It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
2) As a kid I thought that the camp was hilarious. As an adult I find it very distracting and feel that the film would be much better off without it. It's not so much the camp itself but the fact that it feels shoehorned in what should be a mostly serious film.
3) I was also too young at the time and didn't know jack squat about McClory yet.
4) I have always liked Robert Brown and I still do. I think that he did a great job.
5) No, NSNA should not be considered a real Bond film. It can be enjoyable if approached with the right mindset though.
1- Never really thought of it as Cuba, just some fictitious south American dictatorship.
2- For me Octopussy could have been a great Bond film if John Glenn has exercise the same control over it as he would later with TLD and cut out the sillier elements of the film. Come on John, let's have a Director's Cut with the daftness toned down!
3- I did go to see it in our local 'flea pit', mainly because Sean was back as Bond, but from the opening few minutes realised this wasn't going to be Bond.
4- Robert Brown never really convinced me as M until he played opposite Timothy Dalton in The Living Daylights.
5- I don't think NSNA should be considered a real film, let alone a real Bond film. For shame, I have it on DVD, but it is nowhere near any of my other Bond films, be they blu-ray or DVD, in fact it is hidden behind other DVDs!
Thanks for jumping in with a clearer answer for #3, and although I'm giving my answer away a bit, for me it was indifference in the Moore era. Something clicked for me in TLD, and for me he was AWESOME in LTK and finally filled Lee's shoes enough that I wasn't longing for the good old days with Bernie.
I think Brown was more stern as M than Lee was and perhaps the chemistry with Moore wasn't quite there (which is odd considering they've known each other for decades and had worked together on Ivanhoe).
I agree with @Lancaster007 that Brown really came into his own during the Dalton era. His M was far more suited to the tone of the films.
That's a really good question I never thought about past my personal impressions. It could have simply been a result of the script carrying on with the way they would have written it for Lee if he had lived. Obviously Rog and Bob were old pals for years and comfortable with the other by the time he arrived, which should have only added some warmth but for me it didn't. So I'd have to go with "business as usual" for that one. Whereas with Dalton we have a fresh take on the character and it seemed more natural than the dynamic would change, which it more obviously did. It's like when Brown M got a little stern when Rog Bond switched the egg, then readily accepted he had a plan. Tim questioned the termination order on Pushkin and wanted to investigate in a similar manner, it wasn't acceptable. I always thought that if it had been Moore Bond, Brown M would have maybe said "okay, but if you don't have the answers before he returns to the USSR then it needs to be done". Tim Bond had to accept the order but had to take the initiative M would have given Moore without the same consent, on his own. I think that alone shows a contrast in their relationship, and perhaps not coincidentally this dynamic was quite similar to the one between Lee and both Connery and Lazenby. Hmmmmm.
In the Moore films Brown just didn't seem to fit the role, although at the time I didn't know they were friends in real life, they just seemed to be buddies (I don't think you got the impression that Brown's M would have had a real go at Moore Bond, but look at Lee's M with Lazenby - he's taking no shit). Yet when Dalton became Bond, Brown seemed to fit the role better. Maybe he got the Dalton vibe and just took things a bit more serious.
5. No. A film that starts with a Q asking Bond if there's going to be gratuitous sex and violence (what? is Q monitoring the double o's in the field now or something? what DO they put in their reports?) can only be a parody. Sure it's one of the few lines that made me chuckle a bit, but it sets the tone as well. The rest of the film is poorly made as well and there's never any knowing what McClory wanted. Did he want to make a parody? did he want to make a proper Bond-film? It might as well be just a front that was used for some IRA operation that just happened to end up in the history books. It may not be as bad as CR '67 but it has similar qualities.
=)) I guess the answer is no.
1. In my initial viewing of OP back in the day, I think I did consider the PTS to be taking place in a mythical South American country. For my recent review, I found myself thinking, "Well...it could be Cuba, I suppose..."
