The Living Daylights (1987)

A lot has been said about Timothy Dalton being the worst James Bond. Of course, many others point to George Lazenby and his one-and-done stint as 007 as being the worst. This just goes to show you how wrong people can be.

While Roger Moore’s campy pretty-boy antics may have worked during the escapist cinema of the 70s, Timothy Dalton’s turn as James Bond seems to more accurately reflect the grittiness that was the 1980s. For starters, Dalton actually looks like a killer. The challenges Bond faces are also not as simple as Moore’s Bond faced. The Living Daylights places Bond in a world that is much more like our own (or was at the time). Things are complicated, and Bond can’t afford to side-step physical confrontation.

The story is truly labyrinthine, featuring double-crosses, deception and a murky picture of what’s going on until the final portion of the film. This all works to its credit though. Dalton’s new take on Bond is a breath of fresh air, despite a few disparities between what James Bond would really do and what he ends up doing (aka- not shooting a sniper because it happens to be a gorgeous woman). Granted, those disparities come back to help the story in the end, it still nags me in the back of my mind.

With The Living Daylights, the reinvention of James Bond has gotten off to a very good start.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

A View to a Kill (1985)

For me, this is the bottom of the barrel for James Bond films. The plot is bad (megalomaniac plots to destroy silicon valley so his micro-processing company can take over the computer industry- I bet Bill Gates enjoyed it, but he’s probably the only one), the acting is bad (even Christopher Walken, as said megalomaniac, can’t save this festering mess), and just when you thought Roger Moore was getting better at this Bond gig, he delivers the worst performance imaginable.

At least when Connery was tired of 007 he let is bad attitude show through in the character. Roger Moore just looks bored and tired, as he should, since he was 57 years old when filming took place!

I think the main reason that this is the absolute worst Bond film is that it doesn’t even feel like a Bond film. Everything about it just feels generic, and James Bond is anything but generic. Fortunately, this was Roger Moore’s final appearance as 007.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Octopussy (1983)

For some reason, and I don’t know why, but this is my favorite of Roger Moore’s Bond films. There’s action and adventure, and I don’t even mind the camp this time around.

Similar to For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy presents a more plausible setup- a power-hungry Soviet general plans to gain the upper hand in the Cold War by setting up a nuclear explosion in West Germany to look like an accident. With Europe already uneasy over the issue of nuclear proliferation, the accident will spur Europe to pursue disarmament, allowing General Orlov to sweep through Europe, increasing the might of the Soviet Union.

To stop this all from happening, Bond approaches their main accomplice, a circus owner and smuggler named Octopussy. She had no previous knowledge of Orlov’s plan and, as it turns out, she owes Bond for letting her father commit suicide instead of facing a court martial. Convenient for sure, but still a very intriguing way to turn the tables.

Bond and Octopussy work hard to prevent the nuclear strike and Bond eventually has to dress up as a circus clown in order to gain access to the circus transporting the bomb, saving the day at the last possible second. I find it personally satisfying to see Roger Moore dressed as a clown in the final act, because it highlights just what he turned the character of 007 into with his stint as Bond. Call it poetic justice.

RATING: 3.25 out of 5

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Certainly an improvement from Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only also turns out to be one of the best performances by the aging Roger Moore as super spy James Bond.

The film is also another back-to-basics installment for the series, seeing 007 using far fewer gadgets and much less camp. There are double-crossings and revenge plots, all of which surround the recovery of a device that could make the Cold War go hot in a heartbeat. Kristatos, an ex-KGB agent is trying to recover this device, which enables the user to target virtually all enemy craft, but his accomplice ends up joining James Bond in thwarting him, after learning that Kristatos means to use him as a fall guy.

Bond is also joined by a young woman intent on killing Kristatos in revenge for his murdering of her father. All of this may seem a bit overwhelming, but it heightens the stakes for putting an end to this installment’s bad guy. The final battle is more or less well done, with Bond’s band of warriors ascending a nearly sheer rock formation to reach the enemies hideout at the top.

The only things that keep For Your Eyes Only from getting a higher rating are: 1) A completely out of place re-emergence of Ernst Blofeld in the beginning, in which Bond seems to vanquish the man responsible for his wife’s death (which audiences had all but forgot about by this point); 2) A completely annoying and unnecessary character named Bibi, (who somehow creates an alibi hiding all the badness that chief bad guy keeps doing) who tries unsuccessfully to prove to Bond via sex that she’s not so innocent as everyone thinks she is; and 3) A completely out of place ending sequence, featuring Bond receiving a thank you call from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Subtract these elements, and you’d have a pretty good Bond film.

