Last Bond Movie You Watched? 2.0

AVTAK I think is Moore's second weakest (TMWTGG taking the prize) but it's still a couple of steps above the awful TWINE.

With a younger Roger Moore, VTAK could have even been Roger's best. The age aspect is just so reductive to this film, especially in a series so reliant on stunts and seductions.

M wrote:

With a younger Roger Moore, VTAK could have even been Roger's best. The age aspect is just so reductive to this film, especially in a series so reliant on stunts and seductions.

Yep, this ... the age gap between Moore and his conquests in AVTAK is as cringeworthy as the frequently incredibly obvious stunt doubles. The bit where the face of the looks-nothing-like-Moore stunt driver in the decimated Renault is clearly visible onscreen for several seconds during the Parisian chase is particularly toe-curling.

AVTAK is an interesting Bond film. I think it's horrific, but it is interesting because it actually had the potential to be a very damn good Bond film. It had some good ideas, they just failed horribly in almost all aspects of execution.

Roger's Age

The most glaring thing about the film. It honestly wouldn't have been that bad had they used one or two throwaway lines about Bond getting older. Maybe a mention about retirement. Nothing serious or heavy, just a "You're getting older, you're not as quick as you used to be, be careful Bond."

Maybe that kind of acknowledgement would have made it easier to swallow. Instead we pretend Bond's a young fellow. Roger relied on his looks for Bond, the impeccable Englishman. Charming, handsome, etc. But by AVTAK that just wasn't cutting it. He could have pulled off a 7th Bond film much better had it been more character/driven or story driven. He had the acting chops for it (See The Man Who Haunted Himself), but a grand action spectacle? Nope, those days were behind him.

Oddly enough, despite looking pretty old, Roger seems much more "alive" and energetic in this film than he had been in recent entries. It's first time he looked enthusiastic on screen as Bond since LALD.

The Plot/Pacing

The plot is not bad. It has some good ideas, but just poorly executed. I think the scenes at Zorin's estate/party drags. It's kind of unnecessary. They could have cut a lot of that out, but it just drags and drags.

Same thing when we get to San Francisco. The film should be building momentum, but it just drags and drags and drags. I did enjoy the City Hall scene though. It's an odd scene for a Bond film, but I enjoy him carrying her down the ladder to safety. Very heroic moment that is thrown in your face, but oddly enough I like it. Maybe that's due to Barry's score which works quite nicely.

Then we get treated to some dull old police car chase. Interesting, but this is a Bond film. Bringing a firetruck into the equation doesn't make it that much more exciting. And all the Keystone cops and humorous moments doesn't save it from being what it is....the same old boring car chase.

I would have trimmed a lot of the Zorin estate scenes and the San Francisco chase scenes. I would aim to bring the running time down to about 1 hour 50 min.

The Cast

Walken is good, but the Nazi background was kind of a throwaway thing. I like Mayday, a decent henchwomen except for the "turning good" at the end of the film. Tanya Roberts is horribly miscast.

Oddly enough, I really liked David Yip as Chuck Lee of the CIA. I don't know why. He just seems like he would have been an interesting ally for Bond to work with. The actor made a pretty good impact on me with the little screen time he had. Unfortunately, he is just there to move the plot along and gets killed two minutes later.

The Direction

Ugh...ugh....vomit. A View To A Kill is just a goddamn ugly film to look at. Glen is partly responsible for the dull look and style of the 80's films. There's not much unique about them, but A View To A Kill is unique in how horrible the film looks. Everything looks so dirty. The San Francisco scenes are are rather shitty looking. The direction is boring and uninspired.


With a few tweaks A View To A Kill could have been a mediocre Bond film. A new actor as Bond would have given it a lot of life, but even then I think it would still have been meh. With a new Bond and someone besides Tanya Roberts, it probably could have been much more solid and engaging.

Or with a little more interesting direction from Glen it could have gave it some life it sorely needed. Hell, a new director. With a director who actually had some interest could have actually managed to turn this lifeless affair into something tolerable enough to watch. But alas, it's just a dull affair. The script is decent enough plot wise, but there isn't much to note. Dramatically it lacks. In the comedy field it is tired old cliches/jokes.

It's a shame Glen didn't have his way and have George MacDonald Fraser return to write the script. I think he was busy doing something else. While OP is not the greatest Bond film ever, it was a breathe of fresh air, it would have been interesting to see him return with a new 007 script.

