Reviews

Eastwood's two Hillbilly comedy movies - The 2nd one two years later - are still creditable, and fun to watch when you need to cheer up sometimes.

I've read that this movie, due to inflation and many other points, still is the most money rewarding one during the whole Clint Eastwood career.

I think that it struck some jackpot timing (back in '78) by transforming the hissing western cowboy into an everybody/anybody average American dude, who's interests besides his job as a truck driver are country clubs, women and beer. Bare-nuckle illegal boxing for cash another hobby...

It may be grade as one of the smartest moves in movie history, to make Dirty Harry a fellow American dude.

The audience bought it at once, critics both cheered and booed at Clint's sudden genre flip. (What about "Paint Your Wagon"....?)

But of course both of the movies are nowadays dedicated to the orangutans. The screen time gave them much playful joy for sure.

A "small" American classic still today.

George Lucas was exhausted - and had lost several pounds - when his finished work finally was to be shown to the public officially on the big screen.

The recordings had been very troublesome, and was on a budget shoestring until the end. (Did it stop at 11 M $ ?) In 1977 the movie landscape was very well mixed, but It lacked Space Adventures who was far out there.

Spielberg's "Close Encounter" from the same year did not speculate in fantasy as deep as Lucas' adventure; here we got a whole table of pure imagination and creativity from a guy who just wanted to show us the eternal battle between good and bad, dark and light, his way.

And by 1977's standards and special effects options of the era: What an enjoyable classic!

It's an adventure who has a good mood from start to finish. Great locations, great humour, great acting.

Don't want to cherish the old trilogy in front of the "sequels", but it brings heck a lot more charming and warm feeling re-seeing those 77- 83 flicks.

I leave it that way......"Star Wars" is probably one of the 10 most important movies of the 20th century.

A JB movie alright. With some excellent acting and a good script. An opening scene that should get a ticket for kind of over-speed.

And some last half an hour! Stays in your mind for weeks the first time you watch it.

Danny's finest 007 hours on screen besides Casino, in my opinion. Some picks of humour delights the audience very well on the journey, and there's the right James Bond feeling most of the way.

A Spanish guy named Javier Bardem is far out beautiful bad guy. (Can't remember a more stone cold avenging mind for decades in Bond time line....) When MI6 is forced to hide underground, you know it's red alert.

One amazing scene after another, you can't catch breath for quite many seconds. The whole production team should have been awarded a "small Oscar" for getting this together so brilliant. And the "Put-aside-Spectre-story-for-a-while" works great. But it sleeps in the subs, if you know what I mean...

But. I don't like the way Judy Dench (M) and 007 seems to have special feelings for each other. Blabla...I know. M never showed Pierce B that kind of sympathy!:/

Church scene is kind of the ending of Return Of The Jedi; a fellow to me bringing that view. (Darth/Luke confession scene.) I don't think it suits a James Bond film...touching though, anyway.

I rank this Daniel Craig James Bond 007 movie towards his other stuff. To Sean, Roger (R.I.P), George, Timothy, and Pierce's 007 stuff you got to have a distance kind of mind to enjoy them to the fullest.

So I finish with my personal top 6 JB movies. (One from every actor's 007 career.)

*SC: "Goldfinger" (1964.) The 007-movies as we know them starts here. (For sure.)

*GL: "OHMSS" (1969.) Underrated one-show from George L. Entertaining and action-filled. A top 10 JB movie to me. Nevermind the aging of such 60's stuff.

*RM: "The Spy Who..." (1977.) Roger Moore as 007 to the fullest. A 70's classic people today still compares to year fellow movies like Star Wars, Close Encouters, or, for .... sake, Smokey and the Bandit. Way out there, as the 70's was, and a certain '79 movie sealed it.

*TD: "The Living Daylights" (1987.) Very hard to choose one of his (sadly only) two movies. I like both of them a lot. LTK gets to me deeper in between days, but this is more of the pure JB thing.

*PB: "Goldeneye" (1995.) All-in by Pierce Brosnan. He new his work was important and very well sought after. The other 007's of his sadly disappears in too much merchandise. And DAD is quite silly still, uh?

*DC: "Casino Royale" (2006.) No one could expected an entering like this. As his fore-runner, he knew that a first job was crucial. He did it, quite well.

So...now I've completed my 007 reviews. Over 1,5 years since first. Got some likes, got some dislikes. (But I hope it entertains someone out there.)

I adore you (Bond) movie lovers as much as you adore me, and any other kindred spirits!

I guess there's A lot of people born in the 80's or 90's taking this for a poor 70's movie. Slow, boring, and dull.

