Film

A View to a Kill

Name: A View to a Kill
Genre: Adventure, Action, Thriller
Released: 1985
Cast: Roger Moore, Tanya Roberts, Christopher Walken, Grace Jones, Patrick Macnee

Roger Moore's final Bond film, a gaudy 1985 machine of excessive ambition and flawed execution. It swings wildly between elegant espionage, absurdist action spectacle, and flat romantic filler. Christopher Walken as a Silicon Valley villain steals every scene he's in. Perfect if you love Bond despite himself; exhausting if you need the formula to hold.

TMDb rating

3.2

Should you watch it?

Watch it if you have a soft spot for the gleefully outlandish Bond of the 1980s, where a megalomaniac's scheme is mainly an excuse for a chase across San Francisco rooftops and a villain who relishes every line.

Skip it if you want a tightly plotted spy thriller; the middle stretch wanders, the humour leans campy, and the runtime of over two hours feels long for a story this slight.

What it asks of you: Settle in for a little over two hours of set pieces stitched together loosely, with the tone shifting from playful banter to big, loud spectacle and back again.

Not sure? Find tonight's pick in a minute.

If you liked this

The Spy Who Loved Me1977

Moore's best Bond: confident, funny, balanced. Jaws is an unforgettable henchman, and the film finds the sweet spot between adventure and self-awareness that A View to a Kill chases but misses.

But If you want something darker or more grounded, Moore's lightness of touch isn't for everyone. Some find his era camp rather than clever.

Octopussy1983

Moore in top form, a genuinely clever plot, and a pace that never wavers. It proves the late Moore era could deliver when the script and direction align. Proof the formula still works.

But It's very much a product of the early 80s. If you find that decade's action conventions dated, this won't change your mind.

Live and Let Die1973

Moore's debut as Bond, fresh and funny. A New Orleans voodoo plot that sounds silly and somehow works. The chemistry between Moore and Jane Seymour carries it effortlessly.

But The pacing sags in the middle, and some of the racial politics haven't aged well. It also lacks the technical polish of later entries.

Not sure tonight? Get a pick in a minute, starting from A View to a Kill

The wildcard

Something you would not have found on your own.

Dead Calm1989

Both are essentially about a lone operative responding to a threat they can't fully see. Both have absurdly good-looking villains. Dead Calm shows what happens when that setup is stripped of all artifice and spectacle.

A taut psychological thriller where every cut matters and the camera never lies. A boat, three people, escalating menace, no music. It reminds you that suspense doesn't require helicopters or quips.

But It's relentlessly tense in a way that's exhausting rather than fun. No hero quips, no comic relief. If you want adventure, this is the opposite.

For Your Eyes Only1981

A deliberate tonal pivot toward grittiness after Moonraker. Carole Bouquet is pitch-perfect, the plot holds real stakes, and it reminds you Moore could do serious when the film demanded it.

But The first half drags, and the ski sequences, while impressive, go on too long. It's uneven in ways that frustrate rather than entertain.

Tomorrow Never Dies1997

Brosnan's second Bond finds the groove the first one missed. Michelle Yeoh is extraordinary, the villain (a media mogul) is prescient, and the action is genuinely exciting without breaking the film's neck.

But It's very much a 90s action film in pacing and style. If you prefer the analog elegance of earlier Bonds, this will feel overstuffed and slick.

The Living Daylights1987

Brosnan's predecessor, Timothy Dalton, brings unexpected gravitas to the role. A Cold War thriller that takes itself seriously without becoming ponderous. Shows what Moore couldn't quite achieve.

But Dalton's intensity is the opposite of Moore's charm. Some viewers find him stiff, and the film moves slower than they'd like.

Goldfinger1964

The template all others follow. Connery at his peak, a villain with a clear mad scheme, gadgets that astound. It's why Bond became Bond. Everything works because nothing is yet tired.

But Knowing how much it influenced everything since means it can feel familiar even on first viewing. And yes, some of it is very 1964.

Casino Royale2006

A complete reinvention that actually works. Craig brings wounded intelligence to the role. The opening parkour sequence and the poker game are genuinely brilliant filmmaking, not just Bond-ness.

But It's long, emotionally draining, and the third act falters badly. And if you want escapism, its grimy seriousness can feel like work.

The World Is Not Enough1999

Brosnan in a film that knows what it is: high adventure with a decent female lead and a truly unsettling villain. Not trying to be Casino Royale; it's fun without apology.

But The plot holes are conspicuous, and the film is content to coast on spectacle. If you need internal logic, don't dig too deep.

Blade Runner 20492017

Both fixate on aging male operatives moving through sleek, expensive environments. Both have baroque production design that threatens to swallow the human story. But Blade Runner trusts you to sit with dread; A View to a Kill never stops moving.

A science-fiction film that moves like a spy thriller. Gorgeous, mournful, deliberately paced. It proves action cinema can be meditative without becoming boring. Stunning cinematography in every frame.

But It's two hours and forty minutes of deliberate quiet punctuated by brief violence. If you want constant propulsion, you'll hate it. And it assumes you've seen the original.

Three Days of the Condor1975

Both feature elegant men in over their heads, surrounded by Silicon Valley-adjacent wealth and industrial power. But Condor asks what happens when the system eats you; A View to a Kill celebrates the system's excess. They're mirror images of the same paranoia.

Robert Redford as an ordinary analyst caught in a genuine conspiracy. The paranoia is real, the chase is claustrophobic, the resolution is ambiguous. A spy film that understands what spying actually costs.

But It's a 70s film made for people who were exhausted by government. If you want resolution and heroes winning, you're watching the wrong thing. Also: very slow by modern standards.