A View to a Kill or Diamonds Are forever?

A View to a Kill over Diamonds Are Forever by a long shot!

Diamonds Are Forever had a very shabby looking production quality. The special effects were some of the worst in the series, bad even by the standards of 1971. Connery was very odd playing a more campy Bond, and he was rather out of shape as well. The story is silly, and it suffers greatly by being a followup to On Her Majesty's Secret Service that seems to want to ignore that film rather than address it. Bond's revenge is relegated to the pre-credits scene, where it could easily be viewed as him just wanting to get the villain because it's his job. Moneypenny makes some crack about marriage, which seems very callous and disrespectful. Jimmy Dean as the millionaire is just...odd. And the climax..the film just stops and nothing is resolved. Did Blofeld die? Did he get arrested? The movie is still fun, but these problems really shine brightly.

A View To a Kill's main problem is Roger Moore's age, and the useless Bond girl Stacey Sutton who is just an idiot damsel in distress who is utterly helpless and screaming "James" over other line. Aside from that, the plot is fun, the villain is awesome, the Golden Gate finale alone trumps anything in DaF, the title song by Duran Duran is great, the score by John Barry is really cool, it's fun seeing Patick McNee play Tibbet, and Moore gives a good performance and is in his element.

There is a lot to like about A View To a Kill regardless of its shortcomings. Diamonds Are Forever has it's fun element too, but feels cheaper and less complete. Had Connery bothered to care, it might have helped.

- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

Diamonds are Forever is among my favourite Bond films. Connery is nowhere near as old as Moore there. He and Jill st John seem to have great chemistry and look good together, where as is A View to a Kill Moore looks like dirty old man. Diamonds are better in every way.

Definitely AVTAK. At least there is a new campy villain in AVTAK and Moore would have to try to be more lackluster than Connery was in DAF. Fast foward to Moore's first Bond movie "Live And Let Die", and he looks younger than Connery did in DAF, although he would have been up to five years older than Connery was in DAF. I've seen them all up to AVTAK and I doubt I will see one I like less than DAF, mostly because Connery was so gosh awful to look at and watch go through the motions on his way to his huge pay day. Moore aged well and AVTAK doesn't damage his legacy in the series like Connery's lackluster effort in DAF does.

That said it would have made more sense to not rehire Moore and hire a new, younger actor to play Bond in AVTAK. They should have recast the entire office staff as well. The old cast just seems totally out of place in a movie being marketed to the MTV generation via a Duran Duran song and music video in heavy rotation on cable. In the end AVTAK grossed less both domestically and internationally than "Octopussy".

AVTAK most definately.

Both girls have useless heroines (Jaaayyymmmes) both have terrific scores and both Connery and Moore are told old, although Moore does at least look as if he's still trying.

However, AVTAK has Zorin while the best DAF can manage is Blofeld in drag. May Day is far scarier thsan the camp couple. Patrick Macnee always brings class to anything he does. AVTAK has a climax that still looks good now, while DAF wanders around wondering how to end.

Well, A VIEW TO A KILL has Christopher Walken so it wins by default for me.

AVTAK. There is no contest really.

[deleted]

Both films represent the nadir of their respective turns as Bond, but I'd take A View to a Kill over Diamonds Are Forever. At least View had some sweep to it whereas Vegas was a really awful setting for a Bond film.