20 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

The above statement is probably not a revelation to most Bond fans.

But today, over numerous slices of pizza and a jug of Fanta (yes there was Chocolate Mousse but that came later ), Freemo and I discussed the seriousness of James Bond.

And Freemo said something which really rang true. Licence to Kill failed as a Bond film because it was to serious. But more importantly, because it was too real.

At the time we'd been discussing the reality of Bond. I have a firm belief that Bond doesn't exist in our world, but a world that is just a step away. Life is more fun, women are more beautiful, so is the world. There are no slums. It's a world of intrigue.

Yet Licence to Kill holds none of this. We have a villain who in real life does exist. They live in the countries we live in. Drugs lords may not own casinos in the UK or the US, but they're just as wealthy and just as powerful.

Licence to Kill is too much like the world we live in. There was no real escape for the audience. Hence, the film suffers.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes
And Freemo said something which really rang true. Licence To Kill failed as a Bond film because it was to serious. But more importantly, because it was too real....

...Licence To Kill is too much like the world we live in. There was no real escape for the audience. Hence, the film suffers.

Completely correct, and it's interesting that Bond loses his licence to kill to travel in this "normal world."

Thank God he got his licence back!

[rafterman]

interesting, but I find many of the Bond bad guys to be much more plausible in this day and age, maybe they don't quite exist, but they could....look at Renard, he's just a terrorist and we've got plenty of them...

[General Koskov]

Well, being a firm supporter of Licence to Kill, I can't see how it is 'too realistic'. And before anyone takes the 'too violent' viewpoint, I'd like to remind them that violence is not misplaced in Bond films, and seeing the model of Col Heller stuck on a forklift doesn't frighten me at all--conversly, Bond shooting a man with a speargun is most delightful to the same booers of Licence to Kill, and this is more frightening.

Call me naive, but I've always found the villains (in the good films) to be plausible. Especially the ones that are considered 'lame'. Hence, my name is an homage to the 'lame Bond villain'.

Take Blofeld, for instance, is it inconcieveable that a man runs a private spy agency/criminal organisation and shaves his head, too? No, these sorts of spies exist, as do biological warfare (even the kind found in perfume bottles), and atomic bombs just itching to be stolen.

SMERSH was a real organisation, and it is not even dead yet, merely merged in to Department 5 in the KGB, and it doesn't murder quite so much.

And frankly, if no one robs Ft Knox in a while, I will. Why not? Is it unrealistic to think that there are bank robbers out there?


But I digress, these realistic plots were executed with some fantasy to make a good read. Otherwise we'd have twenty chapters about gold, and one chapter about the US Marines at Ft Knox machinegunning Goldfinger and that'd be the end.

Thunderball had the idylic location that was so perfect for an extortion plot to work against. On Her Majesty’s Secret Service had Blofeld giving away himself to Swiss solicitors and English heralds while planning to keep his Virus Omega a secret.

And Licence to Kill had an American research yacht smuggle cocaine and Sanchez adverstised his whole coke operation on TV from the Mexican desert. Sanchez was also the Scaramanga of the films: he was attracted to Bond (and wore a pink shirt--homage perhaps?).

So none of the films are completely realistic, but some go for the simple plots and then they're bashed as being too 'dramatic', or too 'realistic'. So I'll keep watching Licence to Kill and The World is not Enough with the same appreciation and when someone just can't get their mind around liking Licence to Kill, I'll ask them, Don't you want to know why?

[MicroGlobe One]

I agree, for the most part, with General Koskov and, while I certainly understand the point which is being put across and it does make some degree of sense, I couldn't agree less with the premise behind this thread.

In my humble opinion, License to Kill is among the strongest and most solid of all the Bond films. Part of this comes from its hard edged realism. Few would argue, I hope, that From Russia With Love is a more powerful and worthwhile entry than, say, Diamonds Are Forever. While I enjoy Bondian humor and the geek side of me undeniably derives pleasure from some of the outrageous elements in the traditional 007 formula, I am a Bond fan that craves realistic and serious spy stories. When I sit down to watch a Bond film, or when I pick up a Bond novel, I'm seriously hoping that this latest adventure will be set in the quote-unquote real world.

