

[Safari Suit]

For me personally, it's because I prefer AVTAK to TWINE and DAD.

You have a comic firetruck chase with Bond dangling like Harold Lloyd all over the place, inept cops, a bridge raising that seems like another Keystone Cops moment crossed with a Blues Brothers outtake and then a few minutes later you have Zorin and Scarpine cold-bloodedly gunning down innocent miners and laughing about it.

To be fair, it's significantly more than a few minutes. And I have no problem with a film juggling light, goofy comedy with harsher moments. If they intercut Keystone cops antics with the machine gunning that would be another matter.

[Turn]

For me personally, it's because I prefer AVTAK to TWINE and DAD.

You have a comic firetruck chase with Bond dangling like Harold Lloyd all over the place, inept cops, a bridge raising that seems like another Keystone Cops moment crossed with a Blues Brothers outtake and then a few minutes later you have Zorin and Scarpine cold-bloodedly gunning down innocent miners and laughing about it.

To be fair, it's significantly more than a few minutes. And I have no problem with a film juggling light, goofy comedy with harsher moments. If they intercut Keystone cops antics with the machine gunning that would be another matter.

For me, it's just so much worse in AVTAK than in, say, Moonraker. By 1985, with action heroes like Rambo and Mad Max emerging and others in the wings, it was clear the Bonds were in need of a drastic overhaul.

[chrisno1]

In 2008 I watched all the Bond movies and wrote a series of reviews for another site. The aim was to watch them in order in the run up to the premiere of QOS. I succeeded and the reviews were well received.
However, subsequently, I have re-read my reviews and re-watched a number of the movies (the BFI had a whole 007 season earlier this year and I saw quite a few on the big screen again!).
This is my updated review for A View To A Kill.

A VIEW TO A KILL
REVISED REVIEW 15/1/10

There’s a scene in A View To A Kill when Bond and his assistant switch on a pre-recorded tape of their conversation to fool an eavesdropping surveillance team. It’s a clever little scene, but we see precious more of its ilk. There is a lot of laziness surrounding this Bond adventure and the limping heroics of Roger Moore look dated and unattractive.

The scenarios created for this never ending tale involve a stunning interlude at the Eiffel Tower, a well costumed couple of days at a beautiful French chateaux, some mischief on an oil drilling platform, an escape from a burning lift shaft, a subsequent chase with a fire engine, a flooding mine and ultimately a climax atop the Golden Gate bridge. It sounds exciting, but its execution is excruciating.

Everything is all too obvious here. Bond is the odd man out at a stud farm auction; Tanya Robert’s heroine is slight, likes to be rescued a lot and screams even more; the mad doctor is clearly a Nazi scientist; the stables house the secret door to the laboratory; and the San Francisco cops are as hopeless as those in Las Vegas, New Orleans and Keystone. When the eventual conclusion comes upon us, we’re too worn out with the tedium to care.

The film makers can’t maintain a good scene or stunt without extending it far beyond its boiling point. Perhaps they didn’t think they had enough ideas for the whole film. To prove the point, Patrick MacNee’s amusing Tibbett and David Yip’s wasted Lee are both throttled to death in a car wash. Any tension or danger is diluted by Bond’s or his adversaries’ ceaseless cheekiness. They’re a pleasant bunch this lot, with such a nice line in humour that Bond doesn’t even bother to kill any of them. He bombards them with rock salt, wraps them in packing cases and allows them to tumble off bridges. How chilled is that?

John Barry’s music is reminiscent of Moonraker and if that film attempted to replicate Star Wars, this one feels more like a daytime television detective show. Each mystery is easily revealed; each character a cardboard cut out; each segment ending on a pun or a not too strenuous puzzle; even the cliff-hangers are tame.

It’s an indolent, laid back Bond film in which everything falls neatly into place without ever putting too much stress on the actors, the crew or the audience. It’s all going so nicely that Christopher Walken’s Zorin looks suitably astonished when Grace Jones’ May Day thwarts his plans. He must wonder how it all went wrong. How indeed...

RATING 2 from 10.

[Zorin Industries]

And an alternative opinion to A VIEW TO A KILL....

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry984580

[chrisno1]

And an alternative opinion to A VIEW TO A KILL....

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry984580

Fair enough. I can't agree with a lot of it, but that's the fun of a forum, right?

[Zorin Industries]

And an alternative opinion to A VIEW TO A KILL....

http://debrief.comma...mp;#entry984580

Fair enough. I can't agree with a lot of it, but that's the fun of a forum, right?

Course.