2. Yes and yes again. In my initial viewing, the camp attitude was a big problem for me with this film. I frankly couldn't wait for the Moore era to be over, and a more seriously-inclined actor to take over as Bond! Now that we've seen Dalton, Brosnan and Craig in the role, I'm far more willing to just roll with things and say "this is the way it had to be at the time. The general audience liked Bond that way and it's all worked out for the best in terms of the long-term health of the series. Thank goodness we're past that now!"
3. I wasn't fully educated regarding the behind-the-scenes movie biz politics involved in the making of NSNA. These were the days before the internet, and fan awareness of this sort of thing could be quite spotty! With my stated dissatisfaction for Moore's interpretation of Bond I was quite interested in seeing Connery return to the role. Be careful what you wish for!
4. I was pretty much indifferent to Brown's taking on the role of M. Somebody had to do it, and if we could accept three (and counting!) different actors as Bond then a new face in the role that the late great Bernard Lee originated wasn't much of a stretch. I do think Brown was a bit tenuous in his interpretation of M with Moore as his Bond, but quite grew into his own interpretation of the role during Dalton's tenure.
5. Emphatically, NO. BUT: "Real" can be interpreted in a variety of ways. As one of the leading political minds of the modern day has told us, "It all depends on what the meaning of is, is." None of the stuff we're discussing is really real, and some people occasionally need to remember that. All fiction is essentially an entertaining falsehood. The powers that be at Eon have consistently played fast-and-loose with the continuity of the Bond films. They can't be too pushed out of shape when some fans go off the deep end trying to posit ways in which ALL of the Bond films can be considered "Real."
On point number 1, it is surprising that none of you have mentioned that it was obviously meant to be Argentina in the PTS of Octopussy, what with the Falklands War having occurred as recently as the year before Octopussy's release in 1982. John Gardner mentions Bond's involvement in the Falklands War in 1982 and the fact that he had even appeared on TV at the time in his Bond continuation novel of the same year - that of Icebreaker (1983). In my view, it's certainly not Cuba, and is a South American country. You forget that Castro and Cuba was 1960s stuff. But it could just be a fictional South American dictatorship too, although I would still plumb for Argentina.
Point #2 - The camp somewhat bothered me; I hate to sound wishy washy. In general, yes I wish there was less of it. It would have made a far better film. The film feels up and down to me and yet so much of it is good and could have been great. So, my answer weights more heavily as YES - a good deal less of the camp would have improved it.
Point #3 - I was unware of the "battle" at the time, just knew I would get to see Sean again and fuzzy on why he would choose to do that. Did not hear any big discussion about the two films competing at all. So not an issue for me. And I certainly did not know about McClory until I joined this forum.
Point #4 - The new M honestly didn't move me, or alarm me; he was under my radar. I felt that Brown was adequate. I never had a reason to analyze that character of feel disappointed. So it was just not a factor for me. He was okay, no problem.
Point #5 - A definite answer at last from me: NO.
I am glad that everyone is enjoying the trivia and it's a thought for future discussion to revisit the films that didn't get those nor thesis questions. That will be much later. I'd also like to get a book discussion going down the road, as I think many of us have appreciated those. At one point, we can also mix in our specific views on the developments of BOND24 as they happen. For the moment though, I feel it's best to continue with our revisits as @Beatles dishes his view, the trivia and questions, and then do our personal vs group lists and discuss those individually. I really don't want to delay that any longer than necessary. Personal lists can often be insightful and engender honest dialogue, which I am all for as long as no hitting below the belt occurs.
Thanks as always for the thesis question participation, I am enjoying the responses personally and would like to mention with all the controversy swirling about at the moment, that it's appreciated in the face of these momentary distractions :)
2- Back in the day, the camp- any camp at all- bugged me to no end. Like Beatles said, now that we're past it it doesn't have that effect on me any more.
3- I was well aware of the Bond battle back then, and I threw in with NSNA because I felt Sean lent weight to the movie, and the silly bits were not as grating to me a Moore's films. Today of course, I really don't care much for NSNA.
