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....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....FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963)

This is one of the tensest exchanges in a Bond film...and it's
about wine and fish....

"Red wine with fish. Well that should have told me something."
"You may know the right wines, but you're the one on your knees. How does it feel old man?"

1) One of the many, many things I love about this film is how this, more than any other Connery Bond, is a true spy movie. Even with its super-spy trappings and the presence of SPECTRE, the operation to retrieve the Lektor and SPECTRE's plan to grab the Lektor for themselves while discrediting MI-5 are legitimate espionage schemes carried out like legitimate espionage operations. This is one of the purest espionage capers we'll see until we get to For Your Eyes Only in the 80's.

2) Of course, part of the reason this film is such a success is the vivid characterizations...and none are more vivid than my favorite of the 'sacrificial lamb,' Pedro Armandariz' Ali Karim Bey. Bey is such a wonderful character who's so colorful I almost wish we got a film entirely about him. Armandariz was dying from cancer, which makes his joyous, lustful and vibrant performance even more remarkable. Add into it a legitimate chemistry between him and Connery, and you have a magnificent character.

3) I'm pretty sure this is the only Bond film where the henchman thoroughly overshadows the main villains, but it's with good reason--Robert Shaw's Red Grant is the first of the true elite of the Henchmen characters. It's not for nothing that my great friend and partner Derrick Ferguson once said that 'Robert Shaw played the shark in Jaws years before he hunted it'; director Terrence Young frequently has Grant hovering around the fringes of the action, stalking Bond silently. Shaw is so effective as this silent monolith that it's almost a disappointment when he opens his mouth in the third act. Grant is one of the best creations of 60's spy culture, and he should be justifiably celebrated.

4) You know, one of the things that I think makes this film stand out amongst the early Bonds is Young's direction. Young seems to delight in these sequences with multiple planes of action--there are numerous moments where one of the actors is doing something either in reaction to the main actor or in contrast to it that adds a little flavor to the composition. Perhaps my two favorite moments like when Bond is walking alongside the train--and we watch Red Grant stalking him from inside, and the scene on the same train where Karim Bey and Bond are going over their plan while Daniela Bianchi is trying out her new cover name. These moments give an extra touch of life to the proceedings.

Ahhhhhh, the 60's...where men were frightfully hairy and a
woman could show up dressed in just a ribbon in his bed just
because....

5) And while we're talking about Ms. Bianchi, I know many people look upon her as a minor Bond girl, but I always found her rather appealing. Maybe part of it is because she is integral to the plot--the film doesn't work without her cooperation with Lotte Lenya's Klebb--but there are these moments of physical acting (as with Ursula Andress before her, Bianchi was dubbed) that seem to indicate she could have been a good lil' actress if she had decided to pursue the craft further. And I do think she's really hot, but that might just be me.

6) Earlier I made reference to how Shaw's Red Grant overshadows the main villains here...and a small portion of that may very well be how little screen time the main villains do get. Vladek Shaybel's Kronsteen, in particular, is a ghost of a presence, only showing up in two scenes before Lenya's Klebb kills him. And Lenya gives it her all, but the character doesn't have the vivid life the others around her have.

7) I find it fascinating how it seems that Roger Maibaum's script doesn't want to let go of some of the tawdrier aspects of Fleming's novel, but can't fully express it in the language of 1963's pop culture. This results in scenes such as the one where Klebb, a lesbian in the novel, seems to drool over Bianchi's Tatiana Romanova without it being expressedly said. To tell the truth, I'm not sure if I prefer this treatment to what would surely be an obverse statement of her sexuality if the film was made today.

8) Even I admit freely that this film loses loads of steam once Red Grant is dispatched. Both the helicopter sequence and the boat chase are somewhat lacking in speed, pacing and zest. It was almost as if Young lost interest in the story once the most interesting of the bad guys is gone.

"Yes, yes, I know.  I am supposed to be a major villain, but I'm
actually irrelevant.  Just go with it...."

9) The puttering around with what will become the James Bond formula continues, resulting in us witnessing the first pre-credit sequence and the first 'last attempt' sequence. The pre-credit sequence is real suspenseful and gives us a great hook with Bond being killed only for it to be a training exercise for Grant...and thankfully the 'last attempt' sequence doesn't reach the ludicrousness of the 70's ones, although Lotte Lenya being pinned to the wall by a comfy chair is a little silly.

10) I guess I was too busy enjoying the fun of the 'training island' sequence in the first act to realize that the man running said island was played by Walter Gotell, who will go on to play Gogol in a number of Moore Bond films (ending his tenure with the first Dalton). It's an interesting little performance that's very unlike the ones I associate Gotell with.

Overall...arguably my favorite of the Connery Bonds thanks to some great characters and a spy plot that's a genuine spy plot before the crazier elements take off. Recommended.