Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

TLD - Does anyone else think it falls apart in the 3rd act?


74 replies to this topic

#1 Gothamite

Gothamite

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 409 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:18 PM

I just finished watching TLD for the first time in a year or so and I absolutely adored every single second of the entire film up until Bond gets drugged and put on the plane with Kara, headed for the Russian Airbase.

Up until that point, the film is a bloody terrific Cold-War thriller in the old-style. The action is brutal (but not gratuitously violent, like in LTK), Bond is a cold, manipulative (and yet human) killer and the SIS seems like a real intelligence organisation. The pacing is second-to-none and all of the actors (I love the guy who plays Saunders) perform admirably. I even love the Aston Martin chase and it never feels out of place with the rest of the film. The scene where Bond confronts Pushkin has to be one of the top 5 Bond moments ever.

The film just comes to a screeching halt for me when it gets to Afghanistan and plays like a cheap Cannon Chuck Norris film with lots of mindless machine-gunning, up until the plane fight with Necros, after which it dwindles once again. It just got very dull in what was designed to be the most exciting part of the film. Plus, the plot suddenly turned towards diamonds, followed by Opium, all wrapped up in weapons smuggling. It was difficult to keep track of what was going on and I don't think I cared anymore. Does anyone else have similar feelings?

I still really love TLD however and I don't think these misgivings truly take away from an astonishing open. After all, Goldfinger has a fairly flabby third act as well and I love that too.

#2 Satorious

Satorious

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 470 posts

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:31 PM

There are still some great moments, such as battling the jailer in the Afghan airbase, the cargo net fight, blowing up the bridge. They could have done more with the Pushkin fight at the end. But you hit the nail on the head, this is exactly the same point the film begins to drag for me also (well perhaps drag is a bit too strong, but I start to get less interested).

#3 marktmurphy

marktmurphy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 22 October 2012 - 10:33 PM

Nope, it's all good.

But most Bond films do lose a little traction here. Goldfinger's possibly the worst for it: the action moves to the US and it all gets a bit bogged down.

#4 x007AceOfSpades

x007AceOfSpades

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4369 posts
  • Location:Sunny Southern California

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:17 PM

No, not at all. I like it and if anything it keeps me more edgy for what's to come. I loved the Dalton Era just as much as the Connery and Craig Era.

#5 Satorious

Satorious

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 470 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:17 AM

I enjoy them all. But some do get bogged down more than others. I'd argue LTK gets bogged down a bit earlier in the film, around the Isthmus city mark. I mean there are some terrific scenes in this part, but something about it (probably the pacing) is off. I can't quite put my finger on it exactly, but I suspect Professor Joe Butcher might be partly to blame! :)

#6 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 23 October 2012 - 01:20 AM

I agree that there are factors that bring down TLD. However, I think it's the cast. Koskov and Whitaker are among the series' worst villains and Kara Milovy is just a weak and useless Bond girl. Also, Caroline Bliss is easily the worst Moneypenny. I'm positive Moneypenny would've killed herself at the end of a third Dalton film if Moneypenny didn't end up with Bond at the end.

#7 plankattack

plankattack

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1385 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 02:22 AM

I don't think it falls apart - but I do feel that it flags. I feel the airfield sequence and the ten minutes that precede it are devoid of much tension and so what should be the big finish is just something to be got through. But in TLD's defense, this is a problem in far too many of the films. Perhaps it's something to do with the "bumps" formula. The action beats can only be surrounded by lulls and too often in Bond films, the climactic action sequence is not the best one of the film (CR, TWINE, TND, OP. FYEO just some examples from the last ten or so in the franchise). Films that build to a crescendo are in the minority in the series, and TLD I feel is no exception to that. On the other hand, LTK does a much better job; I think the action sequences are more even, with the climactic truck chase the best one of the lot. For me, LTK gets more exciting as it nears its climax.

Of course it helps that the PTS sucks and Sanchez's escape playing like a sequence from the A-Team (the TV series, of course!)......

