Ten Statements About....A VIEW TO A KILL (1985)

Oh, Steed....what they have planned for you....

“Killing Tibbett was a mistake.”
“Then I'm about to make that same mistake twice.”

1) Perhaps the major problem with the basic fabric of this film is that since all the major characters are noticably younger than Roger Moore, it emphasizes how much older he is, and how he’s too old to be playing an action hero.

2)  I never thought it’d be possible to make San Francisco look boring.  I guess you showed me, movie.

3) We can add Tanya Roberts’ Stacey Sutton to the list of unconvincing female scientists.  Sure, she’s pretty to look at, but she is incapable of delivering geological exposition in an effective way.

4) Shame on you, movie, for misusing Patrick MacNee so badly.  He deserves more than to be used as comedic relief for a long stretch of the film and then killed off.

5) Boy, is Christopher Walken...vigorous as Max Zorin (a role turned down by Sting and David Bowie, incidentally).  Grinning to beat the band, giggling at his own villainy at spots, and strutting

She looks as bored as I am....

like a peacock, he could have been more entertaining in a better film.  As it is, he seems out of place given the scheme he’s hatching.  And speaking of Zorin....

6) Why does he have so many henchpeople?  There are so many that none of them get any sort of development to make them come alive.  Even Grace Jones’ May Day is cardboard, and relies on her physicality and striking features to carry her along in the picture.

7) While John Glen for the most part dispenses with the sight gags that marred his previous efforts, there is one chase scene involving a fire truck that is truly winge-worthy in the way it’s played for laughs.  It also doesn’t help that Moore is allowed to run rampant with his lame puns.

8) As I’m sure Dean Martin would tell you, when you’re shooting so much of your fight scenes in long shot, you’re trying to hide how tired your star is.

I'd throw the screenwriters off the bridge...

9) What is up with that long, boring stretch of film in and around Stacey’s house.  It kills what little pathetic momentum the film has had up until that point.  And speaking of killing the film dead....

10) That whole sequence involving the female Russian spy and the bath house contributes literally nothing to the film save to give Walter Gotell a little bit more screen time.  If the rumors are true and they wanted Barbara Bach to reprise her role in that sequence, I’m not surprised she turned them down.  It could be cut whole and not affect the film one bit.

Overall...Maybe not the worst Bond film (that one’s coming up), but arguably my least favorite, as it’s so boring it leaves me numb.

Ten Statements About....OCTOPUSSY (1983)

Yes, he's dressed like a clown...but the scene is actually
quite tense...

"Mr. Bond indeed is a rare breed...soon to be made extinct."

1) As if overcompensating for the soberness of For Your Eyes Only , this film sees the return of the broad Roger Moore humor.  It can be difficult to see past the double-taking camels, swamis complaining about people lying on their bed of nails, Tarzan yells and other annoying gags...especially the seeming endless stream of lame puns coming directly from Moore’s mouth.  That being said...

2) We still get hints of the Bond we could have gotten if Moore had taken things seriously.  There is one moment in particular, involving a circus and a bomb, where Moore conveys some real emotion.

3) One of the clever things about casting Maud Adams as...*ahem*...Octopussy is that, because she is a mature woman, Moore’s advancing age is not an issue.  As such, the romantic moments aren’t as creepy as they could have been (and as they’re going to get soon).

4) As for the other Bond girl, Kristina Waybourne is an odd personage as Magda--and not just

Somehow, this version of Charlie's Angels didn't catch on...

because she looks very striking from one angle and frighteningly weird from another--because there’s no clear sense of her loyalties.  Supposedly she’s part of Octopussy’s organization, yet she behaves as if she is Louis Jordan’s Kamal Khan’s right hand doxy.  The script needed to take a more forceful stand on her.

5) Wait a minute...a Roger Moore Bond film that actually has some connection to an actual Bond story?  Say it ain’t so!

Well, I can’t.  I find it satisfying that the story the title is derived from is summarized at one point and connected to the film, making it a sequel to the Fleming short.

6) Much like Hugo Drax in Moonraker  Louis Jordan underplays Kamal Khan.  Unlike Drax, however, it works for him.  There’s an icy sort of self-assuredness to Jordan’s presence that makes him an effective Bond villain.

That weird-looking girl is looking over my shoulder again,
isn't she?

7) Steve Berkoff, a New York stage actor, is certainly...vigorous as General Orlov.  This serves to balance out Khan, but also provides the sort of playing-to-the-rafters grandiosity that is expected of a Bond film.

8) Go away, crocodile sub.  Just...go away.