Filmed in a semi-documentary way by the director to get that "street-feeling", it's really a great move. Today not many people can't stand to see a movie filmed in a "handy- cam" way...)

Re-visit - for an example - "French Connection" (1971.)

Younger watcher's of Sylvester Stallone by his so called youth can't believe their eyes, but for god's sake: Do It!!

Here is pure and good acting, from a guy that was almost broke and finished in the business he once choose to enter, in then 1975.

Made up A boxer's story his way and made it work all the way to an Academy Award.

The company did not had high hopes and gave away just a strict 1 M$ (same as the 1st James Bond movie 14 years earlier) in production costs.)

You can clearly see the fails and the flaws of a 70's movie, but that's the charming parts of it. The whole cast crew gives their most to make you believe it, and you do that.

The steps Sly takes on the way to the final confrontation is very heartful and moving, which of course was the attention.

Fellow actors Burt Young and Talia Shire is excellent all the way.

Accused for stealing a concept from a real heavy-weight fight in 1975, Stallone always denies the Ali-Wepner comparison. (The difference of Rocky almost punch movie champion to the floor; the latter being saved by the bell and then pronounced as the winner by judge decision.)

Real boxer Chuck Wepner gave Ali a real deal to handle, referee didn't blow the whistle until a few seconds left of the 14th.(?) (Correct me please...)

All in all a great "feeling" movie.

Carl Wheaters is going punch you hard if you disagree!

A beautiful 70's movie; you like it... or you're not.

Well, I just want to publish my very own personal review about this global smash hit. And keep it that way.

Liked it A lot when it was on screen here in Sweden during the years about 1981-1993(?). (Some 2-3 year delay from U.S prime time.) That was a usual standard for American TV shows for European watchers by then.... (National television was Russian style in Sweden too, you know.) Got curious when my mother got hooked on the Ewing/Barnes feud, myself being just seven years old at the time. (I naturally didn't get so much out of it then.)

What was meant by the creators of "DALLAS" to be a five act drama TV show with the troublesome marriage between Bobby Ewing and Pamela Barnes in center, grows to be the major series of the 80's. (The response from the viewers after some episodes were so good that the producers called for an extension.)

We were allowed to get into the flesh of a family, with sons and daughters always fought each other for power and wellness. Office suits mixed with rancher blue jeans. Oil business and kettle care in the same sweet melody.

When the DALLAS show was released over here on DVD in a "two season per year-plan" in the early 00's, It was time to take the trip all over again. During a six year period, I consistently dug deeply into it season by season during free time, and enjoyed it to the fullest.

The Southfork Ranch almost became my own living room.

Not A member of A fan base, I want to share my own profit of taking the trip from start to finish:

"The Jock Ewing Years" are/were DALLAS at it's best. Jim Davis was the Brando of the Ewings, without doubt. The plot of the whole show was more centered and interesting while he was present. The screen writers re-grouped the three sons of an oil-mafia matriarch, surly in a "godfather" style. Late Larry Hagman (R.I.P) was the senior son J.R, the natural heir of the throne. Always thinking business, besides the hunger for women as a pleasure. Stone cold and calculating, he smashed every fly that came around him trying to steal his limelight.

2nd son Gary was placed beside in script, for several reasons. (Fans aware of "Knots Landing", uh?)

Baby brother Bobby eventually took the fight with his older brother for the captain's seat; after having his "easy living"-years he rapidly learn the business, but a little too late to ever compete with his way too superior brother, who were always one step ahead.

(Actor Patrick Duffy once said that an early take with Larry Hagman, which included some physical acting, ending up with Hagman laughing at his opponent's bad acting, was a real boost to shape up, and never feel minor in acting skills to Larry in a scene ever again.)

Cowboy Ray Krebbs (Steve Kanaly), the janitor of SF ranch, grows highly during this long history of the Ewings. Starting as kind of a youth manservant to them, he turns out to be more family than anybody of the Ewings ever dreamed of. (My personal favorite down to earth personality figure during the whole saga.) Forced into a world he never wanted to be part of.

On the opposite side, One Cliff Barnes always moaning of his father's stolen piece in the Ewings wealth, him being a partner to Jock Ewing in their oil "teen-years". (But drank it away.) Cliff B builds his own castle, but keeps up having hard time to compete with old J.R Ewing as Texas Oil Baron no. 1. Some good strikes on the way for Clifford, from time to time, always gave the series some fresh air and a forward push.

