James Bond : A View To A Kill (1985)

A VIEW TO A KILL  1985

director John Glen  Starring Roger Moore, Christopher Walken, Tanya Roberts, Grace Jones, Patrick Macnee

 

The 1980s was a very good decade for director John Glen, who directed all of the Bond films of the time. But A VIEW TO A KILL, which was Roger Moore’s last outing as Bond, though efficiently directed, had serious problems. First of all, Roger Moore was visibly older than he should be as Bond  (the discussion goes that Bond should be in his thirties or early forties, but Moore was clearly in his 90s here so there was indeed a slight matter in incredibility). 

"What? Me ? Too Old ?"

A second problem is that the film doesn’t seem to know which way it wants to go: to go out as a serious thriller or as funny family entertainment, which means the film goes from one tense moment to the funny next one. This severely hurts the film’s chances. Where normally Maurice Binder presented a fairly risqué title sequence, his contribution here seems unoriginal, dated and makes Mr. Binder very much come across as a dirty, voyeuristic old man. The title song by Duran Duran is also easily the worst Bond song of the whole series.

"Where is that damn writer of this blog? I am going to kill him!! Calling me too old!!"

The story uses the Bond film formula almost as a cliché, going from one interesting location to the next, but it all seems to be going by the numbers and the story content is unconvincing and lackluster. Seriously, it is very difficult to keep watching this film with a straight face as the story dashes from the serious to the silly in the blink of an eye. The Car Chase in Paris (Bond chasing May Day after she jumps from the Eiffel Tower with a parachute and floats off), the horse race between Bond and Zorin and the San Francisco chase, where Bond steals a fire truck with ladder and the cops chase him to the bridge, all seem to start very seriously but descend deeply into awful silliness.

Tanya Robert, Roger Moore, Grace Jones and Christopher Walken

Christopher Walken only aggravates the problem with a performance that can only be described as beyond insane, a total joke of a villain (Roger Moore also complained afterward about his merciless killing spree, that this should not be in a Bond movie) while Grace Jones merely seems to be satisfied with an over the top, ludicrous performance. (But then who ever thought she could act?) Tanya Roberts epitomizes the cliché’d  blonde damsel in distress, but hearing her jammer and whine “Oh James” continuously makes you want to put a bullet in her head yourself, if only to put yourself out of her misery.

"It's all right, dear. Calm yourself!"

The musical presence of the late John Barry is appropriately suspenseful at the right times  and rises to supreme musical highlights at certain other moments (God, how he is missed these days) but it matters little in the whole deal. Also Patrick Macnee’s appearance is enjoyable but he also looks old enough to be pushed around in a wheelchair. In short, A VIEW TO A KILL is easily and definitely the worst James Bond Film of the lot. I am glad that Roger Moore can still laugh at himself in this movie as he later stated “ I was only about 400 years too old for this film “. 

"Sorry, really, James, how old are you?"

Indeed, Roger Moore was older than Fiona Fullerton’s mother and he has a scene in the film where he shares a bath tub with Fiona! Not her mother!! (Roger, you dirty old man !!!!) 

Concluding I would like to say I am very glad the films got better after this. And I would like to leave it at that. Thank you.

The Latest Doctor Who : Peter Capaldi !

Doctor Who, for a time, was an almost forgotten television show. I can remember the 1990s when they were off the air entirely. I must admit though, that when Dutch Television started showing the series in the mid-seventies, they did not begin with the first Doctor. They started with Dr. 4 Tom Baker. Forget about William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton and Jon Pertwee. Tom Baker also for a long time was my undisputed Doctor Who. But mind you, after the Tom Baker years, I do believe the Dutch Television showings went sorely lacking as well, as I did not see anything of Peter Davison or the other two doctors of the 1980s. I did get to see the 1996 Dr Who television movie with Paul McGann (not on Dutch TV, no) but the rebirth in 2005 with Christopher Eccleston turned out very succesful (thank you, BBC!) and Eccleston was the new Doctor in his one year. But David Tennant followed him up in an incredibly succesful way. However, Matt Smith I never really liked. He was too young, too boyish, too quirky to be my kind of Doctor. (Mind you, I also HATED -fiercely- Amy Pond as his companion, even though I never minded the way she exited so dramatically.) But since only a few months we now have PETER CAPALDI as the 12th Doctor.