#8 Satorious

Satorious

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 470 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:58 AM

I agree. LTK has for me perhaps the most satisfying climax in the series as it builds up to it (but as I say I feel it gets bogged down in the middle). I also agree with the "bumps" formula and the probelm where the climatic action lackluster to what has happened earlier. Perhaps the worst offender for this (for me) is TWINE, it just can't top it's excellent pre-title sequence.

#9 Henry-Jones-Sr

Henry-Jones-Sr

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 173 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:40 AM

You're right about it picking up for the finale, Gothamite. Astonishing stunt work, the like of which we simply don't see anymore.

And that's what makes the Bond movies so amazing for me. I mean, look at Octopussy. That film features a scene in which two stuntmen have a fist fight while standing on top of a private jet while it's in flight!

Incredible.

Anyway, I love The Living Daylights, despite the Afghanistan section being a bit on the boring side. It defined the summer of '87 for this 11 year old!

#10 IcedCamaro

IcedCamaro

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 60 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:06 PM

I think saying it “falls apart” may be a bit too harsh. I agree that the third act drags just a little bit, but even “drags” might be too strong a term. I think the two less interesting bits for me are the ones at the airbase with all the shooting and the lack of background music. It is a little long and with Bond stuck in the plane, I kind of miss Dalton. But really, the movie makes up for it with that fantastic cargo net sequence. I remember watching it the first time around and wondering to myself how in the world they had managed to shoot it and make it look so realistic. It blew my mind and the tension for me at that point was at an all time high. It helps that Necros is such a fantastic henchman as well.

Perhaps my least favorite bit is the confrontation with Whitaker. There is just something about that sequence that lacks a bit of luster for me. Maybe it’s just the dark lighting of the scene, it’s not a bad scene I just don’t enjoy it as much as the others.

All this aside, I simply LOVE TLD. It’s like a fine wine for me, gets even better with age and subsequent viewings.

Edited by IcedCamaro, 23 October 2012 - 04:10 PM.


#11 Iceskater101

Iceskater101

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2398 posts
  • Location:Midwest, MN

Posted 23 October 2012 - 04:33 PM

I haven't watched this movie in such a long time, I will rewatch it sometime and let you know what I think.

#12 AMC Hornet

AMC Hornet

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5857 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

Just because TLD changes direction for the third act doesn't mean it "falls apart." Psycho changes direction from crime drama to slasher film, Predator changes direction from rescue mission to monster hunt - do these shifts mean that the films "fell apart"? No - that was the intention all along.

After everything that's been going on - defections, kidnapping, arms dealing, assassination attempts - Necros announces that Puskin is dead and Whittiker says "I'll signal Amsterdam to ship the diamonds."

That pricked up my ears. Now what?

Then Bond is captured and wakes up en route to Afghanistan.

Now what? Do you prefer your Bond movies identical (and therefore predictable) in structure and pace? Not me.

There is that one slow moment as Bond and Kara (one of my all-time favorite Bond Girls) ride with the Mujahadin after escaping from the air base, then it's back to intrigue and action. Very satisfying. Bond was truly back, after an absence of at least four years.

As for LTK and its "satisying" climactic truck chase - I'd already seen The Road Warrior and AVTAK. If there had to be a truck chase, let it come before blowing up the lab (with more than just a few fire-pots, thank you). But, what's done is done. LTK is the one everyone unfairly compares to Miami Vice, while I compare it to Othello, Mission Impossible, Scarface and Smokey and the Bandit 2. Fortunately, LTK's truck chase was better.

#13 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:32 PM

Disagree with the OP's comments. TLD is a deadweight for the first hour and 40 minutes. Only comes to life in the final half-hour. Spectacular Afghan air base finale. There's an awfully similar sequence in that Roger Moore Richard Burton film "The Wild Geese". John Glen was that film's 2nd unit director.

#14 Miles Miservy

Miles Miservy

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Location:CT

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:46 PM

When released in the late 1980's, TLD was timely for the decade. Though Dalton's performance was great and the duality of Krabe's character is definately Fleming-esque, I find the movie difficult to watch now. Given the present climate of the Middle East (Afghanistan in particular), I find it necessary to remind myself that, in the eyes of Afghans, the Russians are not the bad guys anymore. Now it's the United States and her allies.