The family drama went on for years and years. People comes and goes. Weddings, barbecue parties, and some good fist fights at the annual Oil Baron's Ball. Liquor for breakfast, coffee for lunch. Heavy fuel for hard people.

Halfway the series gets a little stalled, but the writers kept on finding new and sometimes cheer ways to keep the story going on.

Yes, there's alcoholic intoxicated wives on the way.

It's getting kind of silly around the "dream-season" alright. (A solution created because of the actors big egos $....)

But I kept on watching it after that anyway, didn't I?

And did I love the ride?

YES. To the final "shot".

Well, so many things had been written through the years about this. Gonna keep it moderate.

Yes, the Star Wars Saga matured A LOT with this movie. They tossed away most of the naivety and let the grown up people be just that. Grown Ups.

Farm boy Skywalker comes of age, starting to be aware of his legacy. Two other fellas has to admit they're in love. The androids and robots keeps entertain. The dark lord shows some of his single pennies of humanity. Environments developed to great treat for the audience. (For example the impressive Cloud City takes; still watchable 36 years later.)

I still like the first three (quite oldish) movies in the series much better than the following. In my opinion, SW founder G. Lucas waited way too long with the sequels. He once said - I've read - that he waited for screen special effects to be developed for translating his visions just right.

(Personally I think that's bulls**t; he simply wasn't all clear of what way to turn in the story, even if he supposedly had some "present" and "future" ideas.) If the "Episode I" had been written and filmed in, let's say, around 1988-89, with the crew still kind of fresh from "....Jedi", we would have been presented a whole different movie, not having that heavy political theme of the -'99 flick, I think. (The story of senator/future emperor Palpatine - Ian McDiarmid - is a rip-off from history anyway....slowly building up his ascendancy like the way a well known German did in the 1930's.)

And the SW fans of the 70's and 80's (like me) would have felt a more close connection to the originals, rather than having the jump of 16 years.

Anyone agree?

A classic. Good camera work, and great stage art work, to reflect the secluded Manhattan as good as it could have been done in the very early 80's. I bet director John Carpenter was delighted with the finished product. His prime movie quartet was to be completed with "The Thing" in 1982, sealing a 4 year retinue that started with "Halloween" in 1978. (But never to forget the great "Assault on Precinct 13".) 1976. A really good comic book flick with classic takes and one-liners. "Call me Snake"... In the movie's present the year is 1997, just look at that..... (For instance, Sci-Fi classic "Blade Runner" shows the world of 2019.) 2.5 years away; My God!

This "Casino Royale Pt. II" could have been so great. So great. The promising opening scene was a real roaring and loaded one, when you watched it on the big screen at the premiere. This gonna turn out good, I remember saying to myself after some 10-15 minutes into the show.

Then the interest faded fast, and the story got striking dull to me. It turned out to a common action-movie with less Bond-feeling than it's precursor. The chase after a major crime syndicate that started in CR, suddenly wasn't that interesting anymore. A clip-show of action packed scenes that was suppose to keep you engaged, doesn't do it. Much violence. Very much violence. The producers defended it with Bond's strong will to avenge Vesper Lynd's death, but I think that failed. The producers seemed to have packed in some 80 m $ more than CR, for nothing. (Total cost of some 230 m $, I've read.) The movie is overall quite good, but has too many lacks. The cast is good, the environments is nice, but the real, solid 007-feeling isn't just there.

The women who passes by are just for looks; best of them is beautiful Gemma Arterton, who plays her part for some laughs, as I see it. Easy going, with humor. The main Bond Girl of the movie (played by Olga Kurylenko) is quite flat, as the usual "Pleasure Girl Who Has Been Kept Imprisoned By Villain". She is on her own vendetta journey and crosses Bond's way on the road.

Jesper Christensen's Mr. White was to be developed further on. A well played personality by a professional actor. Jeffery Wright's Felix Leiter of the CIA delivers a good touch to the movie, too.

The somehow main story (of water supplies for an exposed Latin country) is the most important sub-message of this film. Policy makers who wants control over the helpless masses. The end is a lecture of what's rightfully comes to you when you're too evil minded...

This is not one of the greatest James Bond movies. Shortest running time of them all (106 minutes) which suits this movie good. It's not standing out as a true classic like Goldfinger, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only, Goldeneye, or it's mate movie Casino Royale.

But it's a part of the 007 movie log all right, and deserve to be watched even in the future.

Next up was a major improvement, some four years away. Too far away, back then.

He was a real trump in the 007 history, the good Daniel Craig. Not too many people had high hopes when revealed who was the next in line to be transfigured to one James Bond.