The series of Doctor Who recently also celebrated it's fiftieth anniversay, reminding us viewers in all kinds of nice ways of the past adventures, even going so far as to set up a huge concert at the Royal Albert Hall where the music of the series was performed whilst the villains marched around to scare the kiddies. A fine concert, indeed ! And so now we return to a Doctor, who is older again, wiser perhaps or wittier?

Where I was not a fan of Matt Smith, I really like Peter Capaldi and I do enjoy the combination of Capaldi as the Doctor with Jenna Coleman's Clara (even if she is -yes or no- with Mr. Pink). Considering that every four years or so, the Doctor will be renewed, it will be some time before Capaldi -hopefully- regenerates into a successor but for the moment I am extremely pleased with him. His slightly older and darker version of the Doctor is a welcome incarnation after so many years of goodlooking young chaps who were almost smooching with their companions. But in a few years, there will again be some shoes to fill. WHO will then be chosen??

Or should we perhaps indulge in some free thinking and try to imagine what it would be like to have a FEMALE DOCTOR ?

Could be interesting, eh? See you in a few years and we'll talk again !!!

Do we really care less about what our children see with regards sex and violence in films?

On the website of VARIETY we have recently seen an article that says the following: Parents Desensitized to Sex and Violence in Movies, Study Finds When it comes to sex and violence, the more parents see, the less they care. That’s the takeaway form a new study by the Annenberg Public Policy Center on the attitudes that parents of children aged 6 to 18 have towards film content that may be objectionable or disturbing. Researchers showed bloody or erotic scenes from PG-13 and R-rated movies such as “8 Mile,” “Collateral,” “Die Hard” and “Casino Royale” to 1,000 parents and found that they grew desensitized as the body count mounted and sexual activity heated up. The research was conducted online last January. The findings will be published in Pediatrics and the report serves as a companion to a 2013 study by Annenberg that found that gun violence in PG-13 movies has tripled since 1985 and movies with that rating contain more gun violence than R-rated movies. “The rise of violence and gun violence in PG-13 movies means that lots of kids are able to go into movie theaters and see explicit violence,” said Dan Romer, associate director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the study’s lead author. “We wanted to find out why parents didn’t show more concern. Why was this happening without pushback?” To get their results, researchers showed parents three pairs of movie scenes featuring either violent or sexual content. Sex appeared to be more taboo for parents than violence, but not by much. After viewing the first movie clip, respondents thought the minimum age to see a movie with that kind of violent content should be 16.9 years old on average and 17.2 years old for sexual content. After watching the sixth and final scene, parents grew more lenient, deeming 13.9 years acceptable for violent films and 14 years old for sexual ones. The study’s authors argue that there may be social costs to greater permissiveness. “We’re undergoing a massive amount of exposure for kids to gun violence and in a society in which there are lot of guns that could influence attitudes people have,” said Romer.

Two things I would like to stress here: first of all, a ratings system does not mean the parent can delegate the movie choice to the cinema. If a young child like my 6 year old grandson wants to see ALIEN, it is still up to me to say NO. Similarly so with violent films or sexual films. (Mind you though, the violence (if it is not too brutal) leaves an impression of coolness with young children but the sexual behavior will gross young kids out. They do not want to see that (if they at all understand it in the first place) as they have no interest in that whatsoever. Yet.) Still, parenting is the duty of the parent and not the cinema that shows films.

Second: too much of anything will desensitize you for that very thing. Whether that is violence, sex, porn, horror, mutilation, zombies, whatever! Showing children any such material is wrong in the first place on the basis of the first point I make. Greater permissiveness will only occur if the person watching this will make the conscious decision to no longer care or be impressed by what he or she sees. I would seriously advocate using the series of BAND OF BROTHERS and THE PACIFIC as study material for teenagers who study the second World War as these series show you how it really was. Not some thirty year old Hollywood war movie that has soldiers with shiny white teeth grinning at each other. But that is something else because it can be seen as realistic study material. It does not mean you can show your young kids everything.

Of course, it is a discussion without end but the conclusion that needs to be made is that the skill of parenting should never be abandoned and the parent is the one who decides what young children can see.