Bond is at his best when depicted as a strong, serious human character striving against realistic challenges in a believable world. Secret agent thrillers are at their most thrilling when the science, settings, and particularly politics involved are in keeping with what is true to life. That is, at least, how this particular Bond fanatic feels.

I favor License to Kill for the very reasons you reject it.

[General Koskov]

Originally posted by Blofeld's Cat

Completely correct, and it's interesting that Bond loses his licence to kill to travel in this "normal world."

Thank God he got his licence back!

This sounds like a subtext for...Zencat!

Here's my interpretation of that subtext: Bond holds a licence to kill on Earth, but he has to maintain the balance between good and evil (yes, I watched Little Nicky the other day, but I swear this comes from CR) or else he'll go to hell. If he doesn't go to hell, he'll go to heaven when he dies. But then again, James Bond doesn't die.

I assume Felix Leiter has the same scenario, but his angels have betrayed him and sent him to, let's say, Pergatory (the Florida hospital) via one of the Devil's disciples. James Bond is angry and has to follow the disciple (Sanchez) to hell so he can release Leiter from pergatory.

Hell for Bond is the slums and non-landmark'd cities of the world, AKA: Isthmus City. Bond is used to fancy this and fancy that, and even in hell, he stays in the nicest hotel. In the assassination attempt on Sanchez, Bond is destroying the balance of good and evil (with too much good), and then it is up to the angels to get him out of hell before he ruins everything.

Of course they fail, and Bond is now in Pergatory with the disciple. His fear of accide (boredom) makes him leave and re-enter hell in the form of the temple where the coke is processed. The coke is being sent to Earth, and it upsets the balance, so Bond realises he must stop it. When Bond does stop the disciple's operation, then Leiter is out of Pergatory, and Bond is back on Earth. But the sight of the President reminds us that hell is still there, Isthmus is still a slum, and Bond has only gotten back his licence to kill--his get out of hell free card.

[mrmoon]

I'm totally in agreement with Dan and Freemo. Dalton once made an interesting comment about Bond saying that 'he isn't a super-man'.

Well 15/16 movies down the line, having saved the hopes of the world numerous times, infiltrated the worlds most powerful criminal organisation, having skiied off and scaled a shear rock face, fought it out on the roof of a moving train, driven a lotus underwater, flown an American space shuttle then nipped in the back for a bit of a 'how's your father', driven a tank through the streets of st.petersnburg, etc etc. How can Dalton possibly think audiences will accept the fleming Bond as a cinematic incarnation. It is his will to incorporate a fleming-esque style to his performane and the movies that create this too-realistic style.

As hardcore fans we must accept that most of the cinema going public don't have a clue who fleming is, even though his name appears everytime they watch a Bond. Therefore I think its perfectly true that LTK was too realistic for people. Bond can't and shouldn't be set entirely in the 'real' world it doesn't work. That's what other films do, Bond is the exception, if you went to see a Bond movie and Blofeld was working out of a hut in the bottom of his garden you'd be gutted.

I think as fans we should consider what we really want from a Bond movie, and what is realistically possible for us to have. I personally want larger than life villains, plots for world domination, fantastic vehicles with the most enthralling gadgets.

All that said I love LTK, because I am a fan, and because it adds a break to the consitent formula if you like.

However is it not "that world" a little different from ours that has established Bond as he is today. And therefore is it not a little selfish for fans to complain about a lack of realism in the movies. I find many people clinging to the need for the Bond of the novels to leap onto the silver screen, unfortunately it wouldn'ty work, and LTK proved a small portion of that.

I think a balance has been reached with Brosnan, and I feel (and hope) DAD will provide a movie that has a mix relevant to the times.

[Simon]

All of the above is very well laid out and I mean no offence by this, but I believe the point has been lost somewhat as to why the film was not as appreciated then as the current batch.

LTK was serious yes, but when compared to Brosnan's output, and in particular TWINE, is no more or less serious than these. (And Davi's villain is much more menacing than Carlyle's.) If LTK was released today with Brosnan, I could almost guarantee that it would be well received. Dalton was unfortunate in that he was too earnest in that film (but no more earnest than Brosnan in TWINE) and that the preceding films were Moore's jokery and lightheartedness.