TND is one of the few movies that, regrettably dates itself (TMWTGG with the 'Energy Crisis' and OCTOPUSSY with "Checkpoint Charlie" are others.) Other films (fashion & automibiles aside) could seemingly be timeless.

#15 glidrose

glidrose

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2469 posts

Posted 24 October 2012 - 12:32 AM

Given the present climate of the Middle East (Afghanistan in particular), I find it necessary to remind myself that, in the eyes of Afghans, the Russians are not the bad guys anymore. Now it's the United States and her allies.


Er, um, no.

#16 seawolfnyy

seawolfnyy

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4763 posts
  • Location:La Rioja

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:50 AM


Given the present climate of the Middle East (Afghanistan in particular), I find it necessary to remind myself that, in the eyes of Afghans, the Russians are not the bad guys anymore. Now it's the United States and her allies.


Er, um, no.


Actually, both sides are right. The mujahideen and the taliban are not the same. However, in the late 1980s Osama bin Laden was actually an ally to the United States and the U.S. did supply arms to the mujahideen and to the taliban to fight the Soviets. That was changed when in 1991 the U.S. set up bases in the middle east for combat operations in the first Gulf War. The agreement was that the U.S. would pull out after the job was finished. However, Bush 1 did not leave the middle east after the war and in turn created an enemy of bin Laden and the taliban. Which in turn, led to the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks and also the present day conflicts. So, as you can see, both sides are right.

Edited by seawolfnyy, 24 October 2012 - 04:51 AM.


#17 Tony_OO_Black

Tony_OO_Black

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 112 posts

Posted 27 October 2012 - 08:35 PM

Definitely agree about it falling apart, I said much the same thing when I reviewed it.

Glen just loses complete control of the plot once Bond/Kara get involved with the Mujahideen, it just becomes one great mess - the fight between Bond/Necros on the plane is the only highlight. The bookending fight with Whitaker is crap too.

#18 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4089 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:42 PM

I agree with Gothamite. The Afghanistan scenes do feel like they're dislocated from the earlier, better conceived part of the film. During the climactic battle, Bond isn't even directly fighting the villains. He's fighting Colonel Feodor, who was just introduced and means nothing to us. He's trying to stop a shipment of opium. What does that have to do with Smiert Shpionam?

But I would argue that the film starts to fall apart before they get to Afghanistan, while they're still in Tangier. As soon as Brad Whitaker shows up, things start unraveling. It's always best to have one strong villain with a single motive, not two weak villains with intersecting motives. It's almost like they were trying for another Octopussy, with a Cold War plot and a duumvirate of villainy. God knows why. As with Octopussy, the result is a chaotic and unsatisfying third act. The climax, instead of proceeding smoothly from the villain's earlier scheming and resulting in his immediate and utter defeat, seems to come together accidentally and very late in the film. It results only in the failure of an irrelevant scheme we just learned about and the death of a couple of henchmen. Both villains remain alive and at large.

After that, Koskov and Whitaker are disposed of in a totally perfunctory manner. "We can just make dinner" is basically the end of the movie. The final Tangier scene is nothing but an epilogue. Whitaker is crushed by a stuffed polar bear or something, but it might as well have been auto-erotic asphyxiation, considering that Bond had less of a hand in it than Whitaker's own bumbling. And Koskov isn't even killed! What the hell is that? He just gets dragged away. And don't tell me that the "diplomatic bag" remark implies his death. We never see him die. If Pushkin is enough of a Russian hardass to have Koskov killed, then he should prove it by producing a gun and shooting him on camera. Anyway, Koskov's ambiguous fate always felt really weird to me. Koskov is the big bad, isn't he? If anyone should get the boot, it's him. Not Necros, not poor old Colonel Feodor, not the giggling fat buffoon who was introduced fifty minutes into the film. Basically, the problem with TLD is that they drowned the meat in the gravy. They got greedy and crammed in so much at the eleventh hour that they left themselves no time to wrap things up properly.

