What's with the LTK Hate?
#1
Posted 17 September 2011 - 04:54 PM
#2
Posted 17 September 2011 - 05:30 PM
Though I thought TLD was realistic...apart from the gadget-laden Aston Martin (but hey it's Bond!)
#3
Posted 17 September 2011 - 05:32 PM
#4
Posted 17 September 2011 - 06:38 PM
It seems to me that this movie is extremely underrated. It's very different from the past movies, sure. But it is certainly much more realistic. I think if they had made TLD more "realistic" like LTK, then it would have had a better reception.
But TLD had a better reception than LTK.
#5
Posted 17 September 2011 - 06:41 PM
As I'm back home now (had a rather lovely trip), I decided to settle down and watch:
Licence To Kill
As Moonraker has always been my favorite Moore film, LTK has always been my favorite Dalton film. Yes, I love going against the grain don't I
What's apparent while watching the film, is that it plays much more seriously than any Bond film before it (even Daylights, and Eyes Only, which also took a more serious approach). I feel it's this approach to the film that put many people off. Not to mention the competition it was up against.
But that's for another discussion. Roger Ebert once put forth that Licence to Kill has finally turned Bond into an action hero rather than merely a British Icon. And perhaps he's right, but I'd argue that it was John Glen and the growing trends in the 80's that turned Bond into even more of an action film/hero than he had been before. This trend of course would be even more apparent with Brosnan's first film, but again, I'm not that far yet
I'd be hard pressed to find bits that don't work in this film, becuase I just enjoy it so much. But there are a few, Caroline Bliss pops up for a few moments merely because the (rather outdated at this point) formula says Moneypenny needs to be in the film. The fact that the producers didn't try to shoehorn in a scene that allowed Bond to flirt with her is a testament to how willing they were to go off the beaten path in order to deliver something original. Of course others would say it wasn't different enough, that it adheres to closely to the Bond formula. These are people that have had years to look at and examine the film.
While I didn't see this film when it first came out, I did see it when it was still the newest Bond film (well before Brosnan was announced) and to me it was am exciting film primarily because it didn't feel like any Bond film I had seen before. And also at the time, I figured it was the last Bond film ever (silly me) and thus they went all out to outdo what came before.
#6
Posted 17 September 2011 - 09:20 PM
It seems to me that this movie is extremely underrated. It's very different from the past movies, sure. But it is certainly much more realistic.
What's with this obsession with "realism?"
#7
Posted 17 September 2011 - 10:22 PM
It seems to me that this movie is extremely underrated. It's very different from the past movies, sure. But it is certainly much more realistic.
What's with this obsession with "realism?"
Guess it's a generational thing?
#8
Posted 17 September 2011 - 11:21 PM
I think the problem with LTK, if it was a problem, was that the existing Bond team tried too hard to make a "tough" Bond film, whilst trying to retain the Bond fans who had been brought up on the 70s films. On the one hand you have the leading lady exclaim "bull" at one point - I don't think it has happened since. And the various, and inventive, deaths of certain characters in the film. On the other we have dear old "Q" and his gadgets in a much larger role than usual. A point of reassurance - this might seem like Miami Vice or the Scarface remake, but really it's still the Bond you know and love.
Either TLD or LTK should have been the point when new blood was introduced to the Bond production team.
#9
Posted 17 September 2011 - 11:42 PM
...this might seem like Miami Vice or the Scarface remake...
That's precisely the problem I have with it.
Not that I regard LTK as an attempt to remake or compete with said film or series, but I never cared for either of them and I didn't think theirs was the right genre in which to try to insert 007.
In other words, I found LTK just too damn nasty, at odds with the elements which we watch Bond films for. Sleazy cocaine kingpins like Sanchez are too realistic for Bond to oppose. True, it was interesting to see how Bond handled such villains, and it was great to see previously unused elements from Fleming's work brought to the screen, but I found LTK hard to enjoy - it was more of an endurance test than entertainment (IMO).
In short, if 007 isn't enjoying what he's doing, how can we the audience enjoy watching? I believe QoS suffers from the same flaw.
From a technical standpoint, however, the film is very well put-together. It's just too bad it had to be Bond in the middle of it all (Chuck Norris made a similar (and naturally inferior) film - Delta Force 2: Operation Stranglehold - only a year later).
#10
Posted 18 September 2011 - 12:08 AM
#11
Posted 18 September 2011 - 12:25 AM
#12
Posted 18 September 2011 - 06:33 AM
If Ian Fleming had been around in the 1980s, in his prime, would he have pitted the literary Bond against the cocaine cartels? I suspect he might have, although being Fleming his drug barons might have had a certain "style" about them. Franz Sanchez minus the kitsch. Or maybe not - Fleming prided himself on his research, and might have found that the drug lords were every bit as tacky as they were vicious.
...this might seem like Miami Vice or the Scarface remake...
That's precisely the problem I have with it.