The transition to this level of seriousness may have been too sudden, but we are right at this level now with Brosnan. Brosnan, with his serious take, has benefitted by having a period of several years for cinema goers to forget the Moore heritage. It is for this reason, while not actually deriving much enjoyment from this film at the time, that it has weathered better than most and is more easily viewed time and time again.

[Blue Eyes]

Some excellent posts made, very happy about the level of discussion in here

I'll post a few more thoughts but first I'd like to say this, I do personally like Licence to Kill as a Bond film. I'm just discussing one of the reasons it is less-regarded and failed (to an extent) at the box-office with the general audience. Personally, as suggested, I don't reject the film at all. It's in my collection and I watch it frequently and appreciate it.

Originally posted by General Koskov
Take Blofeld, for instance, is it inconcieveable that a man runs a private spy agency/criminal organisation and shaves his head, too?  No, these sorts of spies exist, as do biological warfare (even the kind found in perfume bottles), and atomic bombs just itching to be stolen.  

And Licence To Kill had an American research yacht smuggle cocaine and Sanchez adverstised his whole coke operation on TV from the Mexican desert.  Sanchez was also the Scaramanga of the films: he was attracted to Bond (and wore a pink shirt--homage perhaps?).

All correct. Blofeld is conceivable. It depends on how you want to use the word realistic.

But how many men with scars down their face, living in volcanoes and who steal nuclear weapons have you met in your time? I'll answer that for you, none. But how many drug dealers have you met? Plenty I'm sure. I went to school with some! And I read about them in the papers. These people really exist in Columbia and such places.

The fact is, the audience know that people like this exist. It's not the possibility that a Blofeld exists but the reality that a Sanchez exists.

Someone else mentioned Renard from The World is not Enough. Yes terrorists do exist. But I doubt that many of them have a bullet moving through their medula-ongblongata! The audience like Renard because he's not just a terrorist, he's a terroist who is impervious to pain. It makes him interesting.

Sanchez is a normal guy who loses his temper over his lover (honestly, would are we to believe that a man as hard as Sanchez would? Surely Lupe would just to be a sextoy?) and has no real interesting qualities. Yes he has a big HQ that is a monastry of sorts, but that just makes him a smartass, not interesting.

Blofelds Cat's suggestion of subtext was interesting. Yes, Bond comes to reality without his Licence To Kill. Excellent point!

[Jim]

Having read through all these posts whilst recuperating (yet again); I'd like to join in but can't because there seems to be some residual fondness for a film I've always considered utterly beneath contempt. I can only disagree with the title; it isn't too serious.

It's laughable.

[rafterman]

it's not necessarily about realistic or not, since most Bond bad guys are plausible, but in LTK we are lacking an element of the bizarre with Robert Davi's Sanchez, there is no oddity there, no weirdness....no metal hands, metal teeth or bullet in the brain....a Bond villain is believable to a point with an added Fleming oddity to him, except this one...he is completely grounded in reality....now make Renard a member of Al-Qaida and put a turbin on his head and not a bullet in it and we'd be talking how he was too realistic....I'm betting the very realistic Zao will have the element of the bizarre to elevate him into the world of Bond...

[General Koskov]

I understand that the particulars of Blofeld and Renard are nonexistent in real-life, yet Sanchez' are. However I dislike how we can assume Bond films to be what some expect them to be. Bond films are not responsible government that listens to the people and gives what they expect (yet they should give some of what the people want), they are whatever the Broccolis want them to be. In 1989 they wanted Bond to be about a different kind of criminal. The trouble is that in many of the years before, Bond films had built themselves up to be based largely on fantasy. Of course one cannot sustain fantasy and still deliver true--or even pseudo---spy films because that's not what makes up the genre.

But Bond films also have a certain style to them, something that says subliminally to the viewer, This is a James Bond film, not just any spy film, not just any action film. This is the feeling that is consistent throughout the films--even Licence to Kill. And it is that style that makes it Bond, not outlandish villains, and not outlandish plots. Now, a villain does not have to be just Brad Whittaker to be non-outlandish, Blofeld, Goldfinger, and Renard are just as real, and even Hugo Drax, in the out-of-this-world Moonraker was very real.