9) There is an extended sequence beginning on a train that, even with some questionable fast changes and another broad bit of humor with The German Sausage Couple, should have been the film’s climax.  It is extremely tense, full of great fighting, and manages to skillfully conceal the age discrepancy between Moore and his stunt double.  This could have been a satisfying ending, but instead we get a silly assault on the Monsoon Palace by the circus and a sequence on a plane where the discrepancy between Moore and his stunt double is all too evident.

10) Unfortunate name to the contrary, Adams’ Octopussy is a surprisingly effective, willful and competent Bond girl...until the last ten minutes, where the script suddenly decides it needs a girl’s school screamer and have her kidnapped and menanced.

Overall...nowhere near as bad as some will lead you to believe--pretty good, actually.  If you block out the broad Moore/Glen humor, you’ll have a great time.

Ten Statements About....FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (1981)

"Did I tell you about the time I was a rich man, James?"

"The Chinese have a saying.  When preparing for revenge, first dig two graves."

1) Oh, Lord...the sequences that bookend this film are brutal to watch.  They’re so bad, so broadly performed, and so transparent in their purpose (particularly the big ‘Fuck You’ Broccoli throws to Kevin McClory in the pre-credit sequence) that they actively work against the mood this film is trying so hard to maintain...

2) ...as is, for that matter, the disco-fied score by Bill Conti.  It’s woefully out of place in a Bond film, and actually actively reduces the tension in what are some effective action sequences.  Imagining how the centerpiece ski chase would feel with a John Barry score only emphasizes how unsuitable these synth-heavy, rhythm propelled pieces are.

3) Even though there are still moments where the John Glen we know and loathe shine though (particularly the gratuitous slapstick and animal noises), his direction is uncommonly focused here.  The choices he makes are more subtle and nuanced than the ones he makes in other films, and he shows a restraint that fits this film’s more grounded and, for lack of a better word, realistic orientation.  It adds to the refreshing feel of the production as a whole.

4) Even though we are at a point where Roger Moore looks noticeably--some would say alarmingly--older than his leading ladies, the relationship that develops between him and Carole Bouquet’s Melina makes sense for a number of reasons.  The script makes certain that Melina has plenty of screen time with Bond (more than a lot of other Bond Girls before and since) and  gives her roles in both the plot and the theme that are integral.  On top of that, Bouquet and Moore do have something of a chemistry that makes their relationship seem organic.

There's no jokes about birds in this moment, no sir....

5) This is one of the performances of Moore’s that gets me angry, as it gives us a hint of the Bond that could have been.  Moore plays it more or less straight here, and it gives Bond a little bit of a harder edge.  It’s the darkest Bond’s been since Moore threatened to break Maud Adams’ arm in The Man With The Golden Gun, and seeing this more serious interpretation welcome.

6) I like Topol’s Columbo quite a lot.  In many ways he reminds me of Kerim-Bey in his lustiness and good humor.  More importantly, he’s the most effective ally character we’ve had in a long time.

7) Go away, Lynne Holly Johnson.  Just...go away.

"Go away, little girl...."

8) I know they’re not going to kill Bond, but the climactic set piece is extremely tense, most likely because of the lack of scoring.  Because the music is at a minimum, we focus on Bond and his enemy and hear the creaking of the pitons and cord as Bond dangles miles in the air.  It’s a show of restraint in an era that didn’t know what restraint means.

9)  You know, when you’ve got Charles Dance’s Locke, who is an effective killer and, more importantly, somewhat anonymous-looking...why do you farm out your murders to a crazy-eyed, balding Cuban who might as well have ‘mad dog killer’ stamped across his forehead.

10) Considering how much I derided Thunderball  for being scuba-tastic, I find the underwater sequences here rather engaging.  Granted, part of that might be because they don’t take up all of the third act, and part of it might be because the script uses a lot of cutting edge (at the time) tech that gives them a particular flavor.

Overall...a pulling back from the excess of Roger Moore’s era, this film is actually pretty dark and engaging.

Ten Statements About....MOONRAKER (1979)

"I feel like I should apologize for your name, Holly..."

“At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery. Desolate, Mr. Bond?”
“Heartbroken Mr. Drax."

1) You know, Bond films have recycled plots in the past--but never have they done the same exact film twice in a row.

2) While I understand Michael Lonsdale’s choice in underplaying Hugo Drax as a counterpoint to the more vigorous Curt Jergens’ Stromborg, his subtle performance tends to contribute to the film’s lackadasial pace.  Which is kind of a pity, because he has some very good lines that aren’t given the impact they could have had.