4- Brown was a serviceable replacement that I only came to really appreciate in TLD.
5- No, I'd stay strictly with EON films.
1. Casino Royale- 4.33
2. Goldfinger- 4.30
3. From Russia With Love- 4.26
4. Skyfall (6/7 reviews)- 4.17
5. The Living Daylights- 4.12
6. Thunderball- 4.09
7. The Spy Who Loved Me- 4.06
8. Licence To Kill- 4.05
9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service- 3.99
10. For Your Eyes Only- 3.91
11. You Only Live Twice- 3.90
12. Live And Let Die- 3.81
13. GoldenEye- 3.75
14. Octopussy- 3.73
15. Tomorrow Never Dies- 3.63
16. Dr. No- 3.57
17. Quantum Of Solace- 3.42
18. A View To A Kill- 3.28
19. The World Is Not Enough- 3.17
20. The Man With The Golden Gun- 3.09
21. Diamonds Are Forever- 2.99
22. Moonraker- 2.96
23. Die Another Day- 2.70
Good afternoon fellow originals and guests! The ratings remain exactly the same as before as @BeatlesSansEarmuffs recent review of Octopussy with a score of 37 did not move the prior total of 3.73 at all. Since the last film of the Moore era was filmed in the San Francisco/Oakland Bay area, perhaps some change will occur next time.
Again, continued thanks to everyone who has participated in the thesis questions. It seemed like more participated than usual, which is always good, and the trivia remains a popular new feature as well. This week's thesis questions did not resolve as many of my own questions as I would have liked to have answers for, but were still fun reads.
Regarding the polling of the 5 Octopussy thesis questions, which will include my views-
1. In the PTS which appears to be set in Cuba complete with a Fidel Castro lookalike, Bond escapes from anti-aircraft missiles and still manages to accomplish his mission, only to escape any eventual pursuers by crossing a border gate and pulling up to a gasoline/petrol station. Considering that Cuba is an island nation with no border countries, was anyone else confused? Or are we supposed to believe that it wasn't really Cuba after all, despite all the all too obvious references?
Nearly everyone who responded felt that we weren't necessarily supposed to believe that it is Cuba, but one respondent understood the confusing reference with the Castro lookalike. Make that two. As I mentioned in a previous post, Thatcher was at home on 10 Downing Street and Brezhnev was in the Kremlin having a high level meeting to discuss the state of the Soviet Union. So I think the confusion, based on what they did here and before, is understandable and apparently the film makers were'nt too concerned about continuity.
2. I always found Octopussy to be a bit schizophrenic when it came to it's focus. The first few minutes of the film with the killing of 009 in Germany and the Sotheby's auction house scene seems to set a serious tone. Then we get to India where parts of the action seemed to tilt back towards both Spy and Moonraker with campy sight and sound gags, only to revert back again towards being a Cold War thriller once back in Germany where it all really started. Did you find the camp here to be distracting as far as your overall enjoyment, or was it once again just a case of being par for the course to appease a segment of Moore fans and something you could live with in the grand scheme?
It was unanimous that the camp of Octopussy was both unneccessary and distracting, ultimately hurting the film more than helping it.
3. It seems Octopussy can hardly be discussed without the "specter" of NSNA and "The Battle Of The Bonds" looming in the background. Knowing well in advance that the film was essentially a remake of "Thunderball", did seeing Connery break his promise of "never again" hold any interest for you, or were you of the mind like me that you wouldn't contribute to Kevin McGlory's pockets and would wait to watch it for free?
