A View To A Kill (1985)

You know that feeling you get when you've been running for a while, and you guess that it's entirely likely you're about to puke or drop dead or both, and then you round the turn and realize that you're almost done? It's a glorious heavenly cleansing feeling that takes away some of that pain as you realize your suffering is almost at an end. And as I fired up "A View To A Kill," I was getting it all over the place. After this I was done. I was done with Roger Moore.

I can't describe accurately how amazing it felt to know that after I was done with this film, I would never need to watch another Roger Moore Bond film ever again. Of the seven movies he dragged 007 through the ham-infused mud as, there were maybe two that I thought were any good. Maybe two and a half. But they were always decent in spite of him, mostly being salvaged by a constant barrage of action that didn't give him time to raise his eyebrow and make a goofy face. That being said, they were never  necessarily good. They were just better than trash like "Moonraker." That's a bar as low as a limbo stick at carnival time. And that's as low as limbo sticks get.

So I don't even care. Even if this movie sucks like a puncture wound to the lung, there's still a silver lining in it for me. As long as I can grit my teeth for two hours and stop myself from punching my TV screen or swallowing my own tongue, I don't even think I'll be able to get that mad. But then again, it IS Roger Moore we're talking about, and the reputation of "A View To A Kill" does proceed it. We'll have to take it as it comes. Eye on the prize, Pat. Eye on the prize. Find your power animal.

"Slide."

We join James Bond as he recovers the body of 003, who had on him a microchip designed to withstand an EMP. Tracing the name on the microchip back to Max Zorin (Christopher Walken), an obscenely wealthy technology tycoon, he infiltrates Zorin's estate while posing as a horse breeder during a horse sale Zorin is holding. Right there is one of the more defining aspects of "A View To A Kill": The horses. While the poster and the climax both feature the Golden Gate Bridge, I'll always think of "A View To A Kill" as "The Bond movie with all the horses." Seriously, there's a lot of horses here.

Oh for crying out loud, the man looks like he just broke his hip. He's like the Crypt Keeper here.

Anyway, Zorin is naturally evil, he's a former KGB agent gone rogue, he's juicing his horses with microchips (?) so they win with the help of an old Nazi scientist, he wants to destroy Silicon Valley in order to get a monopoly on microchips, he's kind of a murderous psycho, and for some reason he has the same overly exacting model for Silicon Valley that Goldfinger had for Fort Knox. And of course, he's played by Christopher Walken, which really should have been the biggest giveaway as to his villainy.

That was the main reason I, perhaps foolishly, went into "A View To A Kill" with slightly elevated expectations despite the fact that it possesses one of the worst reputations of the Bond franchise. Christopher Walken being the bad guy is never a bad thing. I figured that, at the very least, I was going to get some awesomely bizarre villainy from one of my favorite portrayers of psychos.

And yeah, I guess I kind of got that. A little. This is not one of Walken's best roles, although he does give it the good old college try when the film actually feels like utilizing him, which is upsettingly little. Naturally they kept the best aspect of the movie in the background, barely having him say more than a few words until the second act, and not unleashing him until close to the end.

And dammit, when you have The Walken, you don't restrain him!

Walken does get a few moments to shine, particularly any time he has to yell or say something snarky or evil. True, the lines aren't anything the caliber of "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die," but when you've got Walken, even kind of lame lines like "This is gonna hurt him more than me" can become shockingly funny. Seeing that he's a very funny guy I get the feeling most of his best lines were probably improvised. And that's why you cast Christopher Walken: He gives you gold from crap.

But long before we get to that, "A View To A Kill" immediately reminds us that even with the genius move of casting Walken as a villain, we're still dealing with a Roger Moore film. It comes up and smacks us right in the collective faces when a halfway decent opening scene featuring 007 flying down a mountain on skis as he escapes from bad guys (Seriously what's with all the skiing, Bond franchise?) becomes a joke when, after inadvertently inventing snowboarding in desperation, the soundtrack fires up with the Beach Boys crooning California Girls.

Because nothing screams "palm trees and surf" like arctic snowgear.

Not only does that not make any sense since we aren't in California in that scene, and there are no girls around, and even if there were girls there I don't recall Bond ever mentioning having a particular fondness for ones from California, but even if you were going to make that STUPID joke there are roughly a dozen Beach Boy songs that would have worked better. One about surfing, perhaps? True they aren't in the States in the scene in question but Surfin' USA would have at least been more appropriate to the situation. (Better song, too.)

You know, even with Brosnan's invisible car, the Bond franchise never reached these levels of face-palming WTFery as they did with Roger Moore.

That's a perfect example of why I can't stand the Roger Moore Bond films. It's not that there are jokes in them. It's that they always shatter the forth wall while doing so. There's a huge difference between Bond saying something witty, and having the humor artificially jammed down our throats with zany music, wacky editing or people mugging to the camera. It's the difference between doing some work to write an actual joke that would exist in the world that the film creates and just jangling keys in our faces like we're infants. And I find it insulting.

"Um. Guys? Little help?"

Whenever crap like that happens I get a mental image of some poofy haired old git in the editing booth whom, in his youth, was told by his mother that he was hilarious and should be a comedian, since that's what everyone says to anyone young of halfway decent wit and grasp of wordplay. Then he attempted to make it big on the standup circuit but could never evolve past "lousy prop comic," and after many rubber chickens, overly large bow-ties and crushed dreams, he mercifully quit and became a film editor. But still he tries to cram that hackneyed schlock into the films he edits in an attempt to prove his mom right. But it's still no better than comically large teeth and a flapping dickie.

"Bond frappa dickie rong time."

It really kind of continues like that for most of the film. Although the decent action scene can be found here or there, there is enough goofy crap that pops up at a consistent enough rate so as to make "A View To A Kill" fairly obnoxious to watch. Every time it starts to get going a car gets cut in half but is still driving, or a bunch of bungling cops show up, or Bond is plowing through the streets of San Fransisco hanging off the ladder of a fire truck in an incredibly reckless escape that probably left dozens of people and police officers dead, or Q has a little robot he uses to peep on Bond having sex in the shower (gross) or that one Russian chick says "The bubbles tickle my Tsiolkovsky!" It's thoroughly distracting.

