Book Review: Midnight by Chris Philbrook

Back to the zombies with the third instalment of Philbrook’s Adrian’s Undead Diary series. As with the others this is told largely in the diaries of Adrian, an ex soldier holed up at a private school as the dead rise.

The second book ended with Adrian discovering that he wasn’t alone and welcoming people into his home. There’s also a threat from another group of survivors. Over the course of this book this feud comes to a head and other survivors are encountered.

It’s a quality read with the story developing nicely and there being a few nice twists and turns along the way. Adrian is also a great character with fragility, humour and fear creeping into his foul mouthed diaries. The action is quite gripping and while the diary format robs some of the tension, it still works as Philbrook is smart to use gaps between entries and short, angry or upset entries to give the impression things have gone wrong and put the reader on edge.

Philbrook also has rounded Adrian out and ensures the reader is engaged and invested in what happens to him.

There are also inserted chapters that take place elsewhere, which gives us different perspectives and fills in the gaps that Adrian can’t. One of these explains the cause of the zombie apocalypse and this is done well, different from other zombies stories. It also gives Philbrook routes to follow and feels fresh. This increases the creepy factor and creates an unsettling vibe and leaves more questions unansweed.

Looking forward to going back to Adrian’s world soon.

Verdict: The series goes from strength to strength. This part expands the world the story takes place in and ups the stakes. New characters and a few nice twists keep it fresh and hooked me in throughout. 8/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO. 


Film Review: Wonder Woman

So far the DC extended universe (DCEU) has been playing catch up with Marvel who have built up their shared universe since 2008’s Iron Man. It’s easy to see why DC want to get in on the same kind of thing but unfortunately it’s all felt rather rushed. The first film worked on it’s own, but Man of Steel still had some flaws and the follow up, Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice was hit and miss, and saw Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman thrown in the mix in a way which seemed a bit rushed. The less said about  Suicide Squad the better. 

So, having already met Wonder Woman what we have here is a flashback, an origin movie which takes us back to the First World War. Not that the war has had any impact on Themyscria, the idyllic, hidden island of the Amazons. Here, Princess Diana learns of the Amazons’ purpose, to guide mankind to peace and oppose the corrupting force of Ares, the God of War.

Diana wants to learn to fight, but her mother, Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) opposes this, as Ares is seemingly defeated and she has fears that Diana’s training and increasing strength will draw the attention of the war god if he is still out there. But Diana’s aunt, General Antiope (Robin Wright) is more cautious and secretly trains her niece, who becomes a skilled fighter but appears to have odd powers and enhanced strength.

After years of isolation the first man visits the island as Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) crash lands in the sea off the island attempting to flee with stolen plans of a new deadly German weapon. Diana rescues him but the Germans arrive and there is a short battle which leaves all the Germans and a few of the Amazons dead. Steve is taken prisoner and bound with the lasso of truth reveals his misssion, Diana believing that the villainous General Ludendorff (Danny Huston) is Ares in an attempt to continue the war.

In defiance of her mother’s wishes, Diana steals the godkiller sword and she leaves with Steve to the world of man. There they deliver the plans and are forbidden to attack Ludendorff as it may damage the delicate armistice talks. 

Diana is outraged when Steve agrees not to get involved, accusing him of lying to her, but he reveals he plans a secret mission, gathering old allies and receiving assistance from Sir Patrick Morgan (David Thewlis), a politician attempting to sort out a peace but determined not to lose more lives or allow Ludendorff to find a weapon to extend the war.

Can Diana stop Ludendorff? Is he actually Ares? What will she think of man’s world and is she ready for the horrors of the front?

This movie’s major strength is Gadot, who not only looks the part as a strong warrior woman but who also captures the character’s journey very well. She excels in the action sequences and shows Diana’s steely determination throughout, while also doing well with the script’s more humourous aspects. She also shows Diana’s confusion and wonder at the things she encounters and the “fish out of water” vibe works well.

As Diana progresses she becomes disillusioned with mankind and the war, and the film is clever in avoiding merely blaming Ares for mankind’s conflict. When Ares faces Diana he talks about how the darkness was inside man and he just guides them to better weapons, hoping to destroy them and have the world return to the paradise it once was. 

The war is hell aspect of the film is decent and a good angle, but the handling is poor. The horrors of war are shown in an oddly bloodless way, and while there are hints that both sides do wrong this does paint the Germans as the bad guys in a way which simplifies the complex reasons for WWI and the fact that neither side really held a moral highground.