Roger's too old. It looks ugly. It drags forever. John Glen didn't give a shit. Cubby was trying to mold AVTAK to be another Goldfinger and instead he left us with a piece of garbage.. It failed, just like the last time (Diamonds Are Forever) he thought about mimicking GF. AVTAK has a few moments worth enjoying, but in the end it is a very forgettable and cringe worthy entry into the Bond canon.

Also Lois Maxwell should have left probably in FYEO or OP and that's pushing it. Between her and Rog it was like the M briefing was taking place in a retirement home.

Totally agree about the energy that Moore still put into his performance that sometimes it did let me look past his age, until the stunt doubles came in. I feel MR should have been his last film, if not, maybe FYEO. And yet, I think FYEO would have made a fantastic debut for Timothy Dalton, had he been able to do it at that time. I really want to know why Moore was asked back a seventh time. For FYEO, it was because John Glen wasn't comfortable with starting off his directing duties with a new actor and Moore was still in good terms with EON, so it seemed like a no-brainer especially since he was popular. OP was gonna go with a new actor, but Sir Rog was brought back because EON needed to have a proven Bond star go up against Sean Connery's rival film at the box office. Totally made sense, so you'd assume after that they would then look for a new actor. Why didn't they? Was it because after OP beat NSNA at the box office that Cubby was unwilling to let go of a popular Bond? Looking at the context of the time, Rog was the only successful Bond actor after Connery. Was Cubby afraid that lighting might not strike more than twice? That's one of the things about AVTAK I have not seen ever mentioned or confirmed.

A different and director for AVTAK was definitely needed though (it's a miracle that Glen did decent work in TLD right after). I think it would have made a solid Dalton Bond film if done right, and I do like the idea of Dalton going up against Walken.

Now, it could have been the wine we shot back before the movie and the low expectations we had going in, but we enjoyed A View to a Kill tonight.  

Yes... much of it could have been cut and it's not a gorgeous film. But the issues I had with it in the past didn't seem as irritating this time. Bond's age for instance... it was troublesome for the stunts but not the romance. It's clear Stacey had a grandfather fixation and hot tub chick already had Bond years ago... so she knew about the magic penis.

Stacey's screaming didn't even bother me. Sound in the cinema is more balanced than at home, I suppose.

Walken was great. Even a bit beautiful in his craziness.  And I love Scarpine. Sexeh!

The Tibbett bit and Moneypenny did add to the octogenarian feel but those bad bits didn't make me angry like some of the ones in TSWLM and FYEO.  I'll have to really review the Moore Bonds against each other soon.  

Anyway, all I know is that seeing the films in the cinema has really shaken my ranking list.  Though that was lost with the old site I know that I ranked the Connery films higher than the Moore films.  But for enjoyment sake, I might put AVTAK over YOLT.  Might...

Tomorrow is LTK and TMWTGG....

Python wrote:

Totally agree about the energy that Moore still put into his performance that sometimes it did let me look past his age, until the stunt doubles came in. I feel MR should have been his last film, if not, maybe FYEO. And yet, I think FYEO would have made a fantastic debut for Timothy Dalton, had he been able to do it at that time. I really want to know why Moore was asked back a seventh time. For FYEO, it was because John Glen wasn't comfortable with starting off his directing duties with a new actor and Moore was still in good terms with EON, so it seemed like a no-brainer especially since he was popular. OP was gonna go with a new actor, but Sir Rog was brought back because EON needed to have a proven Bond star go up against Sean Connery's rival film at the box office. Totally made sense, so you'd assume after that they would then look for a new actor. Why didn't they? Was it because after OP beat NSNA at the box office that Cubby was unwilling to let go of a popular Bond? Looking at the context of the time, Rog was the only successful Bond actor after Connery. Was Cubby afraid that lighting might not strike more than twice? That's one of the things about AVTAK I have not seen ever mentioned or confirmed.  

A different and director for AVTAK was definitely needed though (it's a miracle that Glen did decent work in TLD right after). I think it would have made a solid Dalton Bond film if done right, and I do like the idea of Dalton going up against Walken.