3) It’s dismaying to see Richard Keil’s Jaws--who is treated as a serious threat throughout The Spy Who Loved Me--being frequently treated as a goof in this film.  From his first appearance falling through a circus big top to the running gag of his romance with a tiny pigtailed blonde, Jaws’ fearsomeness is blunted.  And his face turn is...kinda sketchy.  In short, it’s a disappointing treatment for the only henchman to appear twice in the series.

"For the last time, I'm not asleep!
I'm being subtle!"

4) In retrospective, Lois Chiles is very good as Dr. Holly Goodhead.  There is a certain charm to her straightforwardness and she does have a pretty good chemistry with Moore.  Plus she is able to handle some of the expositional heavy lifting a scientist character should.  I have to assume her lack of favor in the realm of Bond girls has to come from appearing in this movie...and having the single most embarrassing name in the series history.

5) Here is where the comedy goes out of control in the Moore era.  Not only do we get Moore’s overobvious punning, we get endless sight gags, double takes (especially during that awful gondola chase) and goofy musical cues that ape Close Encounters, The Magnificent Seven and 2001.  Every time one of these comic moments happen, the film stops so we can appreciate the humor...except for the fact they all fall with a thud.

6) Even for an unrealistic spy series like this, the presence of laser gun wielding Space Marines propelling themselves on their own power through space to invade Drax’s spaceborn HQ officially breaks the suspension of disbelief.

7) One of the reasons I think this film ultimately fails as a Bond film is how, once Bond arrives in Rio the pace slows to an absolute crawl until the end.  Even the climax is kept from moving forward thanks to the endless model shots of Drax’s space station.  And speaking of these model shots....

8) It is obvious that this is a film that wants to be science fiction shot by a crew that doesn’t understand how to shoot science fiction.  The space element actually interferes with the natural flow and feel of a Bond film, and makes the film seem less than what it could be.

"So what was that you were saying about me being a big
goof before?"

9)  This is probably the last Bond film to feature great stylized sets.  As bad as the space elements are, the actual space station set is excellent--and it pales next to the absolutely gorgeous headquarters hidden in a Mayan temple.  It’s no surprise that this is Ken Adams’ last Bond film.

10) I have always contended that any Moore Bond film that ventures into California suffers....and while this one’s Drax Estate sequence does have its charm, the other fiddly bits around the edges help sink this movie.

Overall...a terrible, terrible film that is representative of the bottom of the barrel of the franchise--although, as we’ll find out, it actually isn’t as bad as From A View To A Kill and Die Another Day.

Ten Statements About....THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977)

This is one of the best couples in Bond history...

“When someone's behind you on skis at 40 miles per hour trying to put a bullet in your back, you don't always have time to remember a face. In our business, Anya, people get killed. We both know that. So did he. It was either him or me. The answer to the question is yes. I did kill him."
“Then, when this mission is over, I will kill you."

1) This is one of those movies--probably due to the fact that Richard Maibaum has a new writing partner in Christopher Young--that shows you the Roger Moore James Bond we could have had.  While the Moore punnishness and humor is still there, in many cases that humor is much darker in a way that fits the film’s world.

2) I think a lot of what makes Moore step up his game is working opposite Barbara Bach.  The two have a palatable chemistry and create a credible complex romantic and professional relationship together.  And while the final resolution of their story arc comes off as forced (and features some forced Moore-like humor), the two of them work very well indeed.

3) I know there are some people who feel Stromberg is a mite over the top, but I never felt that way.  Curt Jurgens actually has a very good pitch as the ocean loving villain, remaining arrogant and smart throughout while also having that level of operatic a good Bond villian needs.  If there is one flaw in Stromberg, it’s that he’s not as charming as other Bond masterminds (something Michael Lonsdale also fails at in the next film, but for the exact opposite reason; he underplays while Jurgens overplays).

He bites...and that's one of the reasons he's one of the
greatest Bond henchmen of all time.

4) This is the beginning of that weird period where the producers are experimenting with more contemporary composers for the Bond films.  This film’s score by Marvin Hamlish is at odds with the Bond tradition, being too...well, disco-y at times to be taken seriously as a spy soundtrack.

5) As delightful as Bach is, this film sorely needed more of Caroline Munro’s Naomi.  She is certainly the epitome of the Bond Girl, and her brief, very flirty role adds some spice to this already flavorful film.

6) One of the things this film is not recognized for is that it begins a heightened emphasis on continuity.  Besides making pointed reference to Bond’s marriage, the film introduces a number of characters who will recur throughout the next few films--primarily Walter Gotell’s Gogol, who serves as M’s opposite number.