I've mentioned Walken, but as far as the rest of the cast goes, with a few exceptions it's pretty weak sauce. Moore is absurdly old in this film, being 58 at the time, and boy does he look it. It certainly doesn't help that he's still banging women who look almost a third his age at this point. Grace Jones as Zorin's henchwomen possesses the charisma and personality of an industrial washing machine, and is generally just dull as hell. About the only smaller role that was any good was Patrick Macnee (formerly John Steed on "The Avengers") as Bond's alley Sir Godfrey Tibbett, but of course they kill him off, which was one of the only moments in the film which affected me on some level since he was about the only likeable protagonist.

In the interests of sanity I won't dwell long on Tanya Roberts as the Bond girl of this outing. In the annals of terrible Bond girls, there are many different flavors of bad. Some are terrible actresses and some are just playing terrible characters, but very seldom did we get a terrible actress playing a terrible character. Tanya Roberts is special in that regard. In addition to her character of Stacey being a useless liability that does nothing of value, Tanya approaches the role using the Tara Reid method of acting, showing zero emotion even after people just tried to break into her house and kill her, and delivering lines like "He must be stopped" with the same urgency as someone complaining at Wendy's that they got pickles on their burger when the order explicitly said "No pickles." About the only thing she has going for her is that she is pretty outrageously gorgeous. Well, that and shrieking "JAMES!" over and over and over.

This is the only time you'll ever hear the phrase "You were better in "Beastmaster.""

If I had to come up with positives about the film, I would admit that there are a number of action scenes that are pretty good. And even though it's clear that it was always a stunt double for Roger Moore, that did allow the action to be a bit harder hitting than some previous entries. I liked the chemistry between Moore and Macnee. There's also are a few times when the film actually got a bit dark, and while Moore himself disliked those parts, particularly when Walken mowed down dozens of people with a machine gun, it was a nice change for me because it made the villain more threatening, rather than having him essentially be Evil Bill Gates. And I must admit that the final fight on top of the Golden Gate Bridge is actually pretty awesome.

The Duran Duran penned opening is also one of the best Bond theme songs ever. Period. No discussion.

So how do we wrap this up? How do we call this one? Well, it's honestly not the worst Bond movie, although common consensus usually places it near the bottom. That being said, it's still pretty damn bad. As far as the Roger Moore series goes, it's close to the worst, but it's slightly less stupid than "Moonraker" and it's far more entertaining than "Live And Let Die." Take that for what it's worth.

Either way I'm done, son. Roger Moore is officially behind me. I guarantee you there is no person on the planet who is happier to entertain the notion of watching Timothy Dalton. The Bond series is about to grow up a little bit. The tears of joy on my face feel so good.

I have no words. They should have sent a poet.

Hey. You know what's more awesome than Duran Duran playing throughout the trailer? Optimus Prime narrating it.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "A View To A Kill" is goofy, somewhat confusing, and in keeping with Bond tradition, over-long. It's also got some really bad acting from everyone besides Macnee and Walken (and I suppose if you like him, Moore). It's not boring, however, which makes it watchable by technicality. Fans of Roger Moore will probably find it entertaining, but I found it somewhat obnoxious; Much like I found the rest of the Roger Moore series to be.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS"

Octopussy (1983)

True story: After "For Your Eyes Only" they were looking for someone to replace Roger Moore as James Bond. He was getting tired of playing him, he was getting too old, and it was beginning to be noticeable. James Brolin and future Bond Timothy Dalton were considered for the part, but then Sean Connery happened.

When, after a lengthy legal battle "Never Say Never Again," a non-Eon remake of "Thunderball" was put into production starring the original Mack-Daddy himself as 007 once again and set to come out the same year as "Octopussy," it was widely thought that it was not the proper time to risk trying anything new. So Moore was brought back once again, and I'm forced to grit my teeth and suffer through more of his shenanigans as the series still refused to grow up a little bit.

That being said, I must admit to actually liking "Octopussy." Despite the ridiculous title which you feel silly even saying out loud, this is a fun movie that manages to be quite entertaining. The plot is a little obtuse at times and there is more than one occasion when it's easy to not understand a thing anybody is talking about, but the action in between all of it is abundant and exciting, more so then arguably any of Roger Moore's other outings, and the screwball antics are kept to a relative minimum. Mostly.

Dammit, I said "mostly."

The story this time revolves around Fabergé eggs, and before you say anything, no, the plot doesn't suck. It gets kind of dicey to follow, but essentially what's going on is that there's a lot of forgeries of priceless things going around and being sold for insane prices lately, all to fund a rogue Russian general, Orlov (Steven Berkoff), doing bad things like expanding their borders and conquering some of Europe. I know that sounds stupid, and maybe it is, but it works just enough to get the story from A to B. In any case 007 is naturally the only one who can do anything about it, and sets out to track down the forgers, heading out to India where a bunch of the action takes place, before heading to West Germany (a nice dated reference there) for the admittedly exciting climax.

The *ahem* titular character is a notorious smuggler played by Maud Adams, whom observant viewers might recognize from "The Man With The Golden Gun," where she played Christopher Lee's ill-fated concubine whose corpse was shockingly good at sitting bolt-upright in instant rigor mortis. Like in that previous film, Adams is a strong presence on screen, and makes for one of the better Bond girls of the series, since she's not totally useless or stupid. This is particularly true when you look at the lineup of girls from the rest of the Roger Moore era. In fact she's probably the most respectable of all of them, since she had become an incredibly powerful world-class smuggler all by herself, and Maud Adams does command a great deal of respect in her performance. She's not just some busty ditz they slapped a lab coat on and called "Doctor" like we believe that for one hot minute. (I'm looking at you, Denise Richards.)

Useless? She's got her own elite squad of hot ninja acrobat circus performers who dress like The Flash. That's awesome!

Roger Moore is his usual cream-puff self, but at least here he brought a bit more physicality to the role. Or at least, his stuntman did. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until I'm finally done with him, but Roger Moore is not a threatening guy, and I've never bought him as an action lead. But despite all of that, the film does manage to make him come across as more than someone's goofy uncle despite his noticeably advancing age.

