A View to a Kill (1985) - film review

When it is discovered that the Soviets have managed to duplicate a revolutionary microchip capable of withstanding a nuclear explosion, British Intelligence suspects that the chip’s manufacturer, Zorin Industries, has been infiltrated by Russian agents.  James Bond is assigned to investigate the activities of the company’s multimillionaire owner, Max Zorin, and soon finds he is implicated in a horse racing scam, fitting his horses with microchips to improve their chances of winning at racing tournaments.  This turns out to be small beer compared with Zorin’s master plan, which is to gain control of the world’s microchip industry by destroying Silicon Valley...

Roger Moore takes his final bow as James Bond in this, the fourteenth entry in EON’s officially syndicated Bond series - and by all accounts the actor was glad to see the back of the part.  Widely regarded as one of the weaker Bond films, A View to a Kill suffers from a dearth of original ideas, weak characterisation and some unimaginative direction.  Moore disliked the film for two reasons: he felt he was far too old for the role (which, at 57, he certainly was) and he considered the level of violence needlessly gratuitous.  Despite this, the actor gives a respectable performance, aided by the fact that the screenplay is somewhat less riddled with the inappropriate camp humour seen in previous Bond movies.  Moore may not have been everyone’s favourite Bond, but he left the series with his professional reputation intact, despite the best efforts of his screenwriters.  It was also farewell to Lois Maxwell, who takes her leave after appearing as Miss Moneypenny in every single Bond film since the series’ inception.

On the plus side, A View to a Kill has a decent villain (Christopher Walken’s Zorin is the epitome of the deliciously cool psychopathic genius), a handsome leading lady (Tanya Roberts, a corker if ever there was one) and some great supporting artistes (Patrick Macnee and Grace Jones, both excellent).  The action sequences are, as ever, exciting and slickly staged, particularly the final showdown on San Francisco’s Golden Gate bridge. Unfortunately, these positives are hardly enough to counteract the film’s central killer weakness, which is the absence of an original plot.  The storyline (a bland reworking of Goldfinger) is predictable, stale and essentially just consists of a series of action scenes seemingly strung together without any real thought.

By the mid-1980s, the Bond franchise really did look as though it had run its course.  The series had been stuck in a grove for over a decade and had become repetitive and formulaic.  A change of director had not, as had been hoped, lead to a change in direction, as John Glen was happy merely to rehash old story ideas for fear of trying something new.  The problem was that the Bond films were still big box office winners and there was no incentive to change.  The series had become a victim of its own success.  The question is: would a change of lead actor provide enough momentum to take the series in a new direction, or would it merely be more of the same...?

© Chris Alderton 2010

Write a review for this film...

What do you think of this film?