You know what this film needed?  More Caroline
Munro in a bikini....

7) Just as Bach and Jurgens help to elevate this film to its great heights, so does the presence of Richard Kiel as Jaws.  Kiel is one of the scariest henchmen not due to his physical body, but his non-verbal acting.  Even when the script is obviously trying to make him a figure of fun, Kiel manages to keep Jaws a serious threat by sheer force of will.  The only time he seems to fail is a moment involving a magnet, but it’s a brief moment in an otherwise amazing performance.

8) I find it fascinating how this film reflects the softening of relationships between countries.  In addition to the relationship between Bond and Anya, we get an interesting dynamic between Gogol and M and a third act showing American and British naval personnel fighting side-by-side with Soviets.  This is the beginning of a reorientation of the Bond franchise away from the cold war emphasis of previous entries.

9)  This is one of Ken Adams’ crowning jewels--which is made all the more impressive given how badly his eyesight was failing at this time (he received an uncredited assist from Stanley Kubrick when it came to lighting the massive submarine dock sets).  There are some gorgeous set designs that reflect the changing design esthetic of the70‘s while also maintaining the elegance most people associate with Bond villains.  And while it’s obviously a model, Atlantis is a magnificent sight as it rises from the ocean.

10) I love the Lotus, and I’m even more impressed that its submersible qualities were not faked at all.  Practical effects like this is something I continue to sorely miss.

Overall...Along with For Your Eyes Only (which is atypical of a Bond film), the best of the Moore era with very little to lament.  Recommended.

Ten Statements About....THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974)

If the film was just these two...and maybe Maud Adams...
I'd have been a lot happier.

“You see, Mr Bond, like all great artists I want to create one indisputable masterpiece: the death of 007."
“You mean stuffed and mounted over your rocky mantelpiece?"
“It's an amusing idea, but I was thinking more in terms of history.”

1) This is the last of the Maibaum and Mankiewicz scripts...and it is the most nonsensical one of all.  Never has a Bond film been more a string of crazy stuff that happens than in this film.

2) It’s obvious at this early juncture why the Moore era seems so dated while the Connery films aren’t is how they seem to be constantly chasing trends--in the case of this film, there’s a lengthy and fairly out of place kung fu sequence that ends with Bond being saved by a pair of schoolgirls in plaid skirts.  I remember thinking it was cool at one point, but now it just seems gratuitous and more than a little embarrassing.

3) And speaking of gratuitous and pointless...the film seems to literally stop so that Clifton James’ Sherrif J.W. Pepper can act like the ultimate ugly American (his constant referring to the Thai people around him as ‘pointy heads’ is particularly winge-worthy)...and then somehow shoehorns him into the major action sequence so that he can ‘enliven’ the film with his southern fried hick comedy.  It’s indicative how the Moore films seem skewed more to comedy than action.  However...

When you need two schoolgirls to save your ass...well,
you're no longer an effective secret agent.

4) It’s to the credit of the script that Bond himself is not part of the comedy.  We’re still in the phase where Moore is finding his voice, and he shows glimmers of true ruthlessness, especially when he’s dealing with the arms dealer Lazar and Maud Adams’ Allison Anders.  It’s a hint of what Moore’s Bond could have been if he hadn’t decided to coast on his charm and go for broad comedy.

5) What little life the film has lies in the hands of Christopher Lee’s Scaramanga.  Playing a dark mirror for Bond, Lee (Ian Fleming’s cousin, and the author’s choice to play Dr. No) sinks his teeth into the part enthusiastically, giving an otherwise thinly written character a dimension of quiet menace.  Giving him all the gadgets gives the film one of the few interesting edges.

6) Hmmm...a hired assassin with a perchance for carnival memorabilia who charges an exorbitant fee, lures victims into a funhouse to kill them and has an assistant named Locke...is it time to add another item on the list of Things Chris Claremont Stole Shit From?

The only reason Britt Eklund is in the film.

7) Britt Eklund’s Holly Goodnight may very well be the single stupidest character ever to appear in a Bond film--and that’s saying something.  She contributes nothing to the film except to needlessly complicate things and look good in a bikini, and even has the distinction of extending the film’s bloated running time by having her butt activate a giant solar gun.  Adam’s Anders is much more effective, which is why it’s so sad she becomes the Sacrificial Lamb.

8) Hey, and speaking of that Giant Solar Gun...it comes out of nowhere, makes no sense for Scaramanga to have it, and seems to be there solely so he can blow up an airplane.  It’s a real non-sequitur end to a villain plot.