Marvel Comics: The Death of Wolverine 1-2-3-4

I do honestly consider myself a Marvel Comics fan but if I look at what I see in recent years in their comics, I cannot say that I much like the way they are going. First they kill CAPTAIN AMERICA, only to bring him back again. Then Dr. Octopus kills Spider-Man in order to become a better Spider-Man but then Peter Parker miraculously returns from the dead to 'amaze' us once more. Now, Marvel have decided that Wolverine is the one to kick the bucket and yet, you can be sure he will be back again. Writer Charles Soule and artist Steve McNiven concoct a tale that shows a tired Wolverine, who has lost his healing power, having to deal with mercenaries who come to hunt for him because someone has put a big bounty on Wolvie's head. Now, in 4 issues you can not really do all that much so it is no surprise that after a few moves, that really have little originality, Wolverine finds out who it is who is gunning for him. I will not divulge the details here but all I am saying is that it is UNINSPIRED and Mediocre. The art is okay but nothing more than that. If you want to dramatically kill off a major character, the only way to do so with impact is TO MAKE IT COUNT. TO MAKE IT MEAN SOMETHING. To have it make a statement. The death of Gwen Stacy was so meaningful for The Amazing Spider-Man that it changed the whole series. When Jim Starlin had the original Captain Marvel die of CANCER, it was a dramatic statement that no matter how powerful these superheroes are, they could still die. It was a meaningful way for Mar-Vell to pass on and even to allow his cosmic power to move on to another person. However, when Wolverine does die in this story, it is not because the villain of the story wants it so, it is a side effect of what happens to Wolverine when he no longer has his healing powers. It is therefor just collateral damage. And of no great importance. Hence it will also be fairly easy to correct. In the first issue of the miniseries, Wolverine Creator Len Wein already states in an interview: “Well I never imagined him dying or going away. Let me rephrase that: even at this moment, I never imagine him dying and STAYING away. As opposed to going away. It makes for great story fodder (…) but let’s be honest. He’s not staying away. (..) He’ll be back (…)” Sorry, Len. In my book, this is cheapening the character in order to make an extra buck. I don't think this mini-series is good. It is mediocre story telling. It does not make a lasting impression and I will put money on it that within 3 years, Wolverine will be back, sharpening his claws to go after (hopefully) the current Marvel Creative Management for allowing his stature just to make that extra buck. Sad, Marvel People, very sad. I certainly hope that the current streak of luck Marvel Entertainment is having with their films will preclude their film writers to go this same way. I am not ready to see a female Thor in the cinema yet, a black Captain America or a dead Wolverine. Here's to the classics and let's make it count!!!

Why they call comic books the funny papers !!!

Well, not really that but if you look at comic books over the years you will find that the language has changed a lot and the look too. So if you encounter some people saying strange things in some old comics, don't look weird. Go with the flow!

Superman did what to her?? Well Batman has some really goofball opponents as well. Lookie here:

And it is not just the Joker who makes a rather funny boo-boo :

Even Commissioner Gordon has a case of bonerfide ehh bonafide funnies. Mind you, these are pretty old Batman comics and the language now is a little more hip. But what did Archie have to do?

He he he, nowadays Archie, we just say you kicked their asses. Mind you, if you take things out of their natural context, things can get pretty hilarious too.

Oh dear oh dear. Let me just clear things up here: these girls are thinking of Richard, in short : DICK. These days you have to be careful to say you are looking for Dick. Now of course in the heat of the moment, as a writer you may just make a slight mistake :

On the other hand, as a writer you do have to be careful what you have your heroes say. Robin is going to do what?

But naturally it also means you have to keep your names straighened out. In this panel, Doc Octopus calls Spider-Man what???? And Stan Lee was probably not quite sure yet what to call Peter : Parker or Palmer ? This last one is generally corrected in reprints.

Of course, the artist also better pay attention.

Hey artist, where is that eyepatch again? And dear artist, how many left hands does Reed Richards have here or does he have even more ?

Yep, Reed Richards has more hands than feet there. Naturally of course, with certain characters you can also have some rather funny personal touches.

But where we at first were referring to honest mistakes or rather changing styles, these jokes are more character bound. And yes, decidedly more modern. And of course, you can always have a good laugh for its own sake !

I know there were some television series in the sixties and later that spawned their own comic book series but I don't know if this cover is supposed to mean something. Granted, it's a photo cover and likely a staged photo cover as well. Which makes me very glad I am a true comic book art lover.

Okay, that's enough laughter for now. Have a good day and till next time. Trelane