Both the originals and our guests who commented said that seeing Connery reprise the role was indeed something that garnered their interest, and mention of how the series had suffered a bit because of the Moore era camp and cartoon was part of the reasoning that NSNA would bring a more grounded 007 back to the screen. In that way, bringing back Connery did work out at the box office for McGlory and his cohorts, but the consensus was that OP was the far superior effort and that Moore and EON won the overall battle. I was the lone dissenter on the film as far as refusing to put money in the pockets of those behind NSNA and electing to wait until it was free. In hindsight- you guys got suckered! :))
4. For the first time since the series began, one of the constant support roles was recast as Robert Brown replaced the late Bernard Lee in the role of "M". I think everyone appreciated that it wasn't immediately done out of great respect for Lee and in FYEO the absence of "M" was explained as he was "on leave". Were your first thoughts on Brown's performance and general demeanor positive, negative, or indifferent? And why?
The majority of votes say that most viewed Robert Brown indifferently as Bernard Lee's replacement as "M", seeing him as serviceable and nothing more. Two others were negative on his choice to replace Lee and one was positive about it. Personally, I was indifferent to Brown during the Moore era, but like others I felt he established himself as more prominent and interesting during the Dalton era, becoming more accepted by the audience as a suitable replacement.
5- Should NSNA be considered a "real" Bond film worthy of inclusion with the 23 official films produced by EON productions?
It's unanimous, folks. No original nor guest feels NSNA is a Bond film that should be included along side the 23 official Bond films, nor one that people should see as one nor rank as one anymore than the earlier versions of Casino Royale. merely because Connery reprised the role. Let the mindless butchering of members who rank these films begin in earnest!
That wraps up our Octopussy revisit, I hope everyone had a good time and relived some good memories. Until Beatles returns this weekend to give his thoughts on "A View To A Kill", have a great one!
As I have mentioned elsewhere, this film is my “guilty pleasure” in the Bond series. As a lifelong resident of the San Francisco Bay area, I get a huge charge out of watching James Bond tooling around these parts, especially the scene where he escapes a fire at SF City Hall by commandeering a fire truck! In watching the deleted scenes from this movie, I even found one scene that was filmed just outside the Chevron Oil refinery in Point Richmond -- and Richmond was my own home town when I first became a fan of the Bond series! There’s every good reason why I should have a soft spot in my heart for this particular entry into the canon -- and to be honest, even though I recognize the film’s various weaknesses, I’ve never quite understood the condemnation it receives in so many quarters! Let’s take this by the numbers…
BOND 3/5 Yes, Roger Moore is too old to be playing the role any longer. So stipulated. Nonetheless, if the viewer can accept three different actors playing the role of Bond (at this point, with 3 more yet to come) then it seems to me a simple matter for us to just squint a bit and mentally erase the wrinkles in Moore’s face. Far harder for me to accept is Sir Roger’s stiffness in the fight scenes -- but he’s been fairly awkward in this department for six other movies so far, why balk at this point now of all times? Moore is still more suave and charming then any other Bond ever put before us. His version of the character is probably at its’ most convincing when portraying Bond as the gentleman spy -- in his scenes as “James St. John Smythe,” he totally owns the role in a manner that no one else could have done! Finally, Moore is the only Bond we’ve ever seen actually cook a quiche --or anything else, for that matter. That’s got to count for something…