It’s assuring, however, to know that James Bond is willing to draw the line at having sex with minors. Cheers for that one.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Moonraker (1979)

It’s like The Spy Who Loved Me, only in outer space and with Bond teaming up with an American spy hottie. This was the 007 franchise’s answer to Star Wars (if that’s conceivable). The end credits of The Spy Who Loved Me promised us the next outing would be For Your Eyes Only, but Star Wars came out, and since space adventure was on every cinemagoers mind, they took Ian Fleming’s novella Moonraker and put it on the big screen.

It’s goofy! It’s tacky! It’s Bond in Space! I think by this point in Roger Moore’s stint as Bond I had resigned myself to the fact that he wasn’t going to pull an about face and be cool like Sean Connery. Being a NASA nerd, I enjoyed the whole outer space bit, even if it was ridiculously cheesy by 70’s standards, let alone today.

It’s fun if you let it be fun, but Moonraker falls more under the banner of ‘guilty pleasure’ than anything else. It’s a Bond film I know I shouldn’t have liked, but did anyway. Compared to the series origins, Moonraker is absolutely terrible, but it’s more enjoyable than most of Moore’s films to this point. My eyes still roll when I think of two of the characters- Dr. Holly Goodhead and Jaws. Yeah, that’s right, Goodhead. Having a woman named Pussy Galore was funny for innuendo’s sake in Goldfinger, but the string of lousy names has outstayed its welcome for me. Holly Goodhead is the last straw, hopefully.

Jaws, on the other hand, is one of the few minor characters to appear more than once in the series. He was the highlighted henchmen over the main bad guy in The Spy Who Loved Me, and he returns in Moonraker for this new bad guy. How he got there, I don’t know, but Jaws has steel jaws and can bite through metal and stuff, so I guess he was popular enough to be brought back. I think he’s hokey, but that’s just my natural reaction to a guy with steel teeth.

The theme song is even forgettable in this film. All flash and no substance, but fun all the same.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Slow and steady seems to be the pace with Roger Moore’s improvement as James Bond. This marks his third appearance in a Bond film (the 10th in the series) and would be Moore’s point of no return. After The Spy Who Loved Me, Moore would portray Bond as arrogant in his desirability, essentially forcing himself upon women because he knew they subconsciously wanted his pretty-boy man juices, even if they didn’t know it yet and however hard they would resist.

The story has a more serious tone, with Soviet and American subs going missing along with their payload of nuclear missiles (reminiscent of You Only Live Twice). So Bond goes in search of a man claiming to be selling a high tech submarine locating system, where he ultimately teams up with a Soviet spy. Turns out the lovely spy was married to a Soviet agent that Bond killed, and she has sworn to kill 007 once they retrieve the subs. The plot takes a dive as it turns out the villain is another run of the mill “take over the world” type, who thinks he can create a more perfect humanity in an underwater environment.

Some goofy gadgets (a submarine car?) and an over-the-top final battle sequence lighten up the film a bit too much and in the end, 007 warms the cold Siberian heart of his Soviet side kick and they do it in a life raft, only to be discovered by both of their governments in said life raft. Moral of the story- James Bond can bring peace to the world and love to lonely Russian women.

RATING: 3 out of 5

Live and Let Die (1973)

Never send a Brit to do a Scotsman’s job.

Roger Moore takes over as James Bond in the eighth installment of the 007 franchise. Where Sean Connery was rugged and coarse, Roger Moore creates a more effeminate and campy Bond. Connery was a man’s man, while Moore introduces us to Bond the ladies man (which would largely be parodied in Austin Powers). Moore is a pretty boy (although he was 46 when the film was released) who, in my opinion, doesn’t look like he’s ever killed a man in his life.

The plot of the film seems more like blaxploitation cinema than a Bond flick but it remains to be true that even a bad Bond film is enjoyable on some level. Several MI6 agents and an American agent are found dead in the United States after investigating potential ties between a Caribbean dictator and a massive drug ring. Bond heads to the deep south, where he woos himself some brown sugar and information about the dictator’s nefarious plot to turn half the United States population into heroin addicts. Add to that a very harsh stereotype of southern whites and some slapstick comedy that does not belong anywhere near a James Bond film and you get Live and Let Die.

It’s a thin and quite poor way for Moore to break out of the gate. Granted, at this time the state of affairs in the world was not a happy one, what with Vietnam dragging many spirits down. Perhaps Moore’s incarnation of Bond was meant to provide an escapist delight for those who were down-trodden and looking to check reality at the door of the theater. This is very likely, but it’s simply not a context I can slip into.