Like I said earlier, the wackiness is toned down a bit in "Octopussy," an aspect I was immensely relieved by. True, there are moments like Bond dressing like both a clown and a gorilla, a crowd watching a car chase with heads moving back and forth in unison like a tennis match, all while Bond's sidekick Vijay wails on the bad guys with a tennis racket, and Bond yelling like Tarzan while swinging on a vine (groan), but for all of that goofy crap there's still a lot of pretty hard-hitting action and some surprisingly dark stuff in here. When the film features a guy taking a rotary saw yo-yo to the face and a dude hunting humans like he's a cross between Van Pelt and the villain from "Bloodlust," it tends to make up for some of the more comedic moments.

I love ham and eggs!

Once again, however, the villain is slightly lackluster. Louis Jourdan is just...alright as Kamal Khan, an exiled Afghan prince working with Orlov. One one hand he's slimy enough and gives off the impression that he would gladly set fire to a car full of nuns just because, but it's likely that he'd probably get someone else to do it for him. And this is just me, but I like my Bond villains to be somewhat more threatening then that. Otherwise when we get to the final showdown there's going to be little tension because you know he doesn't stand a chance against 007. It's really more about getting past the big henchman they always have at that point, and I've always found that to be a bit anticlimactic when the films go that route. Orlov would have been the more logical choice for James to face off against at the end, but unfortunately that doesn't end up happening.

That's about all I have for "Octopussy." It's a surprisingly exciting entry in the Roger Moore series, and I'd call it one of his better, if not best ones. True, you're not going to know exactly what's going on the whole time, but the climax has Bond fighting a dude on top of a plane. That's got to count for something.

Yeah, the trailer sucks, but you get a taste for how much action is in this one.

THE BOTTOM LINE - I'd call "Octopussy" one of my favorite Roger Moore flicks. The biggest reason for that is the action, which flows fast, hard-hitting, and is surprisingly consistent throughout its overly long run-time. It's just enough to make you forgive the fact that it's still Roger Moore. It's what's great about the English. I must have seen this movie twice.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"A VIEW TO A KILL"

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

There were few places to go after "Moonraker" other than dramatically up, or, in the case of "For Your Eyes Only," back down to earth from the stratosphere of stupid that the previous film had left James Bond floating in. I think the filmmakers had realized one of two things: Either they knew they had pushed it too far into the outlandish, or they didn't think they could one-up it. One option gives them more respectability than the other. In any case, "For Your Eyes Only" was a distinct descent back down into reality (mostly), which went back to being more like the Connery films with fewer gadgets and a less bizarre storyline about Cold War espionage.

This is an entry in the franchise that is a little difficult to talk about. On one hand, it's honestly one of the more forgettable Bond films. The plot is somewhat hard to latch on to, the villain is horrendously bland, it's got what has to be in the running for the absolute worst Bond theme song ever, and there's a lack of iconic moments you can put on a poster to really stick out and make you remember the film. As bad as "Moonraker" was, there are scenes in it you won't forget once you see them. With this film you'll be struggling to remember many specific moments that you can think back on and say "That bit was cool."

On the other hand, I kind of liked it.

Hey, that's the name of the movie!

"For Your Eyes Only" finds Bond (Roger Moore) hunting down an encryption device that is capable of completely controlling all of the British fleet's missiles, which was lost when the ship it was on hit a mine and sank. And now they have to get it before the Russians do, since if they got it they could easily blow up the entire fleet or England or all of Russia's enemies or all of the above. That device seems like an entirely silly thing to create for reasons exactly like this, especially when apparently there's no way to reprogram the British missiles so that they can't be controlled by it. I wouldn't have personally made something like that, but then again I'm not a professional, so what do I know?

When a marine archeologist the British hired to find the ship is assassinated, the trail of the hitman leads Bond to Spain where the assassin is assassinated by Melina (Carole Bouguet), the daughter of the archeologist and Bond girl for this outing. Bond then follows the trail of another hitman to Italy. After that the plot gets a little convoluted as a lot of double crosses are revealed, making it so that it's just a little bit difficult to follow who is working for who. In fact, the main villain of the film isn't even revealed to be the main villain until about halfway through, due to the movie being deliberately misleading.

The guy holding Bond at gunpoint is one of the good guys. Who knew, right?

That's not to say that's necessarily a bad thing, however. Not every action movie needs their villain cackling behind steepled fingers, but it does tend to downplay the threat somewhat because we don't have as much time to build them up. When the villain, Kristatos (Julian Glover) is finally revealed it's a little difficult to be afraid of him because up to that point, all we've seen him do is have polite conversation over dinner and be generally normal. And little changes once the mask is lifted, as Glover doesn't exactly channel Vincent Price or anything in terms of wickedness. He just kind of looks overly annoyed when things don't go his way, makes threats he doesn't follow up on, and acts nonchalant if people die. Yeah, it may be a little more realistic, but it doesn't make for a fun or memorable villain. And I like Julian Glover as an actor a lot but here he's really not trying very hard to be a decent bad guy, particularly for a Bond movie. As silly as it may come across, you kind of want the mustache twirling at some point.

True, he didn't twirl his mustache in "The Last Crusade" either, but at least there he was evil in a Nazi sympathizer capacity.

Rescuing us from the unfortunate dullness of the Big Bad are two things the film does have going for it: An effectively intimidating secondary villain, Locque (Michael Gothard), and a handful of respectably fun action scenes which are pretty impressive in their stunts. A silent assassin, Locque doesn't say much if anything, but Gothard has this great intense stare combined with a detached coldness in his eyes that really sells the 'remorseless killer' angle, and I found myself wishing on more than one occasion that he was the main bad guy instead of Kristatos. After Bond takes him out in a surprisingly cold blooded manner by Sparta-Kicking his precariously dangling car off of a cliff, the film does tend to go downhill from that point on.

Personally I thought this was one of the better Roger Moore outings in the action department. In particular is a pretty good car chase through a jungle road, an effectively nerve-wrecking climb up a cliff, a few large scale shootouts, and what is probably the highlight of the film, a scene were Bond is chased down a mountain while on skis by a bunch guys on motorcycles. All of this is pleasantly well done, and I must give the Bond franchise tremendous credit for having not one, but two films which feature a fight on a bobsled track. I wouldn't have thought that possible.

Seriously. How did you manage to get into this situation twice?