Also, it’s hard to say that war is bad when the film delights in the Amazons’ fighting. The battle on the beach between Amazons and Germans is filled with slow motion, which is overused throughout. The Amazons’ skills are presented as cool and admirable, but it’s still basically war. And it feels odd that we get a sombre moment of a dying Amazon as though this is some great tragedy, when they have literally just killed half a dozen soldiers with arrows. It feels fumbled and half done.

That being said, the action sequences are, slow mo aside, quite well done, especially a sequence where Diana charges across no man’s land under heavy fire to save civilians. It’s a solid sequence and visually striking.

But in a way the problem here is that Diana is too strong, too powerful. There are only one and a half characters who can really go toe-to-toe with her and aside from these fights the rest of the battles feel one sided and lacking peril. It’s a similar issue that DC face with Superman, their heroes being too pumped up and often without decent foes.

But for the most part the movie works, landing more hits than misses and entertaining throughout. It’s definitely the funniest of the DCEU movies and a good background for the charcter, even if it doesn’t move anything forward. In fact it adds more questions, like what the hell has Diana been doing between 1918 and throwing down in BvS: DoJ?

Special mention should also go to Chris Pine who does good work here. He shares good chemistry with Gadot, and his Steve Trevor is a likeable character. Heroic without being too clean cut, Steve is a good counterpoint to Diana. Both see the horrors but Diana’s fresh eyes make her willing to deviate from their mission in a way his more jaded view is less inclined to do. And he acknowledges that people can be bad, whereas it takes a while for Diana to dismiss the idea that it is all down to Ares.

I’m definitely interested in seeing more of the character and it bodes well for the DCEU going forward as this is definitely the strongest entry since Man of Steel and left me excited for Justice League.

Verdict: Has it’s flaws but generally works quite well. Gadot is good as the lead and the script manages a decent balance in tone. Stumbles in places but manages to stride out with pride. 7.5/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


Disney Classics #13: Alice in Wonderland

I’m going to be upfront with you, I’ve never been overly fussed with Lewis Carroll’s creation and none of the versions I’ve seen have won me over. I think it’s because there’s a sense of self conscious, deliberate, quirky weirdness to the whole thing. It’s clearly a matter of taste as this is one of MWF’s favourite Disney movies, whereas in the Page house it was one of the ones which got taken off the shelf less often.

alice-in-wonderland-movie-poster-1951-1020198120

For the unfamiliar, the story follows a young girl named Alice (Kathryn Beaumont) who winds up in a weird place called wonderland filled with unusual characters and creatures, where the rules of logic and sense don’t apply. The plot is kinda hard to nail down as it’s less of an overall story and more just a series of episodes as Alice goes along bumping into different characters.

It’s not without any charm and some of the visuals are quite striking and interesting in their psychedelic weirdness. There are some nice little touches along the way such as how the different flowers are portrayed and the whole size-shifting aspect is used rather well. I also like the croquet sequence with the Queen of Hearts, who falls somewhere between unpredictably scary and ridiculous, which seems the best way to approach the character.

411d013113f5a93f4a26882f16506a19

The “Very Merry Unbirthday” song is quite catchy, and the weirdness plays better in animated form, because at least you can’t see the actors trying their damndest to be “mad” (yes, I am talking to you, Mr. Depp). But some of it still feels like it’s trying to hard and some aspects like the Dodo don’t work for me. It feels like too many ideas were being thrown around and a lot more could have been dumped to make the film flow better.

It’s not a terrible movie at any rate, but with Alice being a bit annoying and it all feeling rather fragmented, it’s not the most satisfying either. I mean, it uses the “it was all a dream” ending that we were told to avoid at GCSE!

tumblr_static_8iiaafl98n0g8ko4kcsg884wg_640_v2

Mrs F, my old English teacher probably hates this ending.

That being said, it’s probably my favourite film version of the story.

Disney Score: 5/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


Would You Rather? Part 6: Spam, Porridge and Glass Houses

…would you rather go to jail for 4 years for something you didn’t do or get away with something horrible but spend the rest of your life in fear of being caught?

This is a pretty tough one, because I have no desire to go to prison. I don’t think it’s the kind of situation I would thrive in. That being said four years isn’t that long, relatively speaking and compared to spending the rest of my life feeling (a) guilty for my horrible crime and (b) constantly afraid, would be far more stressful.