Great theme song (perhaps the best of them all), lousy film.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)

An improvement for Moore, although his second outing as James Bond still comes up short. While it may be one of the more entertaining Moore-helmed Bond flicks, it suffers from being a bit too silly, over the top and even unoriginal.

For once, Bond should be concerned for his well being. While he has always had a death mark on his head from a multitude of bad guys, Bond is being pursued by Francisco Scaramanga, the man with the golden gun. He charges $1 million per hit and never misses, using his own specialized golden bullets. The theme song opening the film actually informs you better than the first 15 minutes of the film as to how dangerous this guy is.

Meanwhile, Bond is trying to find out who stole a very important piece of technology that can harness the energy of the sun and convert it to power. This just so happens to be Scaramanga and his mistress just so happens to tell Bond all about her lover. Bond, of course, repays her kindness by sleeping with her and confronts Scaramanga and his servant (Hervé Villechaize, aka Tattoo from Fantasy Island). Scaramanga has devised a cannon that uses the sun’s energy to create a high-energy blast at any target he likes (think of it as an earth-bound version of the weapon from Diamonds Are Forever).

Bond and Scaramanga play a deadly game of cat and mouse, but I’m sure you can figure out for yourself who wins. While entertaining, The Man with the Golden Gun is a bit too over the top to be taken seriously.

RATING: 2.75 out of 5

Diamonds Are Forever (1971)

Sean Connery returns as 007 in this film, after swearing of the series two films prior. Supposedly the money was right to get a return performance out of him. His performance is what makes the film worthwhile, although some would argue against my reasoning.

Some say that Connery gives a lackluster performance, only doing it for the money. They’ll argue that he’s careless in his portrayal and makes Bond seem indifferent about his missions. It is true that Connery shows he doesn’t give a flying fart about being Bond anymore but this attitude actually helps sustain the movie. An opening montage features Bond mercilessly beating people to learn the whereabouts of Ernst Blofeld, who was responsible for the death of his wife in the previous movie. He thinks he finally kills Blofeld, but he is mistaken. Bond is out for blood, so Connery’s careless performance only enhances this quality in Bond.

The evil mastermind resurfaces (Bond killed a look-alike) and causes more anguish for 007. Bond is sent to investigate a diamond theft and he discovers Blofeld is behind it. A secret satellite has been put in orbit which uses the stolen diamonds to fire a concentrated heat beam at any target he likes. Blofeld takes out a few nuclear missile stations but Bond ultimately saves the day.

Without Connery’s attitude this film would have been less appetizing. A muddled script featuring a few oddities, such as a gay couple who are diamond thieves (it’s never known if they were working for Blofeld or not), and some poor editing during a chase scene would have otherwise made the film lackluster. A strong performance saves the day though.

Also, the title song is quite good, making a rare combination of a good Bond theme song and a good Bond film.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

The Stand (1994)

I absolutely love Stephen King’s work, and The Stand is no exception. It was one of King’s earliest novels, and yet it is one of his greatest achievements. Sadly, the translation from novel to film would be near impossible. Some of the key events (especially towards the end) would be impossible to convincingly create, which makes me wonder why anyone thought it could be turned into a TV mini-series.

They tried though, they really did. Broken into four parts, The Stand flows like a movie, as it is one complete narrative with a beginning, middle and end. I consider it a film made for TV, and broken up into segments. Maybe I’m wrong to consider it thus, but I do. If you try to watch it all in one sitting, brace yourself- The Stand tops out at just over 6 hours long, which actually isn’t even close to long enough, given King’s lush source material.

The Stand focuses on the aftermath of a highly lethal super-virus outbreak from a government facility. Over 99% of the world’s population is dead, and there are two camps of survivors- good and evil. Both are being called to specific places for specific purposes. The mini-series does a decent job of covering the many faces and personalities from the book, with only a few omissions (one of which is actually fairly major).

The acting is as good as it can be for a made-for-TV cast. Some choices are truly inspired, such as Rob Lowe as a deaf mute struggling to find purpose. The real show stealer though is Randall Flagg, the embodiment of evil in this devastated world. Ultimately, the two camps, good and evil, are drawn together for a final conflict that will determine the fate of humanity.

If you don’t love Stephen King’s work, I don’t recommend trying to tackle this beast. Fans will be able to tolerate its shortcomings and appreciate the effort.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5