While I'd noticed it from his debut, it was at this point that people started calling Roger Moore too old to be Bond. Some of it had to do with Carole Bouquet being some 30 years younger than him and looking like it, and another had to do with the character of Bibi, a young professional ice skater played by actual young professional ice skater Lynn-Holly Johnson. While Johnson was only a couple of years younger than Bouquet, she looked closer to sixteen, which made the scenes where she's trying to seduce Roger Moore, who looks like he subscribes to AARP magazine, exceedingly uncomfortable. It was played for laughs, and James flat out refuses her advances, but he's been such a pig throughout the series that by this point I'm not putting anything past him.

"Yes, well, put your clothes on and I'll get you some ice cream." = CREEPIEST. LINE. EVER.

I think this movie needs an adult.

I've praised the action and relative down-to-earth nature of "For Your Eyes Only," but that's not to say it got gritty and serious all of a sudden. As much as the tone may have been evened out, there's still scenes of Moore mugging to the camera, fighting hockey players like The Mighty Ducks went evil and at long last killing off a wheelchair-bound Blofeld by picking him up with a helicopter and dumping him down an industrial smokestack. Also, Marget Thatcher talks to a parrot while thinking it's James. This same parrot also helped save the day. I wish I were joking.

But the silly stuff is still to a far lesser degree than we'd seen in the past. Overall, this one gets a pass from me. As strange as it is to say I enjoyed a Roger Moore Bond outing, this is one of the better ones, despite it being rather forgettable. I guess in the end, not suffering throughout the proceedings at the expense of it being memorable is an acceptable tradeoff. At least when it comes to Roger Moore.

For anyone still complaining about movie trailers sucking today...I give you 1981. Ball's in your court.

THE BOTTOM LINE - It's one of the most forgettable Bond films, but it's actually not that bad. Despite his distracting advancing age and continued hamming it up, this is probably one of Roger Moore's better outings. At least it didn't hurt me while watching it.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

OCTOPUSSY

Moonraker (1979)

During my foray into the world of James Bond, watching his adventures chronologically from the beginning and seeing the evolution of the series unfold before me while knowing what is to come by the time Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig come along, I have learned a bit about myself. Apparently I am a man who enjoys redheads, a martini without olives, and grit and realism in my 007 movies. I used to think that I liked the outlandish bits of the Bond series but as I've watched them I realize that it's when the films are down-to-earth and not goofy that I find the most enjoyment. It's when the movie winks at us, honking its clown nose while doing a silly jig saying "Look how not-seriously we're taking ourselves! This is such fun!" that I fluctuate between not caring and flipping my television the bird.

You see, there is a fine balancing act that must be done while being outlandish. Don't be mistaken, a film can be over-the-top and still maintain its dignity. Just look at "Goldfinger." That movie is insane. A gold merchant attacks Fort Knox and shoves a nuke in the vault? That's crazy and stupid at the same time. For crying out loud his bodyguard has a hat that can decapitate you. He's got a giant laser and a table with straps that could only exist for the sole purpose of cutting a person in half starting at the groin, clearly possessing it before Bond ever shows up. And he just has it because shut up he does. Is the silliness sinking in yet?

"Scheriously, Goldfinga! Why ish thisch here? Who built it for you? HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU EXSCHECUTE?!?!"

But at the same time, "Goldfinger" was arguably the best the series ever got, and it was taking itself as seriously as a heart attack. It was stone faced despite the absurdity. The only winks Sean Connery gave were to the obnoxiously hot 60's women he was about to sexually assault into loving him. There were zero winks directed at the audience. There were no cheeky segments where the spy caper turned into a Benny Hill skit with zany music. There weren't any goofy sound effects to act like a trombone going "wah-wah-waaaaaah" to remind us we're supposed to be enjoying ourselves and have a good time. Instead, "Goldfinger" let the fun be a byproduct of the action and over-the-topness instead of trying to artificially cram it in by having scenes like James Bond driving a gondola through the streets of Venice while pigeons do a double-take, like we needed constant reminding to enjoy ourselves because we're all stupid.

With that...ugh. Freaking "Moonraker."

I hate this movie so much. So much. No film in the franchise pushes so many of my buttons as this one. It's got Roger Moore, it's overly goofy and campy in that special way that treats us like cats with keys jangling in our faces, the action is stunningly bland, lazy and not edited well at all, the theme song is easily one of the worst of the series, and the main villain is nonthreatening and acts like he's asleep throughout the proceedings. And of course, they're in space.

But why are they in space? There's no reason for them to be in space!

It's pretty common knowledge that the reason that the teaser "James Bond will return in 'For Your Eyes Only'" at the end of the previous film was famously made incorrect by instead having "Moonraker" come next was because of a little movie that came out in 1977 called "Star Wars," the popularity of which convinced the filmmakers to send James Bond into space. And that little factoid is pretty telling of the mindset that seemed to be at work here.

They weren't out to make a good Bond movie with this. They were out to make a Frankenstein monster of everything that people seemed to like, like a movie made entirely by a computer that calculated low common denominator preferences, and damn whether or not it fit the tone of how the series started out. The Bond franchise had become a joke long before this, I am aware of that, but "Moonraker" finally put the last flower on the grave of what used to be its dignity.

Hey check it out. Pressed ham on glass.

This time we find Bond investigating a stolen space shuttle. Before you ask how in the world a space shuttle could go missing, just know that is by far one of the least ridiculous things at work here. His investigation leads him to our villain, Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), a super-rich industrialist who would seem more evil if he weren't so sleepy-eyed and bored sounding. While uncovering Drax's plans, which boils down to "kill everyone on earth and repopulate with my master race," Bond goes around Europe and South America and then finally to Drax's space station, getting captured and escaping more times than I'm pretty sure is psychically possible.

Joining him is Bond girl of the day Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles). Oh I'm sorry - It's DOCTOR Holly Goodhead. There's much to be said about that name, but I guess I can leave it at "Wow." Technically speaking "Pussy Galore" was worse, but that's still pretty egregious. She's alright I suppose, and since she does fly the space shuttle at one point I suppose she's not as useless as Bond girls normally are, but then again since Bond takes over flight duties at the end to save the day because apparently Bond knows how to fly a space shuttle now, I guess useless might indeed be a fitting descriptor for her.