So, strangely I think I would have to go with the prison for a crime I didn’t commit. At least I’d have something in common with the A-Team then.

hatc4b1rlamayan-vefasc4b1zdc4b1r

…be transported 500 years into the past or the future?

This is a pretty tricky one. While 1517 would be grim as hell, at least you kinda know what you’re getting and you’d be more advanced than them, knowledge wise. I mean, sure that might lead them to burning you as a witch or something, but it beats the alternative.

Who knows what kind of almighty mess 2517 is going to be? And you’d be 500 years behind them, they’d view you as some sort of backwards fool. Nope, in this case, I’d go back.

…be free from junk mail or be free from spam?

Spam. Junk mail is a pain, obviously, but it’s less frequent, I get junk mail once, twice a month at most, but spam is a daily thing. Also, as far as I know, junk mail can’t install a virus in your house or drain your bank accounts.

…live in a house with see through walls in the middle of a city or the same house but in the forests far away?

Obviously in the forest. Sure, you’d be miles away from everywhere, but the chances of getting looked at are less. I’m guessing the question means all the walls are see through, so there would be no privacy anywhere.

I’d rather not live my whole life like some kind of strange art exhibit, and that’s before we even get into the territory of the bathroom and the bedroom. Nope, I’d rather not shower in front of a whole city, thank you.

…wake up every morning to find a random animal appendage has replaced your non dominant arm or swap your bottom half permanently for an animal of your choosing?

This is brilliantly bizarre.

While the animal appendages might be quite interesting and a good talking point, some of them would probably be massively useless/inconvenient. So, I’m probably looking at going half animal. I think a centaur would be too impractical and take up too much room.

So, maybe a faun? With goat legs? Or maybe kangaroo legs, because then I could get some impressive jumps in. Although it might make me look like second string Spidey villain the Kangaroo.

130784-134183-kangaroo

….spend the rest of your life with a sailboat as your home or an RV as your home?

RV. It’s just more practical isn’t it? You can go more places, with a sailboat you’re stuck on the coast all the time.

…be unable to move when it rains or unable to stop moving when the sun shines?

I think the obvious one is be unable to stop moving when it’s sunny. Isn’t it?

I mean, paralysis whenever it rains seems more of an inconvenience, especially as I live in Wales where it rains a lot of the time. Also, at least some kind of weird, twitchy dance movement would be embarrassing, but imagine freezing up in the middle of town when a shower starts.

37b1f474460cd9c6ca50c21a8f224386

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


Book Review: The Good Immigrant by Nikesh Shukla (Editor)

As a white British man my life is largely unaffected by race. I am the default, the traditional and the assumed. When people ask where I come from “Neath” will suffice, perhaps with more clarification for those not familiar with Wales (“Neath, it’s just by Swansea”), but that’s where it ends. A few of the writers in this collection of essays, and a friend, get more questions “No, where are you from, originially”. Their race differentiates them, and makes some view them as not entirely British. Which is bollocks of course, race and nationality not being the same thing.

Of course, I know that Britain has a diverse population, with Brits who have family history from all over the world. And I know that race is still a very big deal and effects people’s lives everyday. But these are superficial observations, and thankfully this book provided me with a more diverse, nuanced look at what life is like for BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) Brits.

The contributors discuss their family histories, the way they feel about how their culture is represented (or isn’t), how attitudes towards race effect their lives and our society. Issues like stereotyping, Western beauty standards, cultural appropriation and more are on show and the book is continually enlightening.

I learnt more about Cyprus and it’s history, something I previously knew about in vague terms, gleaned from half remembered news reports and the tactical voting of Eurovision. I had to reflect on how I am guilty of viewing my white experience as being the norm or universal British experience. 

It gave me pause when one contributor, Darren Chetty, discussed how few children’s stories feature diverse characters and how that effects the audience who don’t see themselves represented, to the point they don’t think stories about people like them are valid.

There are pieces that amused and others that moved me, with the different voices ensuring a variety of tones and styles. Of course, as with all collections, there are some you connect with more and favourites. 

It’s a book I found easy to read, dipping in and out over a few days, even if it raised difficult questions. How often do I stereotype people? What would I do if I witnessed someone being racially abused? Why is race still so divisive and can Britain improve how we integrate and deal with the complexities of a multicultural society?

It’s a book I strongly recommend, it’s always good to have a look at life from someone else’s perspective, and it prompts discussion that we need to have. The writers are a good mix of the serious and more light hearted in terms of tone, but every one is interesting and well worth a read.