And I can't understand why they crammed so much in, considering the soundness of the basic "fake defector" plot. The film's third-act problems would have vanished if they stripped down the plot: Combine the characters of Georgi Koskov and Brad Whitaker into one character... named Georgi Koskov. Let his scheme be a straightforward plot to assassinate Pushkin and usurp his position. 100% Smiert Shpionam. No caper with diamonds and opium. The film would be much the same until Tangier. Bond would make contact with Pushkin, they would spend some time earning each other's trust and puzzling out Koskov's scheme. Then they would set up a sting together, using KGB and MI6 agents, and that would be the climax. That would leave the film with a strong and unambiguous villain, a bigger role for John Rhys-Davies, a tighter plot, and a more satisfying outcome. (In my opinion.) I've always liked TLD, but I would have liked it even better this way.

#19 Gothamite

Gothamite

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 409 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:20 AM

And I can't understand why they crammed so much in, considering the soundness of the basic "fake defector" plot. The film's third-act problems would have vanished if they stripped down the plot: Combine the characters of Georgi Koskov and Brad Whitaker into one character... named Georgi Koskov. Let his scheme be a straightforward plot to assassinate Pushkin and usurp his position. 100% Smiert Shpionam. No caper with diamonds and opium. The film would be much the same until Tangier. Bond would make contact with Pushkin, they would spend some time earning each other's trust and puzzling out Koskov's scheme. Then they would set up a sting together, using KGB and MI6 agents, and that would be the climax. That would leave the film with a strong and unambiguous villain, a bigger role for John Rhys-Davies, a tighter plot, and a more satisfying outcome. (In my opinion.) I've always liked TLD, but I would have liked it even better this way.


Yes yes yes.

The film worked better as a Cold War thriller. Very little in the third act had anything (really) to do with the Cold War. The fact that there was a Russian airbase in Afghanistan could just as easily have been thrown into Moonraker.

#20 univex

univex

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2310 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 01:57 AM

The fact that TLD falls massively in the 3rd act and that I still think It´s one of the best Bond films (top five even) is testament to the degree of love I have for it. It´s just a brilliantly done Bond film with the best Bond you could get (in 87, that is ;) )

#21 Belmont

Belmont

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 33 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 05:55 AM

The fact that TLD falls massively in the 3rd act and that I still think It´s one of the best Bond films (top five even) is testament to the degree of love I have for it. It´s just a brilliantly done Bond film with the best Bond you could get (in 87, that is ;) )


That's exactly how I feel about it. I've always felt that the 3rd act is distinctly less interesting than everything that precedes it, but even so, the film is so strong up to that point that I can't help but love the whole thing.

On the plus side, I've always felt that John Barry's score really blossoms during the Afghanistan sequences, particularly during the "sunrise and silhouettes" scene.

Edited by Belmont, 28 October 2012 - 05:59 AM.


#22 IcedCamaro

IcedCamaro

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 60 posts

Posted 28 October 2012 - 01:54 PM

Oh absolutely, the Barry score during Afghanistan is simply beautiful (I've got this soundtrack and everytime I listen to that track it gives me goosebumps). TLD benefits much from it.

#23 George Kaplan

George Kaplan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 118 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:34 PM

I watched TLD for the first time in full since I saw it in the theaters and definitely felt my interest ebb during the Afghanistan sequence (I actually can't remember what I thought of it at the time - I mostly just remember liking the film generally but nothing specific about this sequence).

Not saying they should have excised it, but it could have used a bit more punch; as it is it feels like the exposition it is (as we finally really get an idea of "what its all about" at the expense of the exciting stuff until the very end, getting back on the plane stuff).

#24 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 09:07 PM

I just finished watching TLD for the first time in a year or so and I absolutely adored every single second of the entire film up until Bond gets drugged and put on the plane with Kara, headed for the Russian Airbase.