Making history as the only Bond villain to make a return (Blofeld doesn't count since he was like five different actors), Richard Kiel shows up again as the towering henchman, Jaws. This is a good thing since aside from Oddjob he's probably the best side-villain in Bond history. So what do they do in "Moonraker?" Here, he's the comic relief. Yup. The guy who, just one film before, was ripping people's throats out with his teeth is now the subject of goofy gags which have him taking absurd amounts of damage while mugging at the camera like he's Wile E. Coyote. And then he gets a girlfriend and falls in love and becomes a good guy because the filmmakers thought that would be something the audience would like. Ugh.

You're right. Villains shouldn't be bad in action movies. That would be silly.

I think right there is "Moonraker" in a nutshell. They took what was good, or at least passable, and turned it into a mockery of itself. No longer were we allowed to have an explosive, violent, action-packed thrill ride for adults. By the time "Moonraker" came along, the Bond series had turned into a Happy Meal with easily marketable and kid-friendly goofball characters and a little bit of side boob. And this crap had started before Roger Moore had even taken the helm (just look at "Diamonds Are Forever") although he certainly was the first to completely disregard any kind of shame for the character of James Bond.

Speaking of Roger Moore, he's doing his usual hammy schtick here, and I'm so done with it. I don't buy him as Bond, and I never will. And by the time "Moonraker" came about it was clear that this dude is way too old for the role. It was noticeable earlier but by this point it was officially distracting. The rest of the cast is whatever. Michael Lonsdale is one of the least intimidating and most dull villains ever, Lois Chiles is there just to look pretty, and Richard Kiel, like I said, is turned into the missing fourth Stooge. The only person who is kind of compelling is Corinne Clery as the pseudo-Bond girl who gets killed in the first act, a trope which is a requirement of the franchise evidently. But she gets eaten by dogs so I guess that doesn't matter. At least she sold being afraid.

"I'm ever so enraged at Bond foiling my plans. Can't you see the rage on my face? It's palpable."

"Moonraker" has a following, which blows my mind, but I suppose I can understand why. Kind of. The special effects, particularly on the space station, are admittedly pretty good. This is especially so for a 1979 film which isn't even technically a sci-fi film. And while I personally thought the action was tepid and dull, there is an abundance of it, so I'll give it that. Strictly speaking, this is not a dull movie. And the final laser battle in space, as absurd as it is, particularly when one wonders how in the hell the U.S. immediately scrambled the marines into space, is reasonably well-executed and is far better than the strangely similar scene from the climax of "Thunderball."

Pictured above - *Pew* *Pew* *Pew*

However, that abundant action is constantly tainted by the bad comedy. The best bit of the movie, the opening sequence where Bond is thrown from a plane without a parachute (in a scene oddly foreshadowing of "Point Break") is ruined at the very end by Jaws falling into a circus tent while goofy music plays. You know, because clowns are the first thing my mind goes to when I think about James Bond.

Well, I suppose it is now. (Nice rear projection, BTW. Really convincing.)

I am so done with Roger Moore. At least this marks the half-way point for his run as James Bond. And there's nowhere to go but up from here. I don't care what Rotten Tomatoes says: There is no way "A View To A Kill" is worse than "Moonraker." Not possible. It's not in space, it's got a rocking 80's-tastic theme song and it has Christopher Walken. There's no way it won't be an improvement.

Check out the trailer for "Moonraker." If you dare.

THE BOTTOM LINE - In my humble opinion, it's possible that "Moonraker" is the worst Bond film. Ever. It's possible that it's not the worst from a technical level, or even an interest-holding level since I didn't find it as boring as "Thunderball," but terms of eye-rolling and pain it's the reigning champion. I'd rather watch "Austin Powers." And I despise those movies, but at least those had a couple of jokes that worked. This is just painful.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"FOR YOUR EYES ONLY"

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Whereas "The Man With The Golden Gun" was one of the more bi-polar Roger Moore Bond films as far as reception goes, as it was either considered one of the best or one of the weakest depending on whom you asked, the general consensus of its follow-up, "The Spy Who Loved Me," is near universal praise. Most fans and critics consider it Moore's finest outing as far as acting goes, and the actor himself called it his favorite.

To be sure, there are plenty of things about "The Spy Who Loved Me" to enjoy, and like "The Man With The Golden Gun" it's by far an improvement on "Live And Let Die." The sets are frankly stunning, the action is plentiful and reasonably exciting, the end recalls the fantastic climaxes of "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice," and there are some interesting ideas going on with actual character development of the Bond girl.

 It also features the very finest in Shatnerian fight choreography.

Of course those ideas don't pay off and are ultimately unsatisfying and borderline insulting, but later films would do it much better. And while it's unfortunate that those elements failed horribly here, it's nice to see them at least trying something the slightest bit interesting with the Bond girl character, whom is almost always portrayed as an insufferable lump of dumb blandness with a target painted on her butt with the words "INSERT BOND HERE" on the bulls-eye.

I give the film credit for that, and like I said it's still an improvement on the preceding Moore films, but within that statement lies the overlying, inescapable problem: It still stars Roger Moore. And while the man does have his fans, I'll never understand it. Like every Bond movie he did, in "The Spy Who Loved Me" Roger Moore is a boring, stiff cream-puff who gives off the impression that he wouldn't last 3 seconds on "American Gladiators," let alone survive a bullet-riddled pursuit down a mountain while on skis, ending in him leaping off a cliff and parachuting to safety.

Is it even worth it for me to inquire as to how he knew he was going to need that?

I think what I like most about "The Spy Who Loved Me" is the scale of it all. It feels really huge, not only with what is at stake but the sets and locations the characters go to. The villain, Stromberg's huge mobile underwater city Atlantis is an inventive, beautiful set, as well as his massive super-tanker Liparus, which is big enough to swallow 3 submarines. Even the henchmen are gigantic, with Richard Kiel making his first appearance as fan-favorite Jaws. All this makes the film seems more epic like "You Only Live Twice," which had the gigantic base in the crater of a volcano and whatnot.

This was the first Roger Moore Bond film I've seen that I was actually saying to myself "That's cool" on occasion. Atlantis, particularly Stromberg's dining room/lounge with the windows looking out at the water, was a very impressive effect which really did a lot to immerse the viewer in this outlandish underwater base which seemed like something out of "The Abyss." And the famous Esprit that was also a submarine is undoubtedly the coolest Bond car since the Aston Martin from "Goldfinger" - even if leads to one of the stupidest gags in the film.