Verdict: A very interesting book about an important subject, this gives the reader lots to think about and includes some fantastic writers. 8/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


My Favourite Films #48: Scott Pilgrim vs the World

Years ago a friend of mine recommended I check out Brian Lee O’Malley’s Scott Pilgrim comics. I was told they were fun and essentially about a Canadian version of me. I read the series and loved it, although I realised that being compared to Scott wasn’t a compliment. When Edgar Wright (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) was announced to direct a big screen version I was pretty stoked.

Luckily the movie turned out to be a belter, not least because it bravely decided to keep the title character, played by Michael Cera, a bit of a douchebag. He’s dim, self absorbed and sort of obnoxious. It’s a nice change for Cera who while still in his geeky comfort zone at least branches out from the essentially nice guys he normally plays.

scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world-movie-poster-2010-1020561018

The plot sees Scott fall for mysterious new girl in town Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) despite already dating Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). Ramona turns out to have seven evil exes, and in order to claim her hand he must defeat them. This is because despite being a geeky bass player, Scott has some mad fighting skills which helps him in the OTT, video game inspired fight sequences.

Wright shoots it brilliantly with a fast, fun pacing and visual flair, there are nods to computer games, on screen sound effects in the style of the ’66 Batman series (RIP Adam West) and a plethora of sight gags and quality one liners.

48658

The supporting cast is brilliant across the board, particularly Chris Evans and Brandon Routh who play two of the exes. Routh plays the douchey guy who stole Scott’s ex and boasts psychic powers due to his veganism, one of many delightfully daft touches in a movie which is seriously fun.

slice_scott_pilgrim_world_poster_league_evil_exes_01

The Evil Exes

There are also minor roles for Audrey Plaza, Anna Kendrick and Kieran Culkin.

Cera is fantastic, with the self absorbed Scott slowly realising where he’s gone wrong and finally standing up to the final ex, Gideon (Jason Schwartzman). The fight scene sees him lose, but in a nice touch he can cash in the “extra life” he picked up earlier in the movie, and allows him another attempt, where he realises he isn’t fighting for love but his own self respect.

And in the end he realises that he has to make amends for all the stupid, selfish things he did and become a better person.

The movie is a geeky delight, and full of charm. It also cements Wright as a seriously talented director making me regret that we never got his version of Ant Man, and looking forward to Baby Driver.

A fun filled, fast flowing film which captivates me on every rewatch.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


Film Review: Baywatch

I wasn’t happy to be going to see this yesterday because I really wanted to see Wonder Woman but MWF was in the mood for a comedy, and as she was paying she got the final say. Now, I love The Rock and have been impressed by Zac Efron over the years, but I didn’t like the look of this movie. It looked, well, dumb.

And it was. But in the best way.

Carrying a lot of the weight is Dwayne Johnson, taking over from the Hoff as Mitch Buchanan, head of the lifeguards. His easy, charming on screen presence anchors the film and he shows off some decent comedy chops, although this won’t surprise anyone who remembers his skill on the mic at the WWE.

In Efron he has a good partner, with Efron’s selfish, stupid jock clashing with no nonsense Mitch from the jump. Efron’s character, a disgraced Olympic swimmer is at times the audience’s perspective, wondering what a drug smuggling ring has to do with their role as lifeguards. This plot and it’s ridiculousness is played for laughs and this is a solid action comedy.

The action is overblown and well staged, with a particularly entertaining fight between Johnson and a goon taking place in a child’s bedroom, various toys being used as weapons.

There are a few pops at the old show, but it seems affectionate ribbing, highlighting the far fetched stories and stylistic choices. Pamela Anderson’s replacement as CJ Parker, Kelly Rohrbach is shot in slow mo repeatedly, which other characters comment on and it’s nice that when Pam shows up for her (disappointingly brief) cameo she appears in super slow mo.

The jokes come at a quick and steady pace, mixing slapstick, gross out and some decent one liners. It’s not a classic but entertaining enough and similar in tone to the Jump Street flicks.

Kudos should be paid to the supporting cast who all handle their roles well and get the tone right. A special stand out is Jon Bass who plays nerdy Ronnie, hopefully smitten with CJ. He steals a couple of scenes and is extremely funny.

It also means that David Hasselhoff has two entertaining movies under his belt this year, which is pretty surprising. And awesome. Although it does mean this has a confused relationship with the show. Two Mitch Buchanans? Two CJs? Huh?