Neither did I. Mostly because of my lack of experience according to Craig; saw him in "Munich" and some other stuff, but never studied him closely. (Common people was skeptical about a blond Bond too; all right....)

This is maybe my all time favorite 007 movie. I was delighted when leaving the cinemas after the premiere; some decade later I still watch it as Daniel Craig's sensational debut, and (so far) best performance. Nowadays, this movie has the taste of a fine, tasty and well matured wine. (You might reference to Pierce B's "Goldeneye", from which I got the same feeling.)

The new-thinking freshness - who was necessary after Brosnans way too flashy exit - of digging up the "old" Royale story and make something decent of it, was ingenious. James Bond Mk. VI. But from the so called beginning. Confusing? During the Craig years, occasionally I've had hard times not to refer to the Bond movies past, and it's time lines.

A "Back To The Future" state of mind not needed here, that's for sure!!

Formidable casting and a script that hardly sleeps. We got action from the very beginning - true classic opening scene! - and a very good chemistry between newcomer Craig and since long M of Dame Judy Dench. The catchy, smart and suggestive theme song who has great gravity, is a nice take-off for what to come during the show.

Double-crossing, love, betrayal and greed. All the well needed ingredients for a James Bond movie is there. For many fans of the series, Eva Green stands out as the all time favorite female act. (Maybe not mine, but there's always split sentences about everything.)

Otherwise, the cars is there. The charismatic villain. The supporting act from one Felix Leiter. Elements just all right - and enjoyable - for completion.

When the curtain fell after the final scene, Daniel Craig now really was Bond. James Bond.

Strange Pierce Brosnan finale this was. A 140 m $ show that was meant to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the James Bond legacy, but failed in my opinion. Yes, it's a 007 movie all right, but runs with an unnecessary roaring V8 muscle engine. A solid, faithful 4-cylinder was all that was needed. Makes an attempt to run on champagne, when it could have been in a reclined way, with a nice cold beer instead. Nice opening scene and some fun flashbacks is not enough for this kind of event.

The makers fools away the good 007 spirit with too much "make-up" and flashy, garish scenes in such speed that a good seat belt was needed when you entered the cinema chair at your local theater in 2002.

The use of flashbacks to the old movies is way too obvious and silly. Diamonds and lasers was already expended stuff, and the cast of Halle Berry was strange to me even back then. A good actress that wasn't really Bond stuff to me. Acted tough and cocky in a most annoying way, just getting along to the end. (Dr. No bikini scene rip-off is spoofed many times since.) Musician lady Madonna's cameo part is just there to fill up her ego. Of course, she had to spoil the good theme song tradition too, by performing a "modern" hard core dance track that isn't Bond material at all. (The worst 007 track that was, since Duran Duran's 1985 "A View To A Kill.) Why couldn't Robbie Williams been asked at the time, to do a soft tune instead?

The cast is, by the way, quite good anyway. I think Rosamund Pike is one of the best villain girls in the Bond history, an elegant beauty with the ordinary lethal skills. A woman to be close to, rather than the opposite. Head villain Toby Stephens does it good too, but lacks of some aura to make a full-filled 007 evil enemy.

And the running time of 133 minutes is way too much. Some action scenes could have been cut in half - instead of hitting the brakes unnecessary - for a better flow. (The Icelandic chase scene which ends up quite silly is one example.)

So, do I think this 007 flick is the most bad of them all? Some days, yes....but none of the Bond movies is an absolutely disaster. Brosnan was not sacked because of this, he was just running out of James Bond fuel, and got the leave message by rumors, I've read. (Not directly from the office of Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli.)

It just was time for a change in the James Bond calendar. The basic stories of one Ian Fleming was ended long time since, and the responsible crew was to think things over. What to do for pushing the 007 legacy forward, once again?

Former Bond actors Sean Connery and Roger Moore was questioned about their opinion, where to go with the MI6 agent. Connery said that he cared quite deeply about the whole Bond package, and what things that would happen to a thing that he was part of creating in the beginning. Moore was more of easy going - as always - and was hankering for a villain part in a James Bond movie. (Why did they not listen to the man? Make it happen before he's gone; he deserves it better than any other former Bond actor, coming back three times when he was already condemned, because of his respected and sometimes criticized age, last appearance 57 years old.)

Timothy Dalton was professionally modest, and proclaimed that the Bond machine was to run for several ages to come, surely. I think he was the most "awake" Bond actor of them all.

One-timer George Lazenby (1969) seemed not to care that much, once spoiling his chances as an immortal Bond actor because of bad decisions, and some wrong advisers at the time.