Not that I regard LTK as an attempt to remake or compete with said film or series, but I never cared for either of them and I didn't think theirs was the right genre in which to try to insert 007.
In other words, I found LTK just too damn nasty, at odds with the elements which we watch Bond films for. Sleazy cocaine kingpins like Sanchez are too realistic for Bond to oppose. True, it was interesting to see how Bond handled such villains, and it was great to see previously unused elements from Fleming's work brought to the screen, but I found LTK hard to enjoy - it was more of an endurance test than entertainment (IMO).
In short, if 007 isn't enjoying what he's doing, how can we the audience enjoy watching? I believe QoS suffers from the same flaw.
From a technical standpoint, however, the film is very well put-together. It's just too bad it had to be Bond in the middle of it all (Chuck Norris made a similar (and naturally inferior) film - Delta Force 2: Operation Stranglehold - only a year later).
Which might have turned him off the whole idea altogether!
We'll never know, of course. But by 1988/89, the Cold War was drawing to a close, and Bond had to have someone to take on, and at the time the drug lords were the media's villains of choice. They are still around, of course, and much worse - the Mexican cartels, by all accounts, would make the likes of Sanchez seem like wimps. But now there are other dangerous types around the world for 007 to oppose besides cocaine cartels. Dangerous types with access to weapons of mass destruction, and a willingness to use them. In other words, the type of villains one might assume would be opposed by Bond.
#13
Posted 18 September 2011 - 10:49 AM
#14
Posted 18 September 2011 - 01:32 PM
And I did enjoy it but did not love it. I tried again when it was released on VHS - but I still did not really got into it. I went back to it with the DVD... and appreciated it a bit more... and more... and more... but I still have the feeling that something just did not really click with this film. That´s highly subjective, I know. Maybe I should give it another look again. It certainly is one of my least watched Bonds. But it nevertheless entertains me very well. And I do enjoy Dalton.
#15
Posted 18 September 2011 - 01:46 PM
I remember when I saw it in the theaters in 1989, I enjoyed it a good bit.
Since then, for me, it hasn't aged as well. It's very much a product of its time (the same could be said of some of the Moore films of the '70s.). Cocaine kingpins were the villains of choice then. Also, looking back, it lacks the sweeping scope of other Bonds. The money simply doesn't show up on the screen, and the movie looks like it was a little more cheaply made than others of the summer of '89 ("Batman", "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade").
Also, the general plotline is pretty much a standard of 1980s cop/actioners.
Cop A and his partner/ex-partner, Cop B, get the criminal they've been trying to get. The criminal uses his influence to get out and either kills or maims the partner. Cop A goes rogue, goes undercover in the criminal's organization, and gets his revenge.
For example, this was general plot of William Friedkin's 1985 film "To Live and Die in L.A.," which had a "Miami Vice" look, only on the West Coast.
Now, place Bond as Cop A, Leiter as the partner/Cop B, and Sanchez as the criminal, and you have the general outline of the "Licence to Kill" plot. It's not a bad plot, but it's been done a million times.
I can't get too down on the movie though, because of Dalton's very strong performance, plus the underwater-to-plane chase/fight and the absolutely great tanker truck chase at the end. Now that I think about that tanker truck chase is probably where most of the money went, since it had to be a logistic nightmare to stage and set up.
I still enjoy "Licence to Kill," but just not as much as I did in 1989. Just one guy's thoughts.
#16
Posted 18 September 2011 - 02:44 PM
On reflection, the timing of the release of LTK in Europe and the UK couldn't have been worse, because it was right up against Batman 1, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indiana Jones 3. A new Batman film, a sequel to a film which did well a couple of years ago, and an Indiana Jones flick which featured the original Bond as a co-star. For whatever reasons, did audiences plump for the bat, the mad cop, and the man in the hat because LTK was "just another Bond film" in a summer when they were spoilt for choice? One hopes not.I could imagine that my slight disappointment with LTK had a lot to do with TLD which was just more traditional movie Bond, featuring more exotic locations, having Bond more light-hearted and fun. LTK suffered mostly from bad timing. I still remember when I saw it on the big screen, in the summer of BATMAN, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE and LETHAL WEAPON 2. The audience consisted mostly of dads and children who grew up on Bond... and were getting tired of it. I must admit, I also went to see LTK due to tradition and nostalgia (back then I was 20) instead of a MUST SEE-need.
And I did enjoy it but did not love it. I tried again when it was released on VHS - but I still did not really got into it. I went back to it with the DVD... and appreciated it a bit more... and more... and more... but I still have the feeling that something just did not really click with this film. That´s highly subjective, I know. Maybe I should give it another look again. It certainly is one of my least watched Bonds. But it nevertheless entertains me very well. And I do enjoy Dalton.
Interestingly, we have not had a summer release of a Bond film since. Were the film producers spooked by this, I wonder?
#17
Posted 18 September 2011 - 02:51 PM
LTK was my favourite Bond film for years. I first saw it when I was 12. That's the perfect age for it really; it feels downright transgressive to someone that age, but it's actually pretty tame, and isn't going to warp any young minds.