WOMEN 2/5 Here we have by far the weakest category for this film. Yes, Tanya Robert is gorgeous…but as an actress, she makes a very convincing bump on an exceptionally attractive log. Her continued shrieks of “JAMES! JAAAAAAAAAAAMES!!!” grow old pretty quickly, making her one of the most annoying leading ladies in the series. I’d have liked to have seen more of Alison Doody as Jenny Flex, but she’s mostly here to provide a sign-post. Jenny, show Mr. Whoever to his room. Maybe we’ll give you a fully-developed role in some other film. Maybe not. Fiona Fullerton is essentially shoe-horned into our storyline as Pola Ivanova, here for a few brief minutes’ worth of hot-tub romance and then totally forgotten. Grace Jones…..portrays one of this film’s most controversial characters. Many fans are quite vocal in naming her as one of the least appealing elements of this offering. I must reluctantly say, I find that widespread judgment indicative of a collective blind-spot, rather than any true consideration of Ms. Jones’ contribution to this film. Let’s deal with May Day in the next section…
VILLAINS 4/5 Christopher Walken as Max Zorin is, hands down, one of the most entertaining psychopaths to ever cross the path of James Bond. Walken is clearly having the time of his life in every scene, whether he’s portraying Zorin the corporate titan, Zorin the horse-racing mogul, or Zorin the machine-gun toting mass-murderer. His irrepressible joy in playing this role suffuses the film for every second he is on-screen. Many of his hirelings (the security chief, the oil expert, etc.) are fairly well forgettable, excepting Willoughby Gray as Dr. Karl Mortner, a wonderful ex-Nazi scientist-cum-Dr. Frankenstein. His depiction of a father-figure to the genetically-bred super-psycho that is Zorin gives that character an essential grounding in humanity that many Bond villains lack. Finally, we have Grace Jones as May Day. Simply put, I think May Day is a hoot and a half, an over-the-top Amazonian femme fatale that provides a pivot point to this film…and one that is largely misunderstood by many Bond fans. She is routinely denigrated as “ugly” in many fan polls of Bond Women. She is probably one of the more despised women in the pantheon of Bond’s sexual partners. It’s high time for this judgment to be revised. Grace Jones -- at the time of her casting as May Day -- was a well known, highly paid professional model. Folks, ugly people just don’t get far in those circles. It’s perfectly acceptable to state that one model or another does not suit one’s own personal tastes…but to dismiss anyone in that sphere as “ugly” is simply ignorant. If I had the inclination, I’d probably craft a statement for the “Controversial Opinions” topic thread on this board, indicating my opinion that the widespread hatred expressed towards May Day, Jinx, and Rosie Carver among Bond fandom as a whole is an indication of some level of racism rampant among us. But that’s not the topic before us at the moment. Instead, let’s get back to the role that May Day serves in A View to a Kill. It is a role very similar to the one Jaws served in Moonraker: the wronged henchman who switches sides and allies himself (or herself) with Bond. In this role, Jones is simply brilliant. She’s scary, she’s convincingly nearly super-human, and her presence on the other side of the conflict effectively changes the balance of power to Bond’s side. So why all the hatred directed towards May Day? Surely Bond fandom as a whole is not intimidated by powerful women…
HUMOR 3/5 Many of Roger Moore’s Bond movies are weakened (in my evalutation) by their overzealous use of humor. This time around, the humor is effectively utilized, amusing the audience without undercutting the danger inherent in Bond’s world. Bond’s interplay with Sir Godfrey Tibbet is a solid factor in this regard: the audience is in on the class distinction being flouted by “Sir Sinjin-Smythe” and his “manservant,” Tibbet -- so we laugh, without ever losing track of the seriousness of Bond’s mission. Zorin’s hirelings are unaware of the deception involved, and so they accept this classist mistreatment as indicative of the characters involved. The portrayal totally works. The same is true -- for me, at any rate -- with May Day giving Bond her “personal attention.” It’s a logical result of Bond the sexual omnivore coming up against May Day the total animal. These are the faces they’ve chosen to present to the world, so this is the result of their combined posturing. I for one found the portrayal of Bond in bed with May Day as tremendously amusing. Your mileage may of course vary. My main dissatisfaction with the humor in this film was with the Beach Boys soundtrack being briefly added to the PTS scene. Both the fire truck chase and the piece-by-piece car demolition chase scene in France worked well for me, a rarity among Moore Bond films. Maybe Cubby could have brought Roger back one last time after all?