I always figured Cubby kept bringing him back because he was afraid of another Conney-Lazenby-Connery-Moore debacle. From 1969-1973 there where 3 Bonds in 3 films. I think he wanted to avoid that at all cost. FYEO and OP performed solidly enough at the box office, so Moore was still bringing in the money. I think he hung on just to avoid the hazards of a potential recasting. I think that was a huge misstep by Cubby. Another misstep was not officially parting ways with the Maibaum/Glen team until after LTK came out in 1990. By the time he was willing to bring in a new director/writer for the series, it was already looked like the series was running on fumes.

It's odd ... the box-office for AVTAK was down (I think by roughly 30 million) on what OP drew in, and then the casting of Dalton and his more down-to-earth approach made TLD a big hit. But come LTK, the figures went down to AVTAK levels (possibly even lower) again.

We're a fickle lot, the cinema-going public.

The 80's actually weren't that great for Bond at the box office. Sure, the films were successful and bringing in cash, but the trend was downward. The box office gross was on a downward slide since MR both worldwide and in the United States. The admissions numbers were even worse. The only spark of light was The Living Daylights and I think a large reason the box office/admissions increased for that film was the introduction of a new Bond and casting off 12 years of Roger Moore, which is a long time to be in a role.

Worldwide: Moonraker (210 million).  FYEO (194 m), OP (183 m), AVTAK (152), TLD (191.2), LTK (156.2).

U.S. Box Office: MR (62.7), FYEO (52.3), OP (67.9), AVTAK (50.3), TLD (51.1), LTK (34.6)



Admissions were even worse. Admissions were on a significant decline to very bad, low numbers both in the US and Worldwide.

US Admissions: MR (24.9), FYEO (22.4), OP (21.5), AVTAK (14.1), TLD (13.1), LTK (8.7)

Worldwide Admissions: MR (85.1), FYEO (70.3), OP (59.2), AVTAL (42.9), TLD (48.9), LTK (39.1)


I think Cubby's mistake was:

1) Keeping Roger for so long
People got tired of the same man in the role for 12 years.

2) Keeping the same creative team.

Maibaum should have been let go after his work on TSWLM. MR is refreshing. Sure, it isn't the greatest film, but it is a change of pace. A different feel. They should have been bringing in new talent by this point. The 80's films are a bit bland looking and written and I think that was the key problem.

Besides, Maibaum always disliked Roger's portrayal, they should have brought some new blood in. Why Cubby waited until Summer 1990 to officially dissolve his working partnership with Maibaum and Glen is beyond me. He wanted to bring in new talent after LTK. I remember Spottiswood said Cubby asked him to direct a Bond film as early as 1991. Unfortunately, I think it was a little too late by that point, Bond needed a rest.

Glen should have done FYEO and OP and then someone else should have come in. Glen could have returned any point after that, but the last time (and only time) they stuck with a director for more than 2 films in a row (Guy Hamilton: DAF, LALD, TMWTGG) the results weren't very great stylistically.

Yeah, think I read somewhere that he thought Roger choosing to 'send up' Bond was 'unforgivable'. Presumably Connery doing it in DAF passed him by, or something.

I'm certainly with those that think ideally Roger should have retired after MR, however I do find AVTAK more fun than many here suggest, and pretty much on a par with its two immediate predecessors albeit with different strengths. Overall Moore is still ok, Walken and MacNee are great, the action has some invention and while Glen is weak away from the action I think his dramatic skills show continuing improvement film on film (meaning fewer of the really flat scenes or dead performances than we got in FYEO or OP).

So last night we saw Licence to Kill and The Man with the Golden Gun in the cinema.  

Both were more enjoyable than we had expected but the big surprise was just how much I enjoyed TMWTGG.  But I will say that at some point in these two, as well as all the others we've seen (except for Dr. No and OHMSS), the film seemed too long.  There was always a point where it seemed closed to being over but then I realized, "Shit, we've still got a whole other story to get to next."

That said, Dalton's Bond in LTK had a coolness about him that was not there in TLD.  The film itself was rather ugly though.  Very 80s but without the colour you'd expect from a Miami Vice-style story.  

Now, TMWTGG... Moore looked great and the attitude he gave Bond was sharp and cool. There were still groan moments - why oh why Sheriff Pepper? But there were good moments to enjoy. Scaramanga is great.  I know that some on the forums have complained that he's not a big enough villain - just a hitman - but I found the story of how they come to cross paths and Scaramanga's evilness a nice break from the SPECTRE-type story.

Anyway, neither were great films but I'd see both in the cinema again, which I can't say for all that we've seen in the past week.  