Once the Brosnan era was over, plans for a continuation began to take shape... The Bond fans of the world was held on the gridiron for four long years.

A truly shake-up since "...dies", this was. A lot more dedicated Pierce Brosnan, some more interesting story, and better casting. (Except the annoying Denise Richards, who does it better on a photo shoot than as an actress.) A female shape named Christmas Jones can't be taken seriously....

Solid story, besides the usual greed theme that always is the temptation for villains in 007 movies. (A woman deceives her own family for total control and absolute power over the family business.) The excellent Judy Dench got a little more space, which is very welcomed, and the supporting actors are mostly well picked for the job in hand. Some good action scenes on snow, and an action-packed ending with thrilling moments.

When I first watched this movie on a theater in the 90's, I left quite relieved, thinking they were back on track with the Bond movies. This 19th movie adventure of one James Bond moved me in some good way, never to know there was a sadly bad 21st century opening for 007 to come...

Pierce Brosnans last show delighted many, not me. With the cards now already on the table, this should have been the last chapter of James Bond Mk. V.

But the producers did want to spoil the whole thing, and raze it in a very strange way.

Quite annoying James Bond Movie, I think this was/are. Can't help it; It just never comes to me, how many times I ever try to absorb this movie fair and square.

*Pierce Brosnan continuing his mission as James B. quite moderate, almost in a diminished way. He sometimes disappears in the exhibit of sponsor cars and cell-phones, occasionally seems to get in the more silly smiling "Moore"-way. (Sorry about that, Roger....) 5 out of 10.

*To me, Jonathan Pryce might be the most annoying and demanding villain of the whole Bond Encyclopedia. As Elliot Carver, a widely rich publisher, who's thirst after breaking news gets unsound. Overacting like h*** when shouting out his devastating plans (to get total control over world media) to anyone who comes in his way. 2 out of 10.

*Teri Hatcher's brief cameo does not do her talents right. Just playing the usual symbol wife to Mr. Evil, and happens to have some 007 past stories. 4 out of 10.

*Chinese agent Michelle Yeoh is a partner to old Jimmy in the same political way we've seen before. One participant from both the threatened sides. (Does it quite fresh and in a nice way, by all means.) But some super hero stuff pulls the grade some downwards. 5 out of 10.

*Sheryl Crow is a favorite of mine, who's musicality has given me much pleasure over the years since the arrival on the public scene in the mid 90's. Being a talented studio musician/singer for years, working with - among others- Michael Jackson, Rod Stewart and Sting, she wanted to try the wings of her own, which went out pretty well. With catchy music and good looks a woman can hypnotize the world, that's for sure.

But this theme score I found kind of anemic back then, and it didn't matured over the years either. An easy forgotten tune in my ears. 4 out of 10.

*SUMMARY: The one - kind of - less good 90's James Bond. ( OK, there were only three of them...)

There were some slight improvement to come in two years time, before the disastrous Brosnan Good-Bye in 2002.

At last...Pierce Brosnan got it. One of the most honorable missions a male actor could been given in the mid 90's. And he'd been in the shadows for years, just waiting to get the chance. (The "Remington Steel"-work was put to extension in the late 80's, blocking the production team from already choose Pierce in front of Timothy Dalton as 007 in "The Living Daylights".) This first movie of his are still the greatest, by all means. The story, the women, the whole environment is just perfect mix for a Bond movie. Yes, loans from the past is always there, for the sharp-eyed. But that means nothing to a Bond fan like me.... Love the DB5 evaluation scene; classic 007.

Sean Bean does very well as former MI6 agent, who's thirst for more got him into multi-million blackmailing business. Got the right looks, got the sense of a single-minded villain just right.

Pierce Brosnan knew that this work was kind of responsibility. And GoldenEye shows it. He puts all of his efforts in it, knowing that his appearance was important.

He was sadly never to make an equal 007 movie like this. Not his fault; the merchandise thing took over the movies completely after this. And the goodbye-movie Die Another Day was way out spaced, too super-natural for me. It was meant to be kind of a tribute to earlier Bond, celebrating the 50th anniversary of 007 on screen.

Pierce Brosnans Bond was good, but not unforgettable. We will always remember him for his natural given "Bond"-looks, and this great movie.

This movie had some bad luck, surely lost some of the earnings to rival movies in the summer of 1989. Sequels to both Lethal Weapon(2nd) and Indiana Jones(3rd) series made things tough for this movie becoming an absolute blockbuster success.