I hate you, Roger Moore.

It's just too bad the actors couldn't have lived up to the scale of the production. Roger Moore is, as I've said, just as bland and obnoxious as ever, but even the villain played by the venerable Curt Jurgens wasn't very memorable. And it wasn't his fault, really. He's slimy enough I suppose but the fact that he's just a crotchety old ocean enthusiast who built an underwater city and wants to blow up the world because he wants to live under the sea (which he already does anyway) makes him fairly hard to care about. I guess his motivation is to force everyone else to do the same, but he's a loner, so even that doesn't make any sense. You'd think he'd just stay underwater and be content without killing everyone.

I mentioned earlier the Bond girl having some interesting elements going on, and that is true. Barbara Bach plays a Russian spy named Agent Triple X, and right off the bat you can tell that any attempt at depth of character is in the septic tank based on her name alone. Her name itself implies porn. What self respecting country would code name their agents that? Did they make her a secret agent strictly for the purposes of having sex? Was she aware of it? Did she go through spy school and all that intense training, only to be given a name like Triple X and was told "Okay, comrade. Now get to screwing" by her superiors? With a name like that it's hard to think otherwise.

More countries should name their secret agents after what they do. James Bond could be code named Agent Kaboom.

The issue is that we're supposed to believe that Triple X is capable of getting through "The Spy Who Loved Me" without banging James Bond, which, like I said earlier, based on her name is a statistical impossibility. Early in the film Bond kills a Russian agent who we find out was Triple X's lover, and she swears vengeance on whoever did it. During the course of the movie Bond and Triple X are forced to partner up, and when she finds out that Bond was the guy who killed her boyfriend, she professes her hatred of James and promises him that as soon as the mission is over she will take him out.

That is not only a load of rubbish, as her name is Triple X and she's a Bond girl, but it also makes her really stupid as well. Letting a guy like James Bond know that you're going to try and kill him and giving him the exact moment when that promise will go into effect is probably not a wise move. Any normal secret agent would probably put a slug between their eyes immediately after they finished shooting the villain. But since it's James Bond he puts something else of his between something else of hers instead, because he's James Bond and her name is Triple X. And naturally she forgives him for no reason other than that the script requires that every single female on the planet has a clinical need to bang him. I guess that overrides the fact that he killed your boyfriend.

 You can go ahead and attempt to make her a deep character, but you still named her Agent Triple X. We're not buying it.

I think more than anything else that's the biggest problem with what could have been the most interesting element of the film. I do like the idea of Bond and a Russian agent needing to work together despite deep hatred and fist-clenched vengeance perpetually making its presence known, but they really don't do anything with it, mostly forgetting about it with the exception of the scene she swears vengeance on him and the scene at the end where she forgives him out of nowhere. She doesn't even shoot him a nasty look in between or anything. If I didn't know better I'd say she was never more than two seconds away from dry-humping his leg. Then again, it may have been because Barbara Bach was a horrendously bad actress in this.

Despite all of that, I can't be too mad at "The Spy Who Loved Me." It's actually a pretty solid movie, even with Roger Moore and the fact that the title doesn't make any sense since I'm pretty sure James Bond does not love Triple X, nor does Triple X love Bond. I'm not sure that I'd call it his best, but at the very least he's going to cool locations which provide plenty of action beats, giving it a brisk pace and making it not boring. And at least he's not in space. Although I sense utter fear and rage on the horizon for me.

I know I've mentioned this before, but man were trailers bad back in the day. I officially apologize to every fade in/fade out I've complained about. At least it provides a tempo.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Spy Who Loved Me" is close to the best you're going to get as far as the Roger Moore Bond movies go. At the very least it's not dull, although the acting is atrocious and the villains lackluster apart from Jaws, who is lackluster himself but is so huge that his presence makes up for it. One of the only Bond outings starring Roger Moore that I'd say is worth checking out. As we see in the next entry...it got far, far worse.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

MOONRAKER

The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)

1973's "Live And Let Die" was one of the weaker Bond outings, and by far the worst of the "New Guy" debuts. With Roger Moore at the helm, the series sank further into a spiral of comedy that had began some time ago, but had previously been kept above water due to the badassery of Sean Connery and even George Lazenby (yeah you heard me, I said Lazenby). Now with the Earl Grey flavored tofu blandness of Mr. Moore, the series continued as if it were slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) becoming a parody of itself.

Its follow-up, "The Man With The Golden Gun" is something of an enigmatic film, as it seems to be a transitional one. The lack of gadgets and inclusion of a sadistic, depraved psychopath of a villain who gets sexual thrills from killing suggests a darker, more gritty entry. However, at the same time it also features third nipples, the return of Sheriff J.W. Pepper, Bond giving a wedgie to a sumo wrestler, and Tattoo from "Fantasy Island." Oh dear. I sense being annoyed by shifts in tone in my future. It's not full blown comedy yet, but we're getting there.

Why is it that nearly every expression Roger Moore makes can be accompanied by a *BOING* sound effect?

"The Man With The Golden Gun" could have been a really solid entry, and I'm saying that while being a HUGE detractor of Roger Moore. I enjoy the initial setup, which finds Bond taken off of active duty when he finds himself the target of Scaramanga, the world's most infamous assassin and the titular character. While officially off-duty, Bond is given the under-the-table go ahead to find Scaramanga and take him out first, so that Bond can get back to his current mission, which involves a new solar power source which could solve the energy crisis. Eventually and conveniently these two plots meet up in an endgame which may seem somewhat contrived, but it does give Christopher Lee a chance to fire a laser cannon, and that's awesome.

Gentlemen, the contest shall be overly large collars at dawn. May the most starched win.

There are plenty of action beats which are perhaps not quite as good as previous entries including "Live And Let Die," due to the fact that they seem rather lackadaisical and too gentle with the smug creampuff that is Roger Moore, but for what they are they serve their purpose acceptably well and tend to not be boring. The editing may be wanting, as some of the numerous chase sequences had an overall lack of reference as to who was where, and on occasion the film flat-out confuses the audience with "How in the world did he get there?" moments which are never explained, but like I said they serve their purpose just fine. And unlike "Live And Let Die" or "Thunderball," I was not bored stiff by "The Man With The Golden Gun."