Verdict: Johnson and Efron are charismatic leads and work well as a duo. Incredibly daft but amusing enough. Keeps the laughs coming. 7/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


Book Review: Born to Run by Bruce Springsteen

If you’re familiar with Bruce Springsteen’s music you’ll know that he’s a songwriter of great skill. He tells stories of everyday life, of characters and their desires and fears. Songs filled with empathy, compassion and insight.

Here he shows all the same talents, this time about his own life. It’s a glorious book, filled with keen observation, insight and moments of humour.

Springsteen captures his childhood in New Jersey, growing up poor and amidst a dysfunctional family. There are large characters here, but it’s his quieter father who looms largest. Tormented by mental health issues exacerbated by drink, his father is a distant figure, one that the young Bruce fears and loves at the same time. The small, scrawny kid feels like a disappointment, or worse an active cause for his father’s disatisfaction. Throughout the book the relationship with his father returns as does Springsteen’s fears that the same darkness lurks within him.

This is one of the things I feel he should be applauded for. There’s an honest assesment of his own mental state, an acknowledgement that it has led to poor relationships and decisions, yet some of it has contributed to his drive. Bouts of depression are relayed without hyperbole or shame, therapy is mentioned and thanked for helping him through his life.

Springsteen is aware of his faults and when things do sour owns his part in them. It’s not all gloomy, there are high points, the joy of love and family, of the contentment he finally finds. And of course there’s the music. 

He captures the excitement and joy of seeing Elvis for the first time, of the shot in the arm that rock ‘n roll provided him, a focus that he would never lose. When he talks about music Springsteen seems invigorated, humming with enthusiasm and energy. He talks about the bands who influenced him, of meeting his heroes and of creating his own place in music history.

There is pride here and references to success, but it never tips into arrogance, not a man boasting, rather a man satisfied with a job well done.

The prose is enthralling and I found myself easily reading for long stretches, happy in the company of the Boss. The writing is captivating, charming and utterly absorbing. It prompted reflection and smiles, and even tears as he discusses the passing of Clarence Clemons, his friend and bandmate.

Autobiographies don’t come much better than this.

Verdict: Fantastic. 9/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


Disney Classics #12: Cinderella

Finally, Disney get their groove back returning to familiar territory with a feature length single story fairytale. The film introduces the second of the Disney Princesses and is a delightful movie.

cinderella-disney-poster

The story should be familiar but a quick recap- after the death of her father Cinderella (Helene Stanley) has to live with her evil stepmother Lady Tremaine (Eleanor Audley) and her two ugly stepsisters Drizella and Anastasia. They treat Cinderella as a servant, making her do all the work and living in a tiny attic while they spend all of her dad’s cash.

But one day the King (Luis Van Rooten), eager to marry off his son arranges a ball, to which all the women of the country are invited. Lady Tremaine says that Cinderella can go but only if she completes her chores and finds an appropriate dress. Too busy to mend a gown that belonged to her mother Cinderella is aided by her animal friends and shall go to the ball. But Lady Tremaine and the sisters realise she has used stuff they rejected. They tear the dress to shreds in a scene which is genuinely upsetting. It’s just so bloody mean, those jerks!

520356_1282309112851_full

Seriously, this scene gets me so angry!

Luckily, Cinderella’s fairy godmother arrives and magics her a fancy dress. She also makes a carriage for her from a pumpkin and footmen and horses from the animals around. The catch? At midnight it all goes back to normal.

0d70edace1bee570759d3f345af6e32e

Cinders hits the ball and dances with the Prince who is smitten with her. Unfortunately it reaches midnight and she has to make a run for it, on the way losing one of her glass slippers.

The King sends out a Grand Duke (voiced by the same actor as the King) to see who fits the shoe. Lady Tremaine wants one of her daughters to win the prince, and realising that it was Cinderella at the ball locks her in the attic. Fortunately, her animal friends manage to slip her a key and she proves she was the mysterious girl. She marries the Prince and they live happily ever after.

I’m not getting into a discussion of the story’s attitude towards gender roles or how it altered the traditional story, arguments which have been flogged to death. Instead let’s just have a look how this holds up as a film.

And it works. The music is solid, especially “A Dream is a Wish Your Heart Makes” which is insanely catchy, seriously, it’ll rattle around in your head for a good while after the credits roll. The art style is a little dated, but in places genuinely gorgeous and the character work is superb.