[Genuine Felix Leiter]

I think the Roger Moore era was well and truly running on empty here. Like a lot of Bond movies, I can see a lot to like, but I see a lot of issues as well. Roger Moore, whilst looking older, actually still cuts it as Bond, although giving him a love interest nearly half his age as well as villains made up of younger characters as well adds to the visual disharmony. At least Octopussy gave him the likes of Maud Adams to sleep with and Louis Jourdan and Steven Berkoff to go up against, and it worked, but here we've got a 57 year old sleeping around with 29 year olds and fighting villians around that age too whilst wearing a leather jacket which makes him look like an aging father trying stop his kids from causing fights in a night club. The Reanult 11 car chase is good and features some nice motorcar mayhem (plus my parents used to have a Reanult 11 which I have fond memories of which may explain my love for that scene (James Bond in a car I used to drive in, sweet)). Chrstopher Walken is one of my favourite actors of all time and seeing him play a Communist created nut job is great and pairing him with Grace Jones makes for a surreally great patnership, but the film just feels out of place a little, not neccessarily because it's bad or terrible, but it's just clear the series needed a fresh injection of new blood and direction. Timothy Dalton was just around the corner. Happy days.

[Attempting Re-entry]

Loved this one when I saw it at the cinema (hey, I was nine years old...) but it hasn't really aged well. Watched yesterday and the promising start is killed immediately by the Beach Boys song - I love the Beach Boys but I don't want them in a Bond movie, thanks - and it just left a bad taste in the mouth.

I give it a 6. Not as bad as Octopussy IMO, but still pretty bad. Having said that, I know I'll watch it again: these films are our companions for life, now, eh...?

I absolutely love Roger but his last two movies are really quite disappointing in retrospect.

[ChristopherZ22]

Loved this one when I saw it at the cinema (hey, I was nine years old...) but it hasn't really aged well. Watched yesterday and the promising start is killed immediately by the Beach Boys song - I love the Beach Boys but I don't want them in a Bond movie, thanks - and it just left a bad taste in the mouth.

I give it a 6. Not as bad as Octopussy IMO, but still pretty bad. Having said that, I know I'll watch it again: these films are our companions for life, now, eh...?

I absolutely love Roger but his last two movies are really quite disappointing in retrospect.

I am actually a big fan of Octopussy. I find it to be one of the most fun films in the series even if the villains are not the most memorable. The action scenes and stunt work are imaginative.

To my understanding, the Beach Boys song in A View To A Kill is not the Beach Boys version, but a cover version from a knock off band. There were probably some legal issues.

A View To A Kill has always been, and always will be, one of the series most tired, dull, dreary, and boring entries. I like Christopher Walken and Grace Jones, and enjoy the scenes between Moore and Patrick MacNee. I also like the Eiffel Tower and Golden Gate Bridge scenes. I still place it alongside GoldenEye, Moonraker, Quantum of Solace, and The Living Daylights as among the weakest films in the franchise.

[Safari Suit]

To my understanding, the Beach Boys song in A View To A Kill is not the Beach Boys version, but a cover version from a knock off band. There were probably some legal issues.

It's by Gidea Park, a covers band who nearly had a Top 10 hit in the UK in 1981 with a Beach Boys medley (they had another Top 30 hit that year with a medley of 4 Seasons hits!). I doubt it was for leagal reasons per say, as most of them would also preclude using a cover, it is simply cheaper to use a cover version (at least one that isn't also famous in its own right) than the original recording.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Loved this one when I saw it at the cinema (hey, I was nine years old...) but it hasn't really aged well. Watched yesterday and the promising start is killed immediately by the Beach Boys song - I love the Beach Boys but I don't want them in a Bond movie, thanks - and it just left a bad taste in the mouth.

The California Girls moment does get AVTAK off to a bad start from which it never fully recovers. The ski sequence is technically a good one but the abrupt switch from John Barry's incredible action music to the Beach Boys(or Beach Boys imitators) prevents this technically well-made action sequence from being of competitive quality with such similar work as either the PTS in TSWLM or the Escape from Piz Gloria sequence in OHMSS.

Loved this one when I saw it at the cinema (hey, I was nine years old...) but it hasn't really aged well. Watched yesterday and the promising start is killed immediately by the Beach Boys song - I love the Beach Boys but I don't want them in a Bond movie, thanks - and it just left a bad taste in the mouth.

I give it a 6. Not as bad as Octopussy IMO, but still pretty bad. Having said that, I know I'll watch it again: these films are our companions for life, now, eh...?

I absolutely love Roger but his last two movies are really quite disappointing in retrospect.

I am actually a big fan of Octopussy. I find it to be one of the most fun films in the series even if the villains are not the most memorable. The action scenes and stunt work are imaginative.

Agree that OP definitely tops AVTAK. Sir Rog seems to be having more fun in the role in OP with a leading lady he has far better chemistry with. Also, Orlov's U.S. Army Base nuclear detonation plot generates far more interest and tension than Zorin's Silicon Valley plot.