Tonight's showing is viewers' choice and they just announced that it's From Russia with Love. I really love this movie and when we saw a clip of the train fight the other day in the cinema, Grant looked amazing. Cannot wait!!


Though I don't have a ranking saved anywhere, I know that viewing them in the cinema has changed that ranking in a serious way. So I'll do a bit better rundown over the weekend of the movies we saw in the cinema and how my opinion changed from tiny to big screen.

Oh man.... From Russia with Love... in cinema.

Not much I can say really.  It was a gorgeous film with great action, dialogue and beautiful stars!

The only thing that was a negative that I noticed on the big screen that didn't bother me as much on a television was the dubbing.  When Tanya's mouth is the size of a car, you can really tell she's being dubbed.  But she was soooo beautiful it didn't really matter.

That was the last of our 12 days of Bond. 17 films in 12 days (with one day in the middle where none were shown). We saw OHMSS twice (18 viewings).... (Also in that time, we saw Russell Brand and Doug Stanhope - it's been a busy couple weeks.)


One thing that sticks out after all this is most of the movies needed some severe editing. They are too long - some with cramming too much in, some with unnecessary scenes.

DN, FRWL and OHMSS are all movies with a perfect length though.

Much as i love them I think most Bond films do feel 5-10 minutes too long (although in the case of some like TB once it ends it simply ceases being a problem and I wish the atmosphere could go on forever). I agree that DN and OHMSS hit a sweet spot in terms of pace and running time and probably add GF and QoS, whereas at the opposite extreme CR I find a good half hour too long (a real bum numb-er).

CR could deffo do with some trimming, the pacing is distinctly odd at times.

Skyfall.

I've not seen it since the cinema and hadn't gotten to the DVD until now. Indeed it's the first Bond I've seen in a year therefore. Worried it wouldn't be as good on the small screen but I quite liked it still. I confess that the Tennyson moment gave me the ol' bumps. Just cracking.

Haven't given it a watch since the day it came out. Kinda wanna keep it fresh, so I'm sort of starting a tradition of seeing a Bond film only once a year. So far, I haven't seen any of the other films this year as I'm saving that for the holidays.

Best policy really. Since joining old MI6 I seem to only watch them once a year if that. Work and other films dictate this policy. I'd imagine the next time I watch Skyfall is in the week I see the next Bond.

I recently watched Octopussy,Goldfinger and Licence To Kill.

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS. Seems to get better with each passing year. Dalton superb. This is how it should be done: a film that brings Bond back down to earth and injects a bit of grittiness while maintaining a huge sense of fun. Makes room for decent characterisation and epic action scenes. A Bond outing that gets it all pretty much right without really getting anything wrong (although it's a trifle overlong). Mendes could do worse than to give this one a few viewings over the next few months.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Watched it with a good speaker system (of course, mono) and on a 60 inch TV. Must say, this is the first time I ever actually teared up during the ending, right at the moment Bond realizes what happened to Tracy. I immediately hit the mute button right before the abrupt Bond theme blares too, wish the film was actually like that with the credits just being silent. On the film itself... Lazenby is fine, but you'll never convince me that Connery at his A game wouldn't have knocked it out of the park in a way Lazenby never dreamed of. I still think it's unfortunate he got dubbed during Piz Gloria, it shows a lack of confidence as a lead actor IMO for the producers to do that.

Makeshift Python wrote:

On the film itself... Lazenby is fine, but you'll never convince me that Connery at his A game wouldn't have knocked it out of the park in a way Lazenby never dreamed of.

I don't think many, if any would, the only question is that after YOLT would Connery bring his A-game. In fairness I have mellowed considerably on his performance in DAF I now rate that just behind his Thunderball/Goldfinger peak so the answer, given a much better script and dramatic centre than YOLT, is probably that he would.

Were EON really so stupid as to not even bother keeping Laz's original voice audio from the Piz Gloria scenes? Surely they'd have kept their options open in case the dubbing didn't go down well in preview screenings for the top brass at UA? It also raises the question of whether he was dubbed before or AFTER he'd "quit". Conspiracy to try and weaken his performance? Who knows.

I daresay EON were that stupid as not to have a copy without the dubbing. If that's the case maybe like lost Dr Who/Dad's Army tapes, we hope for someone from the OHMSS production to find an old copy somewhere.

Faint hope, fantastical even.