And sadly to be the second and last Timothy Dalton show as 007, when the James Bond project was put on ice for a while after this film. Mark IV in the continuing story of the MI6 agent was abruptly ended here. But the movie itself didn't show any signs of that at the time:

Bond/Dalton here goes into a psychological and personal war with a drug baron, who kills someone close to him. Too personal according by his boss (M) standards, who gets forced to put Bond off duty, almost by violence.

The script was kind of fresh thinking, after almost too many "cold war"-stuff during the 80's, with Russians and so. This movie has the most Down To Earth-feeling of every 80's Bond. Dalton playing a frustrated but patient man, with everything he can squeeze out of his acting talent.

The girls who adorn this movie are well casted. Carey Lowell as a tough and smart, independent woman, who's love to 007 grows during the trip. Talisa Soto is the wonder beauty, kept imprisoned by the movie's villain just as a trophy, and for amusement. Both gets struck by 007 charm and (of course) falling in love with him.

Robert Davi is excellent as the cold, mean drug producer/dealer who plans to avoid interruptions of his business by recruit - what he think is - loyal and devoted men. One James Bond was never taken into account....

Q (Desmond Llewelyn) gets a bigger part than before in this, which contributes to more of that human feeling in the movie. Backing up (of course) with gadgets and some other achievements, in a more personal way than ever before...quite touching.

But...sadly this was the last 007 movie for six long years. The production team struggled with a lot of things for years, Dalton got impatient and restless over the inertia. The contract over four movies broke up somewhere in the early 90's, and we never got the pleasure to see further character development from Timothy Dalton as James Bond.

Very daunting at the time that was for me; I thought he left with his best 007 movie still to do.

But otherwise, the quite long pause that was to come, turn out pretty well.

At last, at last....a new guy in town. A more novelty kind of Bond enters along with Timothy Dalton, whom I was a lot skeptical to as a 12 year old dude, who's Bond on screen first and foremost was Roger Moore. In Dalton we got a little more sophisticated actor. Though both had stage experiences, Dalton was a more versatile kind of guy, playing the strings for more tones and tunes in his acting.

The story itself was kind of dated, though Russians still hanging in there, to the end.... Defectors who's dreaming of affluence and luxuriance of their own, double-cross each side of the (still) cold war. "Build your own castle before the iron curtain falls conclusively". (Some rear-view flashback there, uh?)

Title song from then freshly star Norwegian pop-band A-ha is a good, catchy tune of its time. Way more complex and approachable than the terrible "View"-track from Duran Duran two years earlier. My personal opinion that is.

Maryam d'Abo was the "try-out girl" (for acting against possible Bonds in test scenes) who hit big time, when impressing so much on the cast team that she got a ticket to ride along the full way. The best 007 woman since Carole Bouquet in ..Eyes Only; sophisticated but kind of secretive is a good mix for taking part in such a production as this.

Villains Jeroen Krabbé and Joe Don Baker are as good as they can be. Doing their parts to the fullest, and remains quite memorable in the Bond Calendar. (So does Andreas Wisniewski as evil sidekick Necros.)

Comeback for Aston Martin, in shape of their model Volante. (First A.M since "On Her Majesty's.." in 1969.) Equipped and loaded to the fullest!

This 1987 debut movie of Timothy Dalton was the start of a four film contract. As soon as the hardcore Roger Moore-fans was soften up a bit, Dalton got plenty of good reviews for bringing back some tightness in the Bond personality.

18 years after first time being even considered, he was now filling the shoes of the legendary movie character James Bond.

There was more to come from Mr. Dalton.

To avoid any misunderstanding; I'm not intending on any complaining on Roger Moore's achievement in this film. Since For Your Eyes only he had been contracted movie by movie. While the production team couldn't solve the problem of refreshing the casting, in half a decade, they played it safe and fell back on Roger Moore for a total of three times. But it's Moore's own less favorite, and mine also. To me, it's just too mid 80's. Too mid 80's....

Why involve such people as amazing Grace miss Jones? A mediocre 80's pop-artist who just wanted to strengthen her media limelight power by appearing in a Bond movie. Such failure from the production team. (Bet her record company pumped in a lot of money to assure her appearance.)

And the theme song? Artificial, plastic and stone dead music from one of the most overrated "pop"-bands ever. I rather listen to the hairdryer from one of the fashion boys in Duran Duran than this tune. This song marks the all time bottom of James Bond Soundtracks. (Even WHAM! would have done it better by this time...a sophisticated ballad from George Michael could have saved much.)

The villain story itself, about computer meltdown for the U.S by drowning Silicon Valley, is just a modern version of old "Blofeld stuff". (But I think Christopher Walken portraits the mentally disturbed industrialist quite well. A defector from cold Russia and KGB, who's current independence and plans discomforts his former employers.)