A View To A Kill has always been, and always will be, one of the series most tired, dull, dreary, and boring entries. I like Christopher Walken and Grace Jones, and enjoy the scenes between Moore and Patrick MacNee. I also like the Eiffel Tower and Golden Gate Bridge scenes. I still place it alongside GoldenEye, Moonraker, Quantum of Solace, and The Living Daylights as among the weakest films in the franchise.

Agree with AVTAK being one of the most tired entries in the series. And as fond as I am of MR I'm used to reading folks put it at or near the bottom of their rankings. But TLD among the weakest? Most folks tend to put either MR/FYEO and DAD/CR as being their examples of a weak OTT entry followed by a superior, more faithful to Fleming entry but for me that would be AVTAK/TLD. I find TLD a very exciting entry that's very faithful to its Fleming source material(my personal favorite Fleming short story) and provides an intricate, interesting Cold War espionage/international intrigue plot that was very refreshing after the tired GF retread known as AVTAK. I also thought the underrated Timothy Dalton did a smashing job in his debut film. For me, TLD is for 1980s Bond what CR is for 2000s Bond or OHMSS is for late 1960s Bond.

[ChristopherZ22]

But TLD among the weakest? Most folks tend to put either MR/FYEO and DAD/CR as being their examples of a weak OTT entry followed by a superior, more faithful to Fleming entry but for me that would be AVTAK/TLD.

Not most folks. Only Fleming purists judge Bond films based on whether or not they are faithful to Fleming's work.

Fleming purists only care about whether a Bond film is serious or over the top. If a Bond film is more serious or faithful to Fleming, they will like it whether or not it is bad. If a Bond film is not faithful to Fleming and a bit over the top, they will hate it no matter how good it might be. Fleming purists lack all credibility for this reason. They especially lack credibility since they have misinterpreted so much of Fleming's work. Fleming's work is quite humorous, but Fleming purists make the enormous mistake of judging Fleming's work through the cynical eyes of the post-911 era.

Fleming purists are incapable of looking at the real quality of a Bond film. They will not judge a Bond film on whether or not the writing, directing, cinematography, or acting is good. They do not care about that stuff and gladly overlook such things. Quality to them is just seriousness vs. silliness. This has little to do with quality.

The Living Daylights is of course not one of the over the top and silly ones. However, I believe it has the weakest cast in the series. The villains are forgettable, the allies are also not memorable, and Kara is one of the weaker Bond girls. Dalton is alright, but a little bland. Furthermore, it has other problems in the writing department. Koscov's scheme is not completely clearly explained and is confusing; at least to me it was unclear. Of course one could disagree with me, but I am not a Fleming purist and refuse to like a Bond film simply for being more down to Earth and serious. I also refuse to dislike a Bond film for being over the top and silly. Both types of Bond films have been done well, but also have been done badly.

So yes, I can dislike an over the top and silly Bond film like Moonraker, but I can also hate a more serious, gritty, and down to Earth Fleming like film as well. I have already said why I dislike The Living Daylights.

I don't mind the idea of Bond in space. How do we know that if Fleming lived to see man walk on the moon, he wouldn't put Bond in space? Maybe he would have, so let's not make any assumptions about Fleming that may be false. His books reflect the times he lived in. I don't hate Moonraker because Bond goes into space. I hate it for the reason it should be disliked. For lacking a plot most of the way through. After Bond leaves California, the plot gradually disappears. By the time he is on Rio, the plot is nearly gone with the exception of occasional mentions of Drax's planes and wearhouses. The plot doesn't fully come back until he goes into space.

Edited by ChristopherZ22, 16 March 2010 - 06:53 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

But TLD among the weakest? Most folks tend to put either MR/FYEO and DAD/CR as being their examples of a weak OTT entry followed by a superior, more faithful to Fleming entry but for me that would be AVTAK/TLD.

Not most folks. Only Fleming purists judge Bond films based on whether or not they are faithful to Fleming's work.

Fleming purists only care about whether a Bond film is serious or over the top. If a Bond film is more serious or faithful to Fleming, they will like it whether or not it is bad. If a Bond film is not faithful to Fleming and a bit over the top, they will hate it no matter how good it might be. Fleming purists lack all credibility for this reason. They especially lack credibility since they have misinterpreted so much of Fleming's work. Fleming's work is quite humorous, but Fleming purists make the enormous mistake of judging Fleming's work through the cynical eyes of the post-911 era.

Fleming purists are incapable of looking at the real quality of a Bond film. They will not judge a Bond film on whether or not the writing, directing, cinematography, or acting is good. They do not care about that stuff and gladly overlook such things. Quality to them is just seriousness vs. silliness. This has little to do with quality.