ACTION 3/5 Plot-wise, yes, this is a shameless rip-off of Goldfinger. Still, GF was a couple of decades back, and we saw an even more shameless such rip fairly recently, with the back-to-back similarities in TSWLM and MR. The plot as a whole is fairly consistent and believable within the realm of Bond-world. There are several action highlights to this film, including the Eiffel Tower jump and subsequent chase through Paris, the fire at San Francisco’s City Hall with subsequent fire truck chase, and Zorin’s massacre of the mineworkers followed by the flooding of the mine. The climactic fight between Zorin and Bond atop the Golden Gate bridge is also a stand-out. Unfortunately, any action sequence where Roger is actually seen as Bond suffers from a bit of a believability gap. His and Tibbets’ fight with Zorin’s unnamed accomplices at the horse stables is probably the weakest such scene ever presented in a Bond movie. The fight sequence at Stacy’s house, where Bond chases off Zorin’s goons with a rifle filled with rock salt, is also pretty sad. Okay, maybe Cubby shouldn’t have brought Roger back for this one after all…
SADISM 5/5 The glee on Zorin’s face as he machine guns his own employees at the mine leaves no doubt in the audience’s mind: this is one twisted fellow. On the other hand, he’s willing to kill thousands of people to achieve total domination of a lucrative marketplace, so maybe he’s not that unusual after all… No, no, he’s evidently had May Day sharing his bed more than once, so I was right the first time: twisted as Lombard Street. (Gratuitous San Francisco reference. Look it up!)
MUSIC 4/5 The rousing title track by Duran Duran is perfectly complemented by another stunning John Barry score. For the first time since TSWLM’s “Nobody Does It Better,” a Bond title song seems to be appearing on the contemporary playlists of radio stations all over the civilized world. Unfortunately for the points awarded to this category, “California Girls” pops up in the PTS. Of course, we also have Tchaikovsky in the hot tub scene. Of course, we also have some generic Japanese style music in the hot tub scene as well as on Pola Ivanova’s tape. At least we’ll get John Barry’s music in one more Bond film. That’s more than the Beach Boys (or one of their tribute bands) can say for themselves…
LOCATIONS 5/5 The Eiffel Tower. San Francisco. Iceland. San Francisco. Albert R. Broccoli’s 007 Stage. San Francisco. The Chateau de Chantilly. Fisherman’s Wharf. Point Richmond. The Lefty O’Doul bridge. San Francisco. The Golden Gate Bridge. Did I mention how much I love the fact that so much of this film was shot in San Francisco? No, but seriously: it’s amazing that the 007 stage could be rebuilt so quickly after the fire that destroyed it prior to the beginning of shooting for this film. A tribute to all concerned…
GADGETS 2/5 Bond has an awful lot of minor gadgets to use during this film. Unfortunately, we don’t really get the standard Q exposition on them, so we don’t really have any emotional investment in their use. The only gadget that DOES have this set-up and pay-off is Q’s surveillance robot -- and the use that robot receives is kind of creepy, as Q briefly watches Bond and Stacy showering together at the end of the film. But throughout the course of the film, Bond uses a bug locator, some X-Ray specs, an impression reader, a camera ring, and a “Sharper Image” house-breaking card! Taken together, these are all reasonably realistic and completely sensible additions to the modern spy’s arsenal of tools. No wonder nobody remembers them when it’s time to grade this category!
SUPPORTING CAST 4/5 This is Lois Maxwell’s last appearance as Miss Moneypenny. I wish she’d gotten some kind of proper send-off…but at least she gets to go to the races on her last day in the service. Thanks for all the good times, Lois! For most of us, you will always be the definitive Moneypenny. Q and M get token appearances here, as does Sir Fredrick Gray. David Yip is pretty bland as CIA agent Chuck Lee, and Jean Rougerie is something of a caricature as French detective Achille Aubergine, but Walter Gotell actually gets to display a bit of menace this time out, as General Gogol informs Zorin that “NO ONE leaves the KGB!” Still, the stand-out supporting actor for this film is Patrick Macnee as Sir Godfrey Tibbet. His chemistry with Moore’s Bond is a subtle high point of the film for me, and wish he’d been able to stick around awhile longer before May Day sent him to the cleaners. Still, it’s always nice to see one more member of The Avengers make his or her way into a Bond film, and with John Steed having been the main note of stability throughout the decades of that series, I suppose it’s only fitting that Macnee appear during Sir Roger’s last fling as Bond.