Anyway, Moonraker was one choice of Bond film that capitalised on the globe-trotting and action part of Bond, rather than the elusive villains and suspense of nuclear war set in a ten-mile area like in Thunderball. But Moonraker proves my point: Bond can be as realistic as possible, and still Bond. He also can be as outlandish as possible, and still Bond. Licence to Kill, in my opionion, was not too serious, because it still capitalised on stunt after stunt, such as the interminable petrol-tanker chase, and the harpoon-ski thing after much underwater fighting.

And it must be said, even if only to gain me points in the SPCRM, that the Moore era started the 'serious Bond' up again. Even with it's mini-aeroplane flying, car-on-railway-riding stunts, Octopussy was still a dead-serious plot about a Rossiyan* general who wanted to take over Europe. And also, what made Zorin so scary? He was a psychopath, but there was nothing physical about it. Sanchez had relationship problems probably due to his partially out-of-the-closet homosexuality--he didn't want a woman out of his life because perhpas he didn't want to think of his homosexual side...?

So there goes my sanity in trying to save Licence to Kill.


*I've tired of Anglicisations, so I'll try to use the countries' own language.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by General Koskov
However I dislike how we can assume Bond films to be what some expect them to be.  Bond films are not responsible government that listens to the people and gives what they expect (yet they should give some of what the people want), they are whatever the Broccolis want them to be.

The Bond films could never be whatever the Broccoloi's want them to be, simply because of the audience factor. If the Broccoli's make a load of trollop for a film, not saying that Licence to Kill is, but the audience are going to vote with their feat (or bums in this case). Look at On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, they varied from the formula and the audiences expectations (girl at end and Connery) and the box office results reflected it. After so many films you can push the limits and change the format a bit, but people still expect the same Bond. Even if it doesn't follow the formula to a T.

But Bond films also have a certain style to them, something that says subliminally to the viewer, This is a James Bond film, not just any spy film, not just any action film.

And is it there? Does the film provide us with Bond ordering his martini? Do we get what we expect of a James Bond (a balding one perhaps?)? There are several elements of the film which differ from The Living Daylights and what we expect of a Bond film. And that's why the audience rejected it in comparison to other films. Because too much differs. Too much of the film is real. And we don't go to the cinema for reality. We go for an escape (mostly).

On raftermans point about Renard wearing a turban. How mundane would the character be? There'd be nothing great about him. He'd just be some guy with a beard and a turban and Bond punches the living daylights out of him onboard a submarine. That's nothing in comparison to a terrorist with a bullet in his head who can't feel any pain.

Anyway, Moonraker was one choice of Bond film that capitalised on the globe-trotting and action part of Bond, rather than the elusive villains and suspense of nuclear war set in a ten-mile area like in Thunderball.  But Moonraker proves my point: Bond can be as realistic as possible, and still Bond.  He also can be as outlandish as possible, and still Bond.

It's Bond yes, a lot more so than Licence to Kill, but it suffers from it's outlandishness (simply look at where it sits on Bond Fans 'top' list).

And yes Octopussy is still serious, but it's not over serious! We have a circus full of beautiful women and we have Gobinda. They're Fleming-like elements. Licence to Kill has none of those elements.

And also, what made Zorin so scary?  He was a psychopath, but there was nothing physical about it.

May Day was quite scary (can't wait for Jim, and others, replies to that one ) and Walken did put a quality into the character, he made him a phsycopath. And it's obvious. What is there obvious in Sanchez? That's he's a normal man? A normal man can be tracked down by anyone, it doesn't need the likes of James Bond any day of the week.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Sidebar please.

I think what makes Zorin so scary is that he is a product of genetic engineering gone wrong, especially when you consider what's being going on in that field these day. An engineered man wanting to control the world's supply of an engineered product in microchips. How ironic.

Drug lords are dime-a-dozen these days (unfortunately), so Sanchez is hardly unique in the rogues gallery of Bond villains.

[Donovan]

I liked "Licence To Kill" well enough. I think the real problem with it compared to the other Bond films is that this one lacks that certain fun aspect. Violence is very easy for American audiences to handle. "Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2" were also dark and fairly violent, but the audience got involved with the main characters in those films. Dalton did not seem to place any importance on the need for the audience to actually like him.