Scaramanga is a thankful reprieve from Yaphet Kotto's forgettable Mr. Big from the previous outing, and for the first time since "Goldfinger" we get a memorable bad guy who isn't Blofeld. Naturally when you get Christopher Lee to be your villain its extraordinarily unlikely that he won't be the best thing about the movie, and he unsurprisingly manages to steal the show. The film does keep his debauchery to a PG level, but there are scenes with him that could have come right out of an exploitation flick, and could have gotten really, really raw and kinky had they kept going past the point the camera cut to another scene. Part of me is glad they cut away but another part of me wanted to see it, just so his character was made just that much more twisted.

You know, just to take it from an "Oh man he's going to shoot Bond" level to an "Oh man he's going to shoot Bond and then wear his skin" level.

The thing about Scarmanga that makes him so great as a character is the nonchalant manor in which Christopher Lee plays him. Lee can be super intense when needed, as his turns as Dracula showed us, but in "The Man With The Golden Gun" he overall stays icy calm and detached from the violence that he is inflicting, discussing it like it's a golf outing. Normally this would be a point against a performance but it's clear by looking into his eyes that the reason he's detached is because it's no big deal to him. He'll shoot someone in the face with the same emotion as he would have eating a sandwich. And then he'll have sex with his concubine because death puts him in the mood. It's a role fueled by juxtaposition and subtle fire behind Lee's eyes, and it's really a killer performance by one of the masters.

However, I said earlier that "The Man With The Golden Gun" could have been a really solid entry. The issues come up when discussing the aforementioned shifts in tone. While the film starts off with a very promising first act, once Bond arrives in Thailand posing as Scaramanga himself, it quickly devolves into bizarre territory as Bond is attacked by sumo wrestlers, gets forced into a martial arts contest for some reason, and then goes off on prolonged escape and chase sequences featuring the return of J.W. Pepper, who marks the absolute nadir of the film's ups and downs.

I think Rosco Coltrane and Boss Hogg congealed into a tubby, racist mass.

It's this goofy, cornball crap interjecting itself into what is otherwise a fairly dark story involving some really twisted stuff that makes "The Man With The Golden Gun" not work that well. I can't tell you how frustrating it was for me watching this film because of that reason. There are scenes in "The Man With The Golden Gun" that are outright brilliant, but they are sullied by the bad comic relief.

"I claim this land for Oz!"

A pitch perfect example is a scene where Scaramanga and Bond first meet at a mixed martial arts fight. The scene is brilliantly set when Bond sits down next to Andrea (Maud Adams), Scaramanga's consort who recently sold him out to James, only to find that she's quite dead from a gunshot. Scaramanga then sits down next to Bond and tells him in so many words, "Yeah, I killed her. And I know you tried messing with me. That's cute. Don't do it again or I'll kill you like I killed her." This is also one of the few moments where Roger Moore plays Bond in a halfway acceptable manner, making the scene very intense.

Immediately after that Bond girl Goodnight (Britt Ekland) becomes an offensively useless ditz when she gets her dumb ass captured by Scaramanga, and we get a chase scene where Bond and J.W. Pepper follow him through the streets of Thailand while Pepper shouts shockingly racist epithets which I think are supposed to be humorous. This all culminates in Bond jumping a river via a broken bridge, which spins the car in a spiral complete with a slide whistle sound effect (because that's essential to the stunt), and then the case ends when Scaramanga's car turns into a plane. Then I remember the previous scene of dead-serious coldness and I get sad.

It's just not right without the OOOOOOOOOOOOOOWHOOP!

That's really the biggest issue I have with "The Man With The Golden Gun." There are other things that annoyed me, chief amongst those is a rather anti-climatic end to the final showdown, and the utterly worthless character of Goodnight, who is insufferably dumb and pathetic even for Bond girl standards. Keep in mind this is a character whom Bond locks in a closet for hours so he can have sex with another girl in the same room, but when released she's mostly upset because Bond won't plow her immediately. That's an escalation of both Bond's piggishness and a 37-year setback for women in cinema all in one scene! Good job!

And she's supposed to be a secret agent. That's "Glasses on Tara Reid = Ph.D" level stupid.

The rest of it is middling to okay. Despite Roger Moore still choosing to act like he doesn't give a crap, it's surprising how much millage a film can get from a decent villain. Add to the fact that "The Man With The Golden Gun" is actually a very pretty film, and showcases some fantastic scenery and really cool set designs (I was particularly a fan of a secret base made from a slanted, sunken ship) and you've got a Bond flick that manages to be surprisingly not bad considering all the crap that goes along with it. It's still not anywhere close to the best, but it's far from the worst.

I wish I could have been a movie trailer maker back in the day. I wouldn't have had to give a crap.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Man With The Golden Gun" is one of the better Roger Moore entries. Most of that has to do with Christopher Lee, as he drags the movie kicking and screaming into respectability on occasion. His presence alone is enough to override some of the Roger Moore zaniness, but it's still present, which irritates me to no end. A big step up from "Live And Let Die," however.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

"THE SPY WHO LOVED ME"

Live And Let Die (1973)

Ugh. You all don't even know how much I've been dreading this. In my quest to go through the entire Bond filmography, I knew I'd have to suffer through a lot of crap. The Bond films aren't exactly known for consistent excellence. But out of all the things that were weird or wacky or wackily weird about the series, nothing can top the mountain of bizarre WTF-ness that is Roger Moore.

I can't stand the Roger Moore Bond films. I hate the way Moore plays Bond, I hate the way they are crammed to the brim with goofiness and absurd comic relief, and I hate how boring they are. Now granted, as of my writing this entry I have not seen all of them, and apparently I've missed out on some of the better ones, but I'm not holding my breath. And frankly the fact that I've seen four of the Roger Moore Bond movies and am still only about halfway through them since he was Bond SEVEN DAMN TIMES makes me want to punch a llama. And I don't even know why I'd punch a llama. I like llamas. Moore just takes me there I guess.

Whatever. Let's get this started so I can get this over with and get to Timothy Dalton. I'm pretty sure that's the first time that sentence has ever been typed out.