The Living Daylights is of course not one of the over the top and silly ones. However, I believe it has the weakest cast in the series. The villains are forgettable, the allies are also not memorable, and Kara is one of the weaker Bond girls. Dalton is alright, but a little bland. Furthermore, it has other problems in the writing department. Koscov's scheme is not completely clearly explained and is confusing; at least to me it was unclear. Of course one could disagree with me, but I am not a Fleming purist and refuse to like a Bond film simply for being more down to Earth and serious. I also refuse to dislike a Bond film for being over the top and silly. Both types of Bond films have been done well, but also have been done badly.

So yes, I can dislike an over the top and silly Bond film like Moonraker, but I can also hate a more serious, gritty, and down to Earth Fleming like film as well. I have already said why I dislike The Living Daylights.

I don't mind the idea of Bond in space. How do we know that if Fleming lived to see man walk on the moon, he wouldn't put Bond in space? Maybe he would have, so let's not make any assumptions about Fleming that may be false. His books reflect the times he lived in. I don't hate Moonraker because Bond goes into space. I hate it for the reason it should be disliked. For lacking a plot most of the way through. After Bond leaves California, the plot gradually disappears. By the time he is on Rio, the plot is nearly gone with the exception of occasional mentions of Drax's planes and wearhouses. The plot doesn't fully come back until he goes into space.

And Bond film purists are any different because.....

[Major Tallon]

Only Fleming purists judge Bond films based on whether or not they are faithful to Fleming's work.

Fleming purists only care about whether a Bond film is serious or over the top. If a Bond film is more serious or faithful to Fleming, they will like it whether or not it is bad. If a Bond film is not faithful to Fleming and a bit over the top, they will hate it no matter how good it might be. Fleming purists lack all credibility for this reason. They especially lack credibility since they have misinterpreted so much of Fleming's work. Fleming's work is quite humorous, but Fleming purists make the enormous mistake of judging Fleming's work through the cynical eyes of the post-911 era.

Fleming purists are incapable of looking at the real quality of a Bond film. They will not judge a Bond film on whether or not the writing, directing, cinematography, or acting is good. They do not care about that stuff and gladly overlook such things. Quality to them is just seriousness vs. silliness. This has little to do with quality.

Hi, ChristopherZ22. I'm a Fleming purist, I've been a Bond fan since the mid-60's, and I flatter myself that I have a modicum of credibility on matters related to our hero. Of course I'd like the Bond character, as portrayed in the movies, to be based on the character that Fleming created. The books are wonderful reads, although some are better than others, and I enjoy the films best when they translate Fleming's stories to the screen. That's not to say that I insist a line-for-line literal rendering before I pronounce a film enjoyable, and I certainly don't begrudge the films their humor. As you point out, the books have lots of humor. Besides, there are scenes in the books that simply wouldn't translate to the screen, and the movies have often improved on some things Fleming wrote.

Silliness, however, is another matter for me. For me, James Bond movies should be thrillers, not comedies. The injection of a comic touch doesn't bother me as long as the thrill remains. I've got no complaint against TMWTGG's slide whistle, or Octopussy's Tarzan yell, because the underlying excitement of the action remains for me. The use of "California Girls" in AVTAK is more problematic because it turns an extended segment of an exciting chase into a joke. For the record, I don't object to Bond in space.

Finally, you shouldn't think that we Fleming purists don't want our Bond movies to be "good." Obviously, we all disagree about what that means, but we haven't invested so much of our interest and energy in this fictional character without wanting his every incarnation to be absolutely fantastic.

[tb75]

My review of A View to a Kill
------------------------------

1985, the year of the action Films. You had BTTF, Rambo 2, and Rocky 4. There was a forgotten film that year: A View to a Kill. Let's find out why.

AVTAK was the 14th Bond film, but it is regarded as one of the lowest ranked films. Why? It has one of the most well known Bonds, A classic Villain, one of the Hottest Bond Girls, and a Amazon. What else can you ask?

The plot is an okay for the time, but nowadays it's not that great of an idea. Silcon Valley is still important, but not as is once was. Plus, Moore was way to old. he was 55 when the films was made.

Chris Walken was the best Bond villain in my opinion. His charterer was great, especially with his one liners. Grace Jones was great, but a little over the top. her best part in the film is when May Day practically rapes Bond.

Tonya Roberts..., oh lord. Where to begin. she's the hottest Blond Bond girl in my Opinon, but she can't act her way out of a paper bag. She deserved to be in a Bond pørno parody. and not an actually Bond Film. They should have cast someone who could act.

Now, the film doe shave some good things. The Theme song is great, as well as the musical score. The Cinematography is great, which set's this film out. The Movie should have been timothy Dalton's first, then the film would have been perfect.

MY OFFICIAL RATING IS 6 out of ten