The first two acts of "Licence To Kill" are very well done. The characters are a lot stronger, probably the strongest in a long time. No ding-bat leading lady, no kooky villain. Stunts were the best of the year among other films. Plot was very good.

On the other hand, the score was weak. I think the performances lacked electricity. When Mel Gibson as Martin Riggs gets mad (in the first two Lethal Weapons) you certainly feel it. When Dalton gets mad he looks more like he needs a time out. Plus, as superficial as this sounds, that Dracula hair-do with the tux was a disaster.

Slow editing. Who didn't cringe at the following two cuts: Pam Bouvier comes into the room as Bond and Q are talking, and it takes a lot longer than it should for Bond to draw and turn around. He'd be dead if that was an enemy. The other strange shot/cut is when Bond is angrily fumbling for the gun Pam has on her leg while he's interrogating her. He looks sloppy (no pun intended) and not the smooth guy he's supposed to be, superman or not.

But the plot, promoted as being closer in style to Ian Fleming, actually contradicts Fleming's characters. The short story "For Your Eyes Only" is considered to have one of the best M scenes ever written by Fleming. In this scene, M sends Bond on a personal mission of revenge. M was the Best Man at Colonel Havelock's wedding, and he was murdered. So he sends Bond to avenge Col. Havelock. LTK's M, by stark contrast, forbids Bond's vendetta and even brings some gunmen to take Bond back one way or another. Talk about clouded judgment. No wonder Admiral Sir Miles Messervy was due to retire. Still, Fleming's Bond wouldn't have behaved as this film's version, either. Although Bond does feel some measure of satisfaction upon killing the robber in "Live And Let Die", his first priority is the mission. His focus is clear. This priority is somewhat further evidenced in "Diamonds Are Forever". Felix is no longer a government agent. He's a detective and suggests he and Bond work together. Bond says with no hesitation that they can collaborate up to a point, but he is still a government agent. In other words, although they are friends, his priority is to his job.

What was satisfying about "GoldenEye" was that it effectively brought the Bond character back as a successful screen hero. Bond moves with quickness...this displayed within minutes of the film's beginning. Bond's attitude of his job still has some cynism, but he's not on the verge of lunacy.

"Licence To Kill" had guts, though. It is a shame it didn't do better at the box office, because taking chances didn't pay dividends.

-Joe

[Loomis]

A great posting on LTK, Donovan. Especially, I agree with the assertion that:
"Batman" and "Lethal Weapon 2" were also dark and fairly violent, but the audience got involved with the main characters in those films. Dalton did not seem to place any importance on the need for the audience to actually like him.
Very true. On another thread, I wrote that, while I love LTK, it's the only Bond film that I have to keep reminding myself is a Bond film when I'm watching it. Donovan's remarks made me realize the reason for this: it's the only Bond film that compels me to keep reminding myself that the hero is James Bond.
The aspirational quality of Bond is the key to the character's enduring appeal; all men, from time to time, have fantasies of leading a Bondian existence (or at least one in which killing people doesn't play a part). The Bond in LTK, though, is not someone most guys would particularly wish to be. There's none of the class, coolness or connoisseurship: you wouldn't seek this Bond's advice on which wine to drink with which meal, or which hotels to stay at. Heck, the scruffy, unshaven Bond of the latter half of LTK might even be refused service at some hotdog stands.
In LTK, Dalton gives a good performance as a dangerous, angry man out for revenge, but is the man we see James Bond? Certainly not the James Bond audiences knew and loved, which was a reason why moviegoers "rejected" LTK.
When Bond tells M he wants out of the Service, and M revokes Bond's licence to kill on the spot, it's a scene that ought to have a profound emotional impact given what audiences have been through with these characters over the preceding 14 films. Strangely enough, though, it's not an especially powerful scene, but just another moment in the movie. The reason for this, I guess, is that when we're watching Dalton in LTK, we don't really believe we're watching James Bond.
Donovan is also right when he says that the music is weak. If only there was a feature on the DVD enabling one to hear the soundtrack minus Michael Kamen's lazy, boring score.
As for whether LTK is too "real", well, I don't really buy that. True, it doesn't (thank goodness) have the campy, burlesque quality of, say, "Octopussy" (hard to believe the two films were directed by the same guy), and Sanchez is certainly not a cartoon megalomaniac with volcano bases and midget henchmen. However, the universe of LTK is definitely that of traditional escapist action cinema, in which cars, boats and planes can manage all sorts of impossible mayhem and 50 bad guys shooting at the good guy always miss. So, while LTK is commonly seen as unusually gritty stuff by Bond movie standards, I don't think it's any more "real" than "For Your Eyes Only", or indeed "The Living Daylights".
To quote Blue Eyes: "I have a firm belief that Bond doesn't exist in our world, but a world that is just a step away." (True, and that's what's great about the Bond films.) " Life is more fun, women are more beautiful, so is the world. There are no slums. It's a world of intrigue. Yet Licence To Kill holds none of this. We have a villain who in real life does exist." Conceding the point about Sanchez, where are the slums in LTK? The film still shows us a world of intrigue and gorgeous (and willing) women.
That said, LTK is still a "one-off" in the Bond series. I like it because it's a well-made, well-shot movie with a pretty good script, some great characters (especially Pam Bouvier), nice locations and fine action scenes.
But, as Donovan points out, it took the next film in the series, "Goldeneye", to bring Bond back as a hero, a pop culture legend, something definitely missing in LTK.