TOTAL AND RECOLLECTIONS: 35/50 At the time, I was just glad to see the end of Roger Moore’s tenure as Bond. Now, it seems to me that this particular film doesn’t get as much appreciation as I think it deserves. These days, I try to be more accepting of the many sterling qualities Sir Roger brought to the job. Yes, Moore was never my favorite Bond, even in his heyday. I believe that Bond needs to be a dangerous man at his very core, and I never quite found Moore convincing in that key aspect of the character. But the series was in serious danger of floundering when Moore took over the title role, and he left the series in far stronger shape than when he came on…so I suspect he was the perfect choice for the role at that point in time. At the end of the day, I do find Roger Moore to be the very best ex-Bond the series could ask for, and a fine ambassador of all things 007 to the world at large. So here’s to you, Sir Roger Moore! You survived Jaws and May Day and even the clown costume, you vanquished Zorin and Scaramanga and even Sir Hugo Drax. Nobody did it better…until the next fellow came along. And the one after that. And the one after that…
THE END of this review…
But BeatlesSansEarmuffs will return to review Timothy Dalton’s initial outing as James Bond in
The Living Daylights
Just on the music, you forgot to mention Handel's Watermusic at the party. Shure that would add another point? ;-) (Yes, I know it's been my fav. classical music peace since I was a kid, but that doesn't make it worse!).
For myself though, being one of those who largely agrees with the anti-Jones camp and feels that she is quite the beast as far as looks, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with certain sentiments Beatles has expressed, especially in terms of racism. Where I think some do go too far regarding Jones and May Day is in dismissing her as ineffective as a villain, and I said this long ago in my review. Jones does a great job in this respect, indeed she is a big Amazon-like killing machine who has a real physical menace about her. The parallel to Jaws is also a very valid point and her turn against Zorin very understandable. We've had some physically unattractive female villains before with the likes of Rosa Klebb and Irma Bunt but that should never be a factor in dismissing the character nor the actress' performance, and that's how I see May Day, in the same exact mold. If it were not for the fine job Jones did, her well known unprofessionalism and diva-like attitude off screen aside, I would have lowered my category score to a 4, but she deserves to be recognized for making her character one of the most memorable female baddies in the series and holds her own well with Walken and Gray.
I think the judgments made on her looks, after all she is a Bond girl and as such is subject to such, are fair ones. Count me as a person, who has seen as many as the next guy, and has dated and bedded professional models (none famous, just making a living locally as one) in the same 1980's, who has never understood what constitutes anything remotely close to appeal in the case of Jones, other than the fact that she has a very different look about her that obviously must have appealed to someone. But how is being critical of her looks any different than, say, eating Limburger cheese or animal brains? You can still find Limburger on grocery shelves and several cultures gleefully and unabashedly serve up brains for lunch or dinner. Obviously some folks enjoy that sort of cuisine and obviously some people think Jones is attractive. I'm not one of them. It's personal taste and opinion, disagree if you wish but it comes down to that for me. The racism angle though regarding looks and the black women who have graced the Bond movies with their presence, is one that I find patently absurd for myself, especially when it involves Halle Berry. For me Halle is absolutely physically flawless. One of the most beautiful women I've ever seen of any color, a modern day Dorothy Dandridge. There are lots and lots of beautiful black women on screen or in print I could name that I'd happily hop into the sack with, and have done so with the every day type who were never famous. I like exotic beauty. I just don't like Halle's short styled haircut and find only that unattractive about her recently, in the same sense that those same hairstyles seen in AVTAK don't do both Alison Doody nor Fiona Fullerton justice for their beauty. And the Jinx character is absolutely a terrible one the way it was written and it wasn't a role that Halle excelled in. How is this criticism even borderline racist I ask? Gloria Hendry gets mentioned, so I'll go there too. I didn't like the choice as far as Hendry's looks nor acting abilities. Especially when, although she may have been unavailable, the now unfortunately late Bay Area native Vonetta McGee, a far more attractive black woman with much more acting talent, could possibly have been signed? So again, how is this possibly a race thing I ask?