As the years go by I find its virtues more and more questionable, but it will always have a place in my (bloody) heart
#18
Posted 18 September 2011 - 04:12 PM
#19
Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:03 PM
I liked LTK. It looks like a TV movie of the week, but I really loved it as a kid.
I agree with this. My problem with LTK don't have to do with the story line or casting, it is the production values. It looks flat. The editing is poor, the production looks much cheaper than past Bond films and it is over lit. With the exception of a few great action scenes, it looks like a made for TV movie.
#20
Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:31 PM
This is my feeling too, the film has a curious cheapness to it, I love the concept and think Dalton is tremendous - he plays Bond writ large, the script is clever but the execution is lacking somehow. I think guyHaines is right when he suggests the production team weren't fully on the same page as Dalton or the script needed.
I liked LTK. It looks like a TV movie of the week, but I really loved it as a kid.
I agree with this. My problem with LTK don't have to do with the story line or casting, it is the production values. It looks flat. The editing is poor, the production looks much cheaper than past Bond films and it is over lit. With the exception of a few great action scenes, it looks like a made for TV movie.
#21
Posted 18 September 2011 - 07:52 PM
It's a bit harsh, but I tend to agree with this. That's what I thing doesn't "click" with LTK. The plot, locations and cast are ok; it's just that it seems, at times, a bit lazyly edited with a poor production value, not up to Bond standards. I do enjoy it, though, since the pace is good, the lines are good, and, most of all, the actor is superb. But on the whole it lacks a bit of the "Bond touch". In the end, it's an odd product: bondian on many aspects, but a trifle flat overall.
I liked LTK. It looks like a TV movie of the week, but I really loved it as a kid.
I agree with this. My problem with LTK don't have to do with the story line or casting, it is the production values. It looks flat. The editing is poor, the production looks much cheaper than past Bond films and it is over lit. With the exception of a few great action scenes, it looks like a made for TV movie.
#22
Posted 18 September 2011 - 08:56 PM
Still, for all its flaws, I'd much rather watch this one than any of the Bond films that have come along since.
#23
Posted 19 September 2011 - 12:10 AM
#24
Posted 19 September 2011 - 12:44 AM
#25
Posted 19 September 2011 - 05:48 AM
On the opposite end is Licence to Kill. Ranked number 20 out of 22 films. Right in front of DAF & AVTAK & right behind QoS. It's not near as bad as (the worst film in the series...by far) DAF or as hard to watch as (an aging Moore and airhead-blonde) AVTAK.
However, it just feels like a generic 80s action film to me...and cheap too. It doesn't really feel like Bond to me. The plot is completely un-original and probably over-done at that point in time and the only action sequence that stand out to me at all is the ending "tanker" chase (which to be honest wasn't that spectacular anyway).
Talisa Soto is stunning and I thought Robert Davi was a great villain. It's a real shame Benicio del Toro wasn't used more. I think Carey Lowell's character is very annoying though. She's like a lost puppy...a stage-5 "clinger."
Edited by 00 Brosnan, 19 September 2011 - 05:54 AM.
#26
Posted 02 December 2011 - 11:35 AM
obviously my taste in films shows a similar pattern in terms of favourites as they are all relatively serious in nature (TB may be an exception)
FRWL
TB
OHMSS
LTK
CR
LTK top notch.
#27
Posted 02 December 2011 - 01:59 PM
It seems to me that this movie is extremely underrated. It's very different from the past movies, sure. But it is certainly much more realistic. I think if they had made TLD more "realistic" like LTK, then it would have had a better reception.
The only problem I have with "License", is the lack of imagination the writers took in Sanchez's drug operation. I mean, I get the whole "Hide the Coke in the Gasoline" thing. But you'd think that a set up that cost, what was it, $32 million, would be more elaborate than a guy w/just a lab coat & a beaker, no?
However, it just feels like a generic 80s action film to me...and cheap too. It doesn't really feel like Bond to me. The plot is completely un-original and probably over-done at that point in time and the only action sequence that stand out to me at all is the ending "tanker" chase (which to be honest wasn't that spectacular anyway).
I did not realize until later on, that the entire shoot out sequence at Krest's warehouse was lifted, literally chapter and verse, from Fleming's Live & Let Die.
#28
Posted 02 December 2011 - 03:09 PM
#29
Posted 02 December 2011 - 04:39 PM
#30
Posted 02 December 2011 - 10:58 PM
I definetely don't agree!It seems to me that this movie is extremely underrated. It's very different from the past movies, sure. But it is certainly much more realistic. I think if they had made TLD more "realistic" like LTK, then it would have had a better reception.
Why realistic (even if you consider the gorish scens from this movies as that) has to be an automatic synonym of something good, specially in the Bond world? . I think LTK- with its eighties Miami Vice vibe- is the tackiest movie in the whole Bond canon.