Besides Roger Moore's age, why is AVTAK so hated?

I'll tell you why it's not one of my favorites. In most Bond films the protagonist is surrounded by loyal supporters who are aware of their leader's plans. They made the decision to follow him no matter how wrong or evil, it was their choice. In VTAK the workers, misguided as they were, didn't sign up for what happened. When Zorin opens fire mowing down his unarmed men it was disturbing. He also tossed a gun to his buddy who joined in. The scene cut away only to return to more of the same, Zorin and friend joyfully killing everyone. That went on for too long imho. Another small point, I don't think most people found May Day a sexually appealing character. She's definitely someone who I'd want on my side though.

I absolutely agree - apart from Roger Moore's age, I find absolutely nothing wrong with this movie. It's got Paris, San Francisco, a car chase where the car ends up quartered, horse races, Sainjun *beep* Smythe, killer models, it's nonstop excitement. I loved this film.

It's generic and dull as hell, with a basic, recycled plot and unexciting action sequences in an unexciting central location (San Francisco is lovely, but for Bond? Leave that for Dirty Harry action heroes. Paris should have been the film's centerpiece).

Often considered the worst entry, it seems that AVTAK being more appreciated nowadays.

I personally love that film, and it is my second favorite of the Moore era (after FYEO).
It is mysterious, serious and dangerous. The music is masterpiece and the plot is complex and well written.

I personally love it, but one of the gripes I've read about and that I can truly understand is that the movie sort of gets sidetracked with the whole horse racing business for quite a while. And while it does all sort of fit in with the plot, it can be a bit confusing, particularly for first-time viewers. Especially before the true scope of Zorin's plan begins to take shape. It seems early on like Bond is on one of the most mundane missions of his career. He's investigating some stolen microchips and finds himself investigating horse doping. The microchip thing is worthy of his time (especially since a 00 agent died over it), but while he's still there to investigate it the horse stuff takes up most of the plot during that time and the microchips are rarely mentioned. That's mainly because Tibbett is overly concerned with it, but they could have used some dialogue reminding us the true purpose of the visit and a little less focused on the horses. Even though I've seen it hundreds of times I sometimes find myself thinking, "Wait, what is Bond doing here again?".

I don't think Roger was too old to play Bond at the time, I think he was just too old to play it the way they wrote it. As many people have said over the years, it would have been a much better movie if they acknowledged Roger's age instead of it being the elephant in the room. They tried to ignore it, pair him up with Bond girls who weren't age appropriate (and only made him look older in contrast), and missed out on the opportunity to turn it into a movie about the old English gentleman spy taking on a new breed of modern villain. As it stands it's just subtext, that may or may not have been intentional. It would have worked better as part of the actual plot though. However I don't find his age too hard to ignore, in a franchise where I have had to suspend so much disbelief I can believe that even a really old Bond is still a capable action hero, or just pretend like he's supposed to be younger than he is.

But as a kid seeing this as my first Bond movie I didn't think he was too old to be Bond, I'd never seen a younger Bond and most people over 35 looked "old" to my 5 year old eyes. In fact when I saw The Living Daylights a few years later I was thinking the new guy was too young.

"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"

I did not hate AVTAK, but I did not like it as much as the other Moore Bond movies. Mostly because he was too old for the part, but here are other reasons I did not like it:

1. Christopher Walken's acting. I do not care too much for this actor. He seems dry and does not have the wit other Bond villains possess. He rushes through his lines and sounds like a buck-toothed hick. Example: "Moa! Moa power!"

2. Tanya Roberts' acting. She is very beautiful, but beyond that, she acts very wooden. She looks like she is trying to act. Her voice almost always has the wrong tone. She gets over emotional. Plus, all of those shrill calls of "James!" and "James!" went right through me.

3. Both the horse race scene and the horse sale dress up was way over and beyond. Who dresses like that today? Top hats and tuxedos? Really?

4. Theme song. Duran Duran's View to a Kill song is okay, but I did not like it as a Bond movie theme song. It was out of place. I like the borderline sexy music from the female singers such as Anne Murray's "Nobody Does it Better". I also liked Wing's exciting "Live and Let Die". The song "View to a Kill" is just good pop music, that's all.

5. Lot's of plot holes. I did not care for Max's mowing down his men with the machine gun in the cavern scene. Also, Max was supposed to be a brilliant genius. Why did he go through all of the trouble of planting explosives and such when he could have built a nuke and planted it in the Russian Embassy in San Francisco. He hated communists and it was stated earlier that a nuke explosion would render all modern day chips useless. Ugh! If only they had me on the writing team!

6. That cheap looking robot dog Q played with. Did Q really need a robot dog to peep in on Bond and Stacy in the shower? The thing looked cheap and bulky. Very corny.

7. May Day, Jenny Flex, and the China woman followed Max around every place he went to kill off people. Really? Jenny Flex and the China woman were not even needed in this film. They should have made May Day more evil and possessing some sort of extraordinary ability (above being just very strong).

8. All of the acting seemed contrived. There was no chemistry between Bond and the Bond girls. Nor between Max and May Day. The policeman in the San Francisco fire scene over acted and looked like a buffoon. All of Bond's administrative superiors seemed too old and useless in their offices.

There were a lot of good things about this movie too, but since this thread is about what is bad, there you have it!

Two words: May Day

I think it's too dark for Roger's portrayal as Bond. The film is too similar to Goldfinger as well. The reasons why i think this;

1.Zorin's scheme to stockpile microchips and destroy Silicon Valley, was too similar to Goldfinger's plan.

2. One of the investors is killed, when he backs out of the plan. This is similar to Goldfinger and Mr Solo, in the stud farm

James?
I think it may be time to go home
take me round the world one more time
Why not!