It's just personal taste, and that's all. A controversial opinion of yours @Beatles, for me most certainly and one I think for many is based more in coincidence than latent racism. But everyone is entitled to theirs, and while I've expressed my opinion here, I'd happily sit back and read what others have to say without further criticisms if you were to venture this in the controversy thread.
3 - I remember them both coming out, though I wasn't a massive fan then like I am today. The talk around me was that Seanery was a traitor and people were not interested because he was too old. Oddly, there wasn't much talk of Moore being too old amongst the teens. The age discussions regarding Moore happened much later in life. I suppose to a teen anything between 30 and 60 is waaaaay older than they are. :P
I also remember people seeing NSNA on video a few years after its release and saying it was crap. Hence why I've never seen it. Ever.
On AVTAK more specifically, I cannot recommend this book by my friend Dr Andrew McNess enough - James Bond in Our Sights: A Close Look at 'A View to a Kill' (2011). I'm in the process of reading it for the second time.
You can order a copy on Amazon in the UK here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/James-Bond-Our-Sights-Dec-12-2011/dp/B00AAC5NM8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1370464162&sr=8-4&keywords=andrew+mcness
On Amazon UK for Kindle here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/JAMES-BOND-OUR-SIGHTS-ebook/dp/B007LES4NS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370464162&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+mcness
On Amazon US here:
http://www.amazon.com/JAMES-BOND-IN-OUR-SIGHTS/dp/1465382380/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1379262612&sr=8-2&keywords=andrew+mcness
Here's the blurb for those interested:
James Bond in our Sights appraises the 1985 James Bond film, A View to a Kill. An underrated entry in the series, A View to a Kill starred Roger Moore in his seventh and final performance as 007, and showcased Christopher Walken and Grace Jones as flamboyantly evil villains.
Through analysing the four principal characters and examining the film scene-by-scene, author Andrew McNess lifts the veil on A View to a Kill, demonstrating how the film subtly and effectively engages with its established formula. From chuckling megalomaniacs to deceptively serene airships, A View to a Kill provides many an intriguing variation on the Bondian formula.
James Bond in our Sights is a unique addition to the world of James Bond literature. The book makes for a fascinating and insightful read, and it is not without a sense of fun - in the best Bond tradition!
GAH! I couldn't even stand that if it were a book about OHMSS.
No, take my word for it - it is a great little book. It doesn't overstay its welcome, either. There is also an accompanying blog called James Bond in Our Sights here:
http://jamesbondinoursights.blogspot.co.uk/
Re: A View To A Kill - It is towards the bottom for me, but parts were fun and the music was gorgeous. The music alone deserved a better film. I wish they could have rewritten the character of Stacey and had Fiona Fullerton as the main Bond girl. That would have helped. A lot. I think the mostly sour taste in my mouth from this movie is because of Stacey.
But when the movie came out, people I knew really enjoyed it. I didn't care for MayDay's character much - her switching to Bond's side was too quick and I thought just seemed like a movie shortcut or something. I found her looks very good for a villain, and especially her fitness. Rather scary looking, instead of attractive, in my opinion. She didn't seem right as a Bond girl. Oh, it was not a satisfying film for me in many ways.
I understand Beatles' love of the Bay Area, but I prefer locations outside of the U.S. for Bond. Just my personal tastes.
Walken was fine. A darn good actor.
And Roger - although for sure should have ended with OP - looked fine in surprisingly many scenes. The man, in general, looked great and certainly owns his own take on Bond. Just past it a bit. In OP, he wears it well. I think Roger knew in his heart that he should have quit with OP, but it was all business and I think he felt a sense of duty to continue since EON were truly pushing him to do so.