9)   You know, there are moments where Herve Villechaize’s Nick Nack is an effective, even nightmarish presence...but then you see him in a diaper and an oni mask, or running around a yacht throwing wine bottles shouting ‘I keel you!  I keel you’ where he becomes embarrassing.

Go away, J.W Pepper...just.  Go. Away.

10) As uninteresting as I found many of the settings this time around--Thailand in particular comes off as a tawdry backwater of a country (but maybe that’s the Pepper Hate talking), I love the unique look of Scaramanga’s hideout in a series of small islands now ironically named The James Bond Islands.  They provide a bit of color and flair in a film that sorely needs it.

Overall...one of the worst Bonds from the Moore era that comes off better than it should thanks to the character of Scaramanga (and the performance of same by Lee) and some interesting minor characters.  I’m sure it thanks the Cinema Gods that it looks miles better when compared to Moonraker and A View To A Kill, as we’ll learn soon.

Ten Statements About....LIVE AND LET DIE (1973)

"In my first act to try and destroy this fanchise, I figured I'd
dress up as a Chicken Elvis Showgirl."

“You do know what the Queen of Cups means in an upside down position? A deceitful, perverse woman. A liar, a cheat, and I'd like some answers now."
“Please... uh... You don't understand, sir. They'll kill me if I do."
“And I'll kill you if you don't."

1) Welcome to the Roger Moore era of Bond, an unfortunate time where the disparity between the good and the bad films is at its greatest.  This is one of the good ones....

2) ...even though it features the second of three nonsensical Tom Mankiewicz scripts, perhaps typified by the way Bond is literally led around by the nose by the rather extensive conspiracy of Black America that plagues him from the second he steps foot in New York.

3) The biggest problem with Moore’s interpretation of Bond is his simple unwillingness to take the role seriously.  Even here we see Moore quipping and punning in a way that burst the seams of the film’s veracity with an unheard of viciousness.  And given how there are some moments (admittedly created because Mankiewicz didn’t know the Bond he was getting) that hint at a colder, more matter-of-fact Bond Moore could have become, the overabundance of easy humor can be annoying.

This dancing, incredibly tall, weirdly made up black man
is brought to you by Nightmare Fuel, for all your
sleepless needs!

4) Look, I’ll admit that the Mr. Big disguise fools no one, but it doesn’t change the fact that this is the most intriguing collection of Bond villains we’ve seen in a while.  From Yaphet Kotto’s Kananga to Julius Harris’ Tee Hee to Geoffrey Holder’s Baron Samedi, this is a strong selection of opponents for Bond, each one having his own distinct and colorful personality.  It’s this group of baddies who manage to lift the story up over the nonsensical parts, smoothing over what would be rough terrain,

5) This Bond film is unique in that it not only includes supernatural elements, but takes them for granted.  The clairvoyant Solitaire who loses her powers with the loss of her virginity and the near silent Baron Samedi who seemingly comes back from the dead not once, but twice both add a texture that other Bond films just don’t have.

"I know, I know...but I get better once I remove this
stupid mask."

6) Was there ever a time when Jane Seymour wasn’t hot?  Even dressed in that Chicken Elvis Showgirl outfit she uses to read her cards in San Monique, she’s smoking.

7) Between the New York, New Orleans and Jamaica-standing-in-for-San-Monique, this is one of the tattiest looking Bonds of all.  All the settings have this dull, run down look to them, and some of them look like ghettos.  Granted, part of the film’s motif is contrasting the natty Bond with the garbage strewn and ugly surroundings he’s moving through, but it wears on you after a while.

8) God, Bond’s outfits are awful.  The tailored suits are fine, but trading in the regular tuxedo for the Canadian one (i.e. jeans and jeans jacket) over a wife beater or a leisure suit is such a terrible idea.

"I had this dream where I was a frontier doctor
 in the Old West..." 

9) Go away, broad comedy characters like Aviation Student Old Lady and...shudder...Sheriff Pepper.  Just...go away.  And speaking of broad comedic characters....

10) Gloria Hendry’s Rosie takes the previous film’s Tiffany Case and removes all the competence from her, leaving just the bungling goofball of that film’s third act.  It’s impossible to take Rosie seriously, so much so that when Mankiewicz gives her a heel turn (a turn that’s not so much foreshadowed as out and out handed to us), we don’t fear for Bond’s safety at all.

And if you think Rosie is bad, wait until you meet Mary next film....

Overall...even though the plot is nonsensical and the attempt to drag Bond into the 70‘s are laughable, the combination of the film’s energy and its villain set make for a fun and engaging entry in the series.