ted@usceast.UUCP (Ted Nolan) (05/31/85)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <7477@ucbvax.ARPA>
Sender:
Reply-To: ted@usceast.UUCP (System Programmer)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Csci Dept, U of S. Carolina, Columbia
Keywords:
<licensed to munch>
Since _Octopussy_ was such a big step up from _For Your Eyes Only_
(having a coherent plot among other nice things), I had high hopes for
the new Bond movie, _A View to a Kill_; unfortunately, I was rather
disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, there are always clever bits and high excitement in
a Bond movie and we have enough of them here to make the film a fun summer
afternoon's viewing, but they don't work together as well as they could,
and there are also some fundamental problems with the story.
I'm not going to do a full review of the film, I'm sure someone will have done
that by the time I get around to finishing this, but I want to mention what I
thought were some weak points, and throw them open for comment. In no
particular order :
The role of the leading lady was very weak, both in the script and in the
acting. Tayna Roberts was given embarassingly little to do besides hang
precariously from things, waiting for Bond to reach down and pull her up
and if she has the acting ability to make this convincing and appealing,
she forbore to show it here.
Grace Jones, on the other hand, came across very well I thought. Given that
she was in the picture, she would have been my hands down choice for heroine.
(After Bond wooed her over to the side of the righteous, of course). Why
this wasn't done, I'm not sure unless it might be thought controversial.
(Interestingly, there seems to have been a brief moment cut from the film
as she slides into bed with Bond. Whether this was done to keep from getting
a pg13 rating or some other reason I don't know.) I also thought it was bad
planning that she had to die in the end of the film. I can see why she had
to; she had killed good guys (unlike Jaws in _Moonraker_ who was let to live
since he had only been after Bond and didn't get anyone else), but that should
have been thought about and avoided.
I know it is no favor to an actor to type cast him, but still it bothered
me to see Ste-- Uh,that is, Tibbet offed so early and so easily. I think
a certain British duo would be right at home in a Bond movie, and it was
rather frustrating to come this close. (I probably would feel the same
way seeing Diana Rigg in _On Her Majesty's Secret Service_, but I've missed
that one so far).
The character of Zorrin was a good one. He had the required suave vileness
to be a Bond villian, but I felt that his ultimate destruction was not well
done. In particular, each time he had Bond in his power, he was quick to
call Bond a bungler and brag on his own superior abilities. He obviously
believed this, and what I felt was missing from the final confrontation
at the bridge was an awful moment of realization that he was in fact
defeated and undone by the bungler he had dismissed out of hand .
I had some problems with the plot too. Of course I know it's not realistic
to pick nits off a Bond plot, but coming after _Octopussy_ which actually
had a fairly coherent plot (part of it even from Fleming!) I had raised
my expectations somewhat. The killing of the French guy at the tower didn't
seem to make a whole lot of sense; it sounded as though he really had very
little to tell Bond. I had trouble with the bit about the tape Bond
took off of Olga at the baths too. Where did that come from?
I had been at the beach all week when I saw VTAK, and my eyes had had a bit
much sun and wind, but still it seemed to me that my discomfort with certain
scenes couldn't be entirely explained by that. In particular, there were
several pan shots that I found very disorienting and hard to look at, which
surprised me since even the worst Bond movies have had high production values.
Oh, well enough of me griping. I'm not saying you won't enjoy the movie;
I did, but it could have been much better.
Special added bonus : There has been some talk in net.sf-lovers lately about
how close the Bond movies come to the Bond books. Who can name the only
two things Fleming's _Moonraker_ had in common with the movie? Don't
write me, here is the answer: After reading the book, the only two that
I noticed were the name of the villan (Hugh Drax) and the fact that he and
M had played cards together (an important point in the book, an offhand
reference in the movie.)
Keep the powder dry,
Ted Nolan ..usceast!ted
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Nolan ...decvax!mcnc!ncsu!ncrcae!usceast!ted (UUCP)
6536 Brookside Circle ...akgua!usceast!ted
Columbia, SC 29206 allegra!usceast!ted@seismo (ARPA, maybe)
("Deep space is my dwelling place, the stars my destination")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------mercury@ut-ngp.UUCP (Larry E. Baker) (06/04/85)
[sigh] > to; she had killed good guys (unlike Jaws in _Moonraker_ who was let to live > since he had only been after Bond and didn't get anyone else), but that should > have been thought about and avoided. No, no, no. You've got it all wrong. Some JB fan you are. Jaws appeared first in "The Spy Who Loved Me," and he, ah, whet (pun intended) his teeth on quite a few people/items, including a service van and a shark. I have mixed feelings about AVTAK, but I think it was somewhat better than the last sequence of techno-kiddie offerings coming out of the Bond machine. There was more to the story, the score was more like earlier (Connery) JB's, and the ending (with Bond, Zorin & Co. on top of the San Fransisco bridge) was much like earlier Connery work, although not as good. One thing I noticed this time 'round is that, although still heavily into the showoff-the-gadgets mode, they used "gadgets" (The blimp, etc.) in a far more realistic way. Did anyone notice the "explosive" Zorin was using to set off the fault? Someone obviously put a little more thought into this scene than in previous movies; ANFO *is* a real explosive. Of course, it was not without, ah, faults. I gagged on the scene where she uses an Apple to figure out where the epicenter of an earthquake earlier in the movie. Also, The Sharper Image must have paid quite a hefty sum to get their (patented, no doubt) "window opener" in a scene all by itself. Of course, these are all my own opinions and I offer no justification for them whatsoever. "But...but...you're not a good guy AT ALL!" "I'm a LAWYER, you IDIOT!" *BLAM* -- - Larry Baker @ The University of Texas at Austin - ... {seismo!ut-sally | decvax!allegra | tektronix!ihnp4}!ut-ngp!mercury - ... mercury@ut-ngp.ARPA