Tanya Roberts (former angel from the fifth and last season of TV-show "Charlie's Angels", for instance) is easily forgotten every sometime I revisit this movie. Actor skills enough for being a sexy cut-out doll in heavy makeup, hairspray, and tight designer jeans. Not 007 material.

Roger Moore was at 57 of age, and well aware of the slight silliness of him trying to appear on the screen as a "lethal weapon". And by his own admission, he did not get along with any of the leading women, neither Roberts nor Jones. (Jones was occasionally really obnoxious, crew members testified in interviews later.) I don't want to criticize Roger at all for his work in this movie, but I bet he was quite relieved once the shooting finished, and the scene door closed behind him.

Changes were on the way....at last for some actor(s).

I kind of like this Bond movie, I do. Fresh, but the usual patters is still there, well worked in. And the "Cold War" theme sort of still hanging around in the 007 films, and wasn't to be scrapped quite yet, either. Fascinating (but expected) stunts, and a trip around the world. Got It before? The greatness is in good, well thought casting; among other well performing guys like Louis Jourdan and Kabir Bedi, there's a warm welcome back to a skilled woman named Maud Adams. The whole "Octopussy" part of the movie is a booster when one got a little tired of Russians making evil plans. (Steven Berkoff's performance got him the role in Rambo: First Blood part II ?)

The comedy parts is what works best in this movie. Former pro-tennis player Vijay Amritraj and the legend "Q" Desmond Llewelyn are brought along for laughs, as I see it. Not to mention the innumerable inside jokes - as of many Bond movies - that fans still searching for today when re-watching it.

Roger Moore got bought back for the 007 act in an almost desperate way from the production team. Exchange the now legendary five round, well worked in actor gentleman obviously wasn't done just like that. Rumors (as usual) in preproduction placed some dudes as potential substitutes, but as it seems today, in vain. (One wish-list guy, Pierce Brosnan, was contracted to a half-ass flashy TV detective show straight throughout the 80's.)

I personally think that the situation of today's James Bond movie production have some similarity to the mid 80's. I can imagine people got a slight feeling knowing what to expect when going to the cinemas for the 6th Roger Moore-show. I was in exactly that mood before watching "Spectre" at the local theater last November...

Definitely the best James Bond movie of J.B Mk. III - The Roger Moore Era - I think. Many Bond-fans I think applies with me, not every other one, of course.. I've read biographies from crew and cast - and other logs from the crossover between the 70's and the 80's - that the hubris and anticlimax that followed a movie called Moonraker caused some hang-over in the production team. There was, at the time, no plans of topping that expensive "space-flick". Get back to earth, bring back some of the good old-fashioned spy story.

John Glen's debut in the director's seat (had been assistant/2nd unit for several times) was a terrific start to the 80's. The whole movie throughout is impregnated by a sense of re-start, and a "think things over"-feeling. Discussions of inviting Steven Spielberg to direct had been around, so was a thought of giving Timothy Dalton his debut as 007. Many rumors circulated at the time of giving this movie its blueprints.....

OK, Roger Moore already showed some signs of ageing here, 53 years old. (Some age for a supposed to be fit and athletic MI6 agent.....) But, the character was already well worked in, the audience had learned to love the charming gentleman, who jumped in and out of hard trials. (With some hindsight, maybe this movie should have been an honorable farewell for Roger, a good-bye in flying colors, handing over the baton to, let's say Dalton.) But they played it safe for another while...

The movie itself has aged well. Feels quite modern some 35 years later. Great stunts as the thrilling opening chopper scene, and the famous Citroën 2CV car chase. To complete the fresh and innovative theme song during the pre-credits, Maurice Binder cuts in performer for the first time, shown in figure. Female artist Sheena Easton completes her lovely voice with an appearance on screen, to the delight of the male audience. An airy, atmospheric tune with just the right touch for kicking off the 80's.

The ATAC head story, and the "avenge the Havelock's"-story, matches each other well. Carole Bouquet's plays a strong, independent and sensitive woman. Not just being James Bond's amusement, as many of them in 007 past. I also think that the audience welcomed a more human villain, rather than a psychotic billionaire who's planning to destroy the world. Julian Glover performs well, and professionally cushioned.

In my opinion, it's one of the very best compounded and successfully collected James Bond Movies. 9 out of 10.