"Live and Let Die" was the first Bond movie made in the 70's, and more than nearly any of the rest of them is clearly a product of its time. In a change of pace from the usual evil villain out to take over the world plot it focuses on drug trafficking, black gangsters and strange voodoo magic, as if Bond wandered on to the set of a blaxplotation movie being filmed across the way and everybody just kind of rolled with it. This has the side effect of, at least for me, making it seem little like a Bond movie past the twenty minute mark. It feels like I'm watching "Shaft." Only here Shaft is pasty, English and far less intimidating.

God, it's like casting Hugh Grant to play Jules Winnfield.

Obviously this was to capitalize on a fad and attempt to boost numbers in the box office, but I can't tell you what an utter shock it is to hear blaxplotation style dialogue being thrown about in a Bond movie. I had to rewind the movie every time somebody called James "honkey" or "cue-ball," just to make sure I wasn't losing my mind. And I think my jaw literally hit the ground when Felix Leiter said "Get me a make on a white pimpmobile!" The levels of bizarre and "does not fit" are off the charts.

"New for 1973 - The Pontiac Pimpmobile. Starting at the low price of $3,000 or 2 kilos of heroin. Test drive one today."

The plot, much like many of the lesser Bond films, is convoluted and overly-long. It involves agents in the Caribbean/Southern US getting killed, and Bond is sent to investigate (much like "Dr. No"). The trail leads him to Kananga (Yaphet Kotto), a dictator of a small island, whom we find out doubles as a drug lord named "Mr. Big." His plan is to distribute a crap-ton of heroin on the streets for free using his chain of restaurants as a front, driving the competition out of business and creating many new addicts in the process. Then he'll charge jacked-up prices for the drugs once that is accomplished and make lots of money.

Doesn't that just scream "James Bond movie?" True, there may be Bond villainy to be found, as Katanga has henchmen, an underground liar complete with a shark tank (!) and has a tenancy to monologue, but he's still just a jumped up drug dealer when you boil it down. And Yaphet Kotto, as intimidating as he can be, isn't really selling the role very well here. He's really low-key and comes across as kind of sleepy most of the time. He doesn't seem like he cares very much, and I'm just not feeling it. And as we all know, any good action flick hinges on its villain. This is particularly true of Bond movies.

Look out, Jane Seymour! It's an evil medicine man! Quick! Get her a medicine...woman?

Even the henchmen aren't very notable. Julius Harris as the hook-handed Tee-Hee serves as kind of a prototype for Jaws, but Richard Kiel this man was not. Like most of the rest of "Live And Let Die," he's just kind of sleepily floating through the thing. And I don't what we are supposed to make of Whisper, the henchmen whose gimmick is that they can't speak above a whisper, since that's clever. What is he going to do, inaudible me to death?

Every once in a while "Live And Let Die" throws in a relatively decent vehicle segment, the most famous being the boat chase through the bayous of Louisiana. And while that bit is alright and more in line with what we're used to with the franchise, at that point we are also introduced to what is one of the more egregious examples of everything that is wrong with the Roger Moore movies...

Mitchell!? NO!!!

I'm not sure why Clifton James is in this movie as Sheriff J.W. Pepper, but his mere presence alone would be enough to make me write off the entire film, even if the rest hadn't been a snore-fest. There are plenty of problems that I have with the Roger Moore series, but the one thing that I can't see fixing any of it is a tobacco chewing, "Where you goin', boy" spouting, goofball redneck sheriff. Once again, it's something that just does not belong in a Bond flick.

Finally, let's talk about Moore himself. The problem with Roger Moore is that he's way too big of a ham, and he doesn't feel the slightest bit intimidating. Connery's smirk was less of a smile and more representative of a wolf getting ready to eat a small animal. Even Lazenby could throw a convincing punch and scowl when he needed to. And let's not even bring up Dalton's cold eyes, Brosnan's sleek physicality or the muscular wrecking ball that is Daniel Craig. But that raised eyebrow of Moore's always makes me feel like he's one step away from tugging at his collar with his finger and going "Nee-uh-uh-uh" like we're watching Benny Hill or something. There's no badassery with Roger Moore. He doesn't seem like a dangerous guy, he seems like someone you might hire to do your taxes. 

Yes, you're correct. Carnac the Magnificent would be a much better role for you.

And I know I've said this before, but my god is James Bond a creep. It's really getting old with this schtick of Bond being an utter pig, which has the ladies tripping over themselves to strip off their panties quicker. It's not quite as bad here as it was with the later Connery films as far as brute force goes, but here Roger Moore basically tricks and extorts women into having sex with him, which is just another flavor of "creepy border-line rapist."

There's little chemistry going on between the actors, either. Roger Moore and Bond girl de jour Solitaire (Jane Seymour) together are rather luke-warm at best, with the more intense but far more ill-fated and mean-spirited relationship being between Bond and Rosie (Gloria Hendry), a double agent working for both the CIA and Kananga whom Bond basically lets die without much concern. Of course that's immediately after he has sex with her, since he's a nice guy like that. And while there is a decent scene between Roger Moore and Yaphet Kotto where Kananga reveals he is Mr. Big, I was honestly hoping that it was going to be Hank Hill under the mask.

"I sell heroin and heroin accessories."

I also find it rather strange that his introduction is so underwhelming. Usually when a new Bond is paraded out in his debut it's with a dramatic reveal, usually involving a slow buildup or a flashy action sequence culminating with a one-liner to showcase what the new guy can do. But here we just see Roger Moore lying in bed with a woman way too hot for a dude like him. Then the doorbell rings and he gets up, answers it, and makes coffee for his boss while trying to keep the girl out of sight. Thrill as he attempts to hide the fact that he just had sex!!!

And that really sets the stage for the entire affair. "Live And Let Die" is just not trying very hard. And it's really about as exciting as watching James Bond get out of bed and hide a chick in his closet. I honestly don't have too much more to say about "Live And Let Die." I didn't care for it. It was actually a struggle for me to stay awake during most of it, much like "Thunderball." And, much like that film, I really don't like it.

But hey, good news. I've only got six more Roger Moore films left to go! ::shoots myself::

Man, that trailer makes me wish I hadn't nearly slept through most of this movie.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Live And Let Die" isn't the worst Bond movie, but man is it bad. It's a boring introduction to my least favorite Bond actor, and the tone, setting and themes are a radical departure which simply do not fit. About the only good thing I can say about it is that it doesn't take place in outer space, but don't worry. We'll get to that soon enough.

JAMES BOND

WILL RETURN IN

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN