A View to a Kill or Diamonds Are forever? - A View to a Kill (1985) Discussion

[–] ObstinateAnnette 14 years ago

Hmmm, that's a tough one. They're both pretty dismal as Bond films go. AVTAK is bad because of the more-than-usually ridiculous plot, and in Diamonds I thought Sean Connery looked worn out. I'm going to say Diamonds was better, but just barely.

I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

reply

[–] Otto_73 14 years ago

I think I will have to go with 'A view to a kill' but since it was the very first Bond film I saw in the cinema I am probably not entirely objective.
IMHO:
-Both Connery and Moore look worn out in these. I think it hurts me more to see Connery like that then Moore.
-Villains: There is just no match for Christopher Walken.
-Sidekick: Patrick McNee did a very fine job.
-Script/editing: the way Diamonds builds up is just confusing. However far fetched I prefer the treatment in A View to kill.

Not to say Diamonds are forever does not have elements that are better but the above tip the balance for me. In general, I regard A View to a Kill as one of the 'good Moore Bonds' (Together with A spy who loved me and For your eyes only)

reply

[–] externaltestaccount 12 years ago

Hey! It was my first cinema Bond too! AVTAK is class. I understand the critics complaints, but for the reasons you listed above alone it's great. Grace Jones made it part of the zeitgeist of the time too. And Tanya Roberts never looked better. Sometimes California blondes are the best.

reply

[–] TheLittleSongbird 14 years ago

I wasn't particularly impressed with either, but because of Christopher Walken I have to go with A View to a Kill. Both have lacklustre plots and scripts though, and both Connery and Moore look worn out. Though if we were judging it by Connery and Moore alone, I think Connery gave the better swansong, but I will be honest both men gave their weakest Bond performances in their swansongs I feel.

"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

reply

[–] furball_xl5 14 years ago

I actually quite like Diamonds Are Forever, despite its ridiculousness (if thats a word), and will go with that as the best swansong.

reply

[–] Irishdrummer007 14 years ago

I would have to go with a View to a Kill over Diamonds. Diamonds is a good movie but View is better.

Btw Diamonds was not Connery's swansong as Bond. Never say Never Again was. Offical or not. It was His last Movie as Bond. View to a Kill was still better than Never say Never. But Never say Never was a good movie for Connery to go out as Bond.

reply

[–] Wadsy 13 years ago

I'm really tired of people trashing this film. I think it's one of the most exciting entries in the Bond series. Yes, this is HELL better than Diamonds Are Forever. This is my third favorite Bond film, which I gave a 9/10. Diamonds is my third least favorite, at a 4/10.

reply

[–] sonnythefat 13 years ago

I like view to a kill, I don't care much for Diamonds are Forever, or Moonraker, But the worst Bond film is Never say Never Again

reply

[–] AdmiralTugBenson 13 years ago

Well, here's the way I see it. Sean Connery takes himself very seriously, and he was just plain out of place in the slapstick/tongue in cheek type of film that was DAF. Roger Moore (even though he does serious work with UNICEF) seems much more laid back, and in interviews/commentaries has stated his belief that Bond films shouldn't be taken too seriously and championed the more comedic approach to the films. And whether you like that approach or not, it is suited to Moore's personality.

So whether you prefer Connery or Moore, these two movies are similar in tone, and Moore is in his element while Connery is a complete fish out of water. Comparing Connery and Moore films from the series is like apples and oranges, but seeing as how DAF is more like one of Roger's films, I don't think it's a very good swan song for Connery. Given the tone of Connery's and Moore's respective series AVTAK is less awkward than DAF. In my opinion at least.

"IF THE DEVIL HAD A NAME, IT WOULD BE CHUCK FINLEY!!"

reply

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

"Sean Connery takes himself very seriously".

But in DAF, Connery doesn`t seem to be taking himself or much of anything else seriously - it`s an appropriately laid back, tongue in cheek performance that all but satirizes his earlier characterization. And he appears to be enjoying himself as a slightly overweight slouch in the state of near-constant amusement, in the midst of an absurd, bizarrely surreal story.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] Ronsin1976 10 years ago

Tough one...hmmmm????

I would say Diamonds are Forever is less tolerable than A View to a Kill.

Diamonds are Forever completely wasted the potential they had with Bond's wife's death.

It seems to me that the last movies made by the 3 Bond stars (not counting Lazenby-1 film, Dalton- 2 films, they both did not make enough Bonds nor current Craig) were in poor quality and horrible swan songs:

Connery's worst movie was Diamonds are Forever--according to most fans and critics.

Moore's A View to a Kill was poor in quality and you can have a debate if it were worse than Octopussy or A Man with a Golden Gun.

Bronsan's last film was Die Another Day, which is unbearable.

reply

[–] FridayOnElmStreet 13 years ago

AVTAK is far better.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Matthew_Diamond 12 years ago

Ugh!
Ugh!

------------------------
"I really don't like talking about my flair."

reply

[–] T-eschberger 12 years ago

Both are among my least favorite of the series but Diamonds Are Forever is just abysmal. Crappy production, crappy, "I don't give a damn" Connery, and just all around dull dull dull. At least in AVTAK Moore still puts in a good show, despite getting on in years. While I hate Diamonds Are Forever, I'm just mostly indifferent to A View To A Kill.

reply

[–] baum6666 12 years ago

Diamonds Are forever

reply

[–] hideo_sakaguchi 11 years ago

A View to a Kill is far better than than Diamonds Are Forever. Personally I think AVTAK would have been one of Moore's best films if he wasn't so old. I can't believe how much he's aged between Octopussy (1983) and A View to a Kill (1985).

Also at least Moore was trying in A View to a Kill. Connery just seemed like he was phoning it in on Diamonds Are Forever.

"This is not my home. I am not thief or assassin. I am an X-Man." - Gambit

reply

[–] TheSoulFinality 11 years ago

Amen. Moore might have been lightyears too old for the role by then, but at least he gave it everything he had. It's just...that...he was again, too old. It was embarrassing to see the obvious stunt doubles. But perhaps that's more of the fault of the studio than it's a statement of Moore's age. Maybe they should have gotten doubles that actually looked like Moore...

But sweet Jesus. Connery looked awful in DAF. It's worse since he was actually ten years younger than Moore in AVTAK when he left, yet he looks only 2 to 3 years younger in that film. He makes Moore look way, way more youthful in Live & Let Die, the next film after DAF.

Connery obviously only did it for the paycheck. He didn't even try to look presentable. It's obvious with Moore that they tried super hard to hide his age, but it didn't quite look right. He came off as creepy with all of the wrinkle hiding make-up caked on his face, but at least they tried to make him look decent.

But really, the big difference is this. Connery was out of his depth in a camp flick like Diamonds. Moore was in his reign in the camp of his own films. You can't put Connery in a camp environment and expect him to do well.