Up until that point, the film is a bloody terrific Cold-War thriller in the old-style. The action is brutal (but not gratuitously violent, like in LTK), Bond is a cold, manipulative (and yet human) killer and the SIS seems like a real intelligence organisation. The pacing is second-to-none and all of the actors (I love the guy who plays Saunders) perform admirably. I even love the Aston Martin chase and it never feels out of place with the rest of the film. The scene where Bond confronts Pushkin has to be one of the top 5 Bond moments ever.

The film just comes to a screeching halt for me when it gets to Afghanistan and plays like a cheap Cannon Chuck Norris film with lots of mindless machine-gunning, up until the plane fight with Necros, after which it dwindles once again. It just got very dull in what was designed to be the most exciting part of the film. Plus, the plot suddenly turned towards diamonds, followed by Opium, all wrapped up in weapons smuggling. It was difficult to keep track of what was going on and I don't think I cared anymore. Does anyone else have similar feelings?

I still really love TLD however and I don't think these misgivings truly take away from an astonishing open. After all, Goldfinger has a fairly flabby third act as well and I love that too.



Hmmmm . . . I disagree.

#25 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:02 PM

But I would argue that the film starts to fall apart before they get to Afghanistan, while they're still in Tangier. As soon as Brad Whitaker shows up, things start unraveling. It's always best to have one strong villain with a single motive, not two weak villains with intersecting motives.


Exactly! LTK has an advantage on TLD in that department. It's extremely important for the Bond movies to have a strong antagonist--since the Bond films are not strong on structure, they have to rise toward a climactic confrontation with a strong opponent whom we love to hate. That gives the film shape and an emotional charge. I was about to say that TLD suffered from the same villain problem as Octopussy, but then you continued with...

It's almost like they were trying for another Octopussy, with a Cold War plot and a duumvirate of villainy. God knows why.


Once again, exactly. And what Octopussy was trying for was another From Russia With Love. But in FRWL, Blofeld, Grant and Klebb are equally compelling monsters within a strict hierarchy, and when the film's plot deepened, it didn't make a sudden fork the way that TLD does. In the latter the arms smuggling, diamond/opium smuggling, and death-to-spies plotlines tend to obscure each other and cancel each other out, instead of creating a situation of rising alarm where you feel the villain must be stopped at all costs.

And I actually like parts of Afghanistan sequence--I love the shots of shrouded men on horseback riding out of the desert, just as I love the balls-out fight on the open door of the cargo plane. After all that, the next sequence in Tangier is a let-down. They could have kept the bits of the Afghan part but consolidated the plot.

I can't understand why they crammed so much in, considering the soundness of the basic "fake defector" plot. The film's third-act problems would have vanished if they stripped down the plot: Combine the characters of Georgi Koskov and Brad Whitaker into one character... named Georgi Koskov.


For the third time...exactly!

#26 DR76

DR76

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1673 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:31 PM

Ah . . . now it's time for TLD to receive a lot of bashing. I wonder how long this is going to last.

#27 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:53 PM

What bashing? There's just discussion of the movie's flaws from people who otherwise like the film.

#28 Gothamite

Gothamite

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 409 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 09 November 2012 - 01:31 AM

Ah . . . now it's time for TLD to receive a lot of bashing. I wonder how long this is going to last.


???

What bashing? There's just discussion of the movie's flaws from people who otherwise like the film.


This.

Outside of forums like these I do nothing but sing the praises of Timothy Dalton's efforts to the uncultured Brosnan-or-gtfo pod-people of my Generation X(enia Onatopp).

Edited by Gothamite, 09 November 2012 - 01:31 AM.


#29 George Kaplan

George Kaplan

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 118 posts

Posted 09 November 2012 - 12:57 PM

Yeah I quite like TLD (and LTK but that's another thread). I just think the Afghanastan sequence could have had more punch (or less time devoted to it). The action set pieces during the sequence are quite good and the movie IMO is a good one.

#30 Pussfeller

Pussfeller

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4089 posts
  • Location:Washington, D.C.

Posted 09 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

Ah . . . now it's time for TLD to receive a lot of bashing. I wonder how long this is going to last.


If you aren't careful, you'll wag your finger clean off.