[Bondpurist]

Licence to kill's main achievement is as a character development of Bond. He is furious and vengeful, full of emotion in LTK, which is a refreshing change to his normal indifference and tells us much about Bond's character. Most people see James Bond as the Bond of the films. Bond should be seen as the Bond of the books on film, and watching licence to kill's passion and fury was a darn sight closer to Fleming than the previous 15 films - his defiance of M was always on the cards, and Bond's passionate loyalty to Leiter in LTK is much more inspirational than him doing the dirty work of a bunch of snotty bureaucrats. Its realism and artistic merit are much closer to the novels than the other films. Dalton doesn't care what the audience thinks about him just as much as Fleming didn't care about what his readers though about Bond. Dalton was cruel and ruthless in LTK, and good for him. The only reason Bond is a 'hero' and a 'pop culture legend' is because the other Bonds bore no resembelance to Fleming's Bond - a cold, cruel, nasty Bond. The real Bond.

[Loomis]

Well, I totally agree with the above posting, which is one reason why I love "Licence to Kill" and why Dalton's Bond is often a favourite for Fleming fans and so-called purists.
The real Bond is indeed cold, cruel and nasty. In LTK, Dalton plays a guy who feels and shows sadness, anger and fear, and who also displays a sadistic streak.
I also agree that it makes sense for Bond to feel much more loyalty to his friend Leiter than to M, who in LTK does indeed come across not as a loveable old buffer (Bernard Lee) or an almost maternal figure (Judi Dench), but as a pompous bureaucrat who has cynically used Bond as a tool, callously putting the man's life at risk for years. There's definitely no love lost between the two in LTK: while M stops the other British agents from killing Bond in Key West ("Don't shoot! Too many people! God help you, Commander"), he later sends another British agent to drug and kidnap 007 back to London. It's Moneypenny and Q who work behind M's back to help Bond out once he's been designated a rogue agent.
I'm certain that "Licence to Kill"'s reputation will rise dramatically, that it will become a cult item among the Bond movies (rather like OHMSS), and that a few years from now it may even be seen as one of the best of all the Bond films.
Sadly, though, "the cold, cruel, nasty" and "real" Bond as played by Dalton in LTK was not the Bond that Joe Public knew and loved, hence the Brosnan era's return to the fantasy hero who never puts a foot wrong, the "pop culture legend".

[Jim]

Originally posted by Bondpurist
...the other Bonds bore no resembelance to Fleming's Bond - a cold, cruel, nasty Bond. The real Bond.

Good old Professor Dent. Did he die in vain? It would appear so.

[ChandlerBing]

Amazingly enough, the censors made them take out additional gunshots Bond fired into Dent. Wow. Talk about overkill.

[Bondpurist]

That's one occasion in 6 films!! And it was in the script anyway. Dalton's cruelty and coldness were in the acting, not the script.