There was not much left of Ian Fleming's novelty original character James Bond by 1979. A pretty satisfied Roger Moore flesh out his modern fashion suits between the tiring pun, never even bother to draw his PPK once. By then the most expensive 007 movie so far - of course - but hundreds of miles from being discussed even in the mid rankings of all Bonds.

I think time ran out for that vaulting joinery the film team had become, and the competition with contemporary big-time movies made the producers lose some genuine Bond feeling on the way. In all it feels a little paradoxical, this Moonraker movie.

But it entertains all right, no question about that. A twelve year old today still can enjoy this to the fullest. But it is kind of a patchwork, with the "traveling around the world" theme, and the action scenes feels like more of fill-ins when the dialogue loses it's way.

But now to all my joys of Moonraker:

-The opening "parachute" scene is still a legendary classic, even by today's standards. Nowadays they just can computerize such scene.

-The return of Jaws was a master stroke by the scriptwriters. He's needed when the movie sometimes "fall asleep." The bloodthirstiness is there for a start, then lacks considerable....

-CIA wonder woman Lois Chiles as Holly Goodhead. (My god, what a name. Ranks among the Goodnight's and Christmas's in 007 history.) Pretty as a picture; they straightened her natural curly hair just to get her Holly-look to feel right. As a participant of the world-wide popular TV-show "DALLAS" some year after this, she was allowed to show her natural hairdo (and bikini-filled curves) as another "Holly", this time oil-business Harwood.

-Michael Lonsdale does a great, psychic villain, with the ordinary grandiloquent plans. Cold and designing as we want them.

-The returning of the "bottle-man" from TSWLM (now in Venice.) Catches some of the essential mood of this 007-era. Was to return for full-filling a triple appearance.

-The bawled ending - who surely was half the budget - is quite good, not to say real excellent by then standards. Well money spent.

But this was the end of such "Star Wars"-projects for EON productions. The 80's then started off quite brilliant....

One of the super movies of the 70's. So I've heard from fellas at work who were in their teens when this James Bond movie came out. Such space adventures as Star Wars and Close Encounters must have been hard to compete with this year, but 007 was to be "down to earth" for one more act, then surrender.

I myself can't find that many flaws in this film. All the necessary essences are there, such as the thrilling ski-jump of the opening scene. British - Russian collaboration (and love story, of course) spice it up, to crush a common enemy who wants the world population to start all over again, below and beyond the sea, after the usual destruction of the world as we know it. (Got it/heard it before?)

Great tour to Egypt and Sardinia, among places, on the way. Script-entering the hit-man Jaws ( R.I.P Richard Kiel) went out so well that he was to return, not being annihilated here. The beautiful,wedge-shaped, sporty and sexy white Lotus S1 (actually a poor developed, unfinished and doubtful car, according to the memories from one Roger Moore) became such an addictive must-have car in public. The era of the flashy Seiko LCD watches, for which you have to put up some hard money getting one at E-bay in these days, started around here. ( Model 0674 in this movie, I think.)

Yes, I think this film represents the 1970's James Bond movies to the fullest. A little shallow, a little plastic, mostly speculative. But as wonderful as a Bond movie could have been at the time. Kind of moderate acting from some of the casts is aided by all the action and gadgets, and the beautiful women. (There's really one in EVERY corner, wherever James Bond's feet takes him.)

I find it fun - as of just 40 years old, today - imagining heading for the cinemas in 1977 as a teenage boy for this super adventure. Exhilarated, excited and a little bit stressed for the experience to come, I would have taken several rounds to the Men's room in the lobby, just to avoid such interruptions during the show.

And before the 70's was over, the audience still had the pleasure to wait for, and be presented to, by then the most expensive, lavish and extravagant Bond movie ever.

A lot fresher than "Live And Let Die", this Asian adventure of James Bond does entertain some more than it's forerunner. But this story, who partly is a comment to the energy crises at the time, didn't do quite that good as was expected in the cinemas. Some mild crises was going through the big 007 machine as well, but that's something for the other logs to handle. I'm not going to.

The movie, released just the year after LALD, works well some forty years later, and do entertain with the usual pattern and con texture for Bond movies. Known best for the spiral jump with the AMC car. (The first movie stunt scene who was calculated by a computer, I've read. True or false?) Two beautiful (Swedish) women battles for James Bond's favor in the sack, a very well skilled actor in Chris Lee as villain, with a midget wing man mostly for laughs. Those pieces fits together really well.

Roger Moore's Bond career was still to peak; here he's still quite fresh, but keeps to build up his own 007. Before the triple of movies that made him quite immortal in the history of James Bond, I think this one is just equal to average ranking points speaking in terms of his whole 007 career. The 70's was still to peak...