Cinderella has a simple, elegant beauty and the stepsisters are ugly without it being overdone. The King is a Disney staple- short, rotund, bearded and bald, and the Prince is rather dull. The success comes in Lady Tremaine, voiced by the same actress who would go on to voice Maleficent, is superb. A detestable villain who is petty and cruel to her stepdaughter.

disney-princess_140977_2

Pure evil

The most charming characters are the animals, particularly the chubby, dimwitted mouse Gus and the more courageous Jaq. They provide comic relief and help Cinderella out along the way, and are rather entertaining.

d4e10e26ebe26443c4eee770f170fabe

Also stealing the show is Lady Tremaine’s cat Lucifer. Proving that nominative determinism exists, he is properly evil, tormenting the mice and going out of his way to make life difficult for the heroine. The scenes with him and the mice, pad out the rather simple story and provide some action along the way.

584652_original

The whole thing is very simply done and sweet, with the familiar story retold in a charming manner. It might have dated in the style or the way a female heroine is portrayed (Cinderella is never really mistress of her own destiny), but it’s a gem of a movie and easy to see why it still captivates young audiences to this day.

Following the underwhelming run they had delivered before this is a major return to form for Disney and a film which still stands up. I thoroughly enjoyed it and am glad to be out of the wilderness and into Disney’s Silver Age.

Disney Score: 7/10.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.


My Favourite Films #47: A View to a Kill

Last month saw the passing of Sir Roger Moore. I was really saddened by this news because he always seemed like a decent bloke and due to his time as James Bond was a familiar face and part of the pop culture landscape I grew up with. I’m not getting into which actor has been the best Bond, but for Moore was my first Bond, and probably my favourite. And this, his final outing as 007 is possibly my favourite in the series.

view_to_a_kill

I love Moore’s Bond because of his easy, debonair charm and the tongue in cheek nature of the films. Moore had warmth that contrasted with Connery’s cool. He might not be in line with Fleming’s character from the books, but the movies are still extremely entertaining.

For me, the key ingredients for a good Bond movie, which all the best share are simple- good song, decent villain, good straightforward plot and ideally a menacing henchman. A View to a Kill ticks all these boxes starting with the decidedly ’80s and catchy Duran Duran themesong.

The plot sees Bond investigating Max Zorin played by Christopher Walken with his usual weird charisma. Zorin is an ex-KGB agent who may have been part of a Nazi breeding programme. Walken is brilliant here as right from the get go with his blonde hair he looks dodgy and it turns out the billionaire is up to no good, planning to flood Silicon Valley in order to monopolise the microchip industry. It’s a pretty smart plan.

Walken is immensely watchable and this is an early example of him quite clearly enjoying himself and hamming it up a bit. He’s menacing and cold, but handles the bantering exchanges well and makes a good enemy for Bond.

He’s also backed up by his henchwoman May Day played by the statuesque and intimidating Grace Jones. I remember being amazed by May Day as a kid, this tall, powerhouse of a woman who is physically more than a match for Bond. What makes her work as a character is that at the end she realises that Zorin is a wrong ‘un and doesn’t care about her and so helps Bond, getting a heroic death in the process.

bdb4c4beee71c57dbe94035779032f94

This all sets up a fantastically OTT finale where Bond finds himself atop the Golden Gate Bridge as Zorin attacks from a blimp. It’s daft and ridiculous, but isn’t that the way of Bond movies?

I love this movie because the villains are interesting and the tone is just right, there’s enough peril to keep you hooked but it’s carried off with a sense of humour. The supporting cast are quite good especially Patrick Macnee who plays Bond’s aristocratic ally and who shares an easy chemistry with Moore.

a-view-to-a-kill-godfrey-tibbett

This is the perfect film for a Sunday afternoon or Bank Holiday, the sort of thing that feels familiar and safe. An old tradition, to put up your feet and watch Bond quip his way through an adventure, seducing women and using gadgets and wits to win the day.

6897_4

Tanya Roberts as the main Bond girl in the movie.

Moore was perfect for this, bringing his posh charms and humour to the role. Always cool in a crisis, ready with a quip or arched eyebrow.

Roger Moore is tied up with all those lazy afternoons I watched the Bond films, captivated by the stunts and adventure, amused by the one-liners. The seven films he made as 007 meaning that he looms large in the public consciousness, and will live on in audience’s hearts for years to come. And he’ll always have a special place for mine, having starred in a movie I’ve watched countless times and continue to love to this day.

RIP Roger Moore.

Any thoughts? You know what to do. BETEO.