20 replies to this topic

[IrishCrown]

The Dalton Bond movies are often praised for making 007 seem more dangerous, recalling the so-called glory days of Connery. While to an extent this is true, and though it's reasonable to say that the production staff needed to rethink the formula following the unsatisfying Bond-by-numbers View to a Kill, to suggest that Bond needed to be reinvented as a sociopathic maverick does seem something of an overreaction.

Reactionary sums up Licence to Kill. In itself it's a fine movie, well directed and packed with praiseworthy action sequences. However, as a *Bond film* it misses the point entirely. The almost total absence of humour is clearly a reaction against the excesses of the Moore era, as is Bond's ruthless edge, the lack of glamour, and the ordinariness of the villain and his "plot". But by shunning the wit, sparkle and hyperbole, the resulting film is a simple action blockbuster with nothing to distinguish it from any other vacuous Hollywood romp. The grandeur of Goldfinger and You Only Live Twice is dumped in favour of some worthy but dull sermon on drug barons in Latin America. The baddie doesn't even have a fiendishly masterful plan a la Grand Slam or Moonraker for Bond to foil - just some drug smuggling that's been going on for years and that the CIA could probably have sorted out without the help of Britain's finest.

As for Bond's resignation - it's a horrible, cliched and utterly uncharacteristic gesture that belongs in a B-grade US cop show (where the hero rails against the "pen pushers at city central") and not in a series whose star embodies loyalty to his country and service, heroism, and the sacrifice of personal vendettas to a greater cause.

Quite why Bond's makers felt Licence to Kill was needed is a mystery. After all, they'd already produced a movie that toned down excessive humour and fantasy while still managing to retain the essential Bond spark: For Your Eyes Only. Licence to Kill hasn't got wit, escapism or glamour. It's not even a spy film, and it's definitely not Bond.


This is for some of the great writers out there, the ones who like to discuss the deeper, finer points of Bond.

[IrishCrown]

I would also like to add a few more points on this.

Roger Moore's films made a lot of money, but still pissed off the purists who hated what was done with films like Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me, big, bloated movies that bore no resemblance to their original Fleming source stories. For many of those years, Roger Moore's films kept MGM alive through thick and thin. In 1979, with the advent of Heaven's Gate, Moonraker's huge grosses kept the studio from being put on the chopping block. There were still very influential people who didn't like where Bond was going. They thought they needed someone younger, deadlier, and cheaper! Moore had his moments, but his judo-chopping and babe-chasing at age 58 was becoming more along the lines of ,{cue Dr. Evil} "Riiiiiight." As early as 1986, Maibaum and Wilson had tried to do a prequel movie where Bond was starting out and becoming good at what he did. Ironically enough, it was Brocolli who put the kibosh on this story, saying that there would be no prequels, no movie where Bond was but a green lad. HOWEVER, there would be a Bond where he was on his own, no country backing him, and no assignment. Strange how this all plays out. It's also ironic again when MGM's sole moneymaker in those days started to sag after Dalton was brought in to make Bond more this and more that, yada, yada, yada.

[License To Kill]

A++++++++ Irish

When you speak of the scene in which Bond has his license "revoked" is totally unBond. Dalton would not have the balls to do that 'ol Bernie Lee .

[Bondpurist]

F-------- Irishcrown
I don't think LTK was an overreaction at all. Dalton was serious and actually developed Bond's character, something Moore never really did. The Dalton films, and especially LTK were the exact opposite to the Moor films, so if you liked the Moore films you may not like the Dalton films. If you hated the Moore films then you may well like the Dalton films.
You seem to disapprove of any change in style, of any artistic development AT ALL. All that seems to worry you is the money side of things. The Fleming novels sold poorly at first - Casino Royale sold so few in the US that it was renamed 'You Asked For It' - money made is totally irrelavent to how good a Bond film actually is. If the marketing is good then the box office normally perks up.
Licence to kill didn't need wit, escapism or glamour - it had realism, revenge, griityness, action - it was Bond to a tee - a violent, cruel, loyal, paradoxical Bond, it developed Bond's character into a believable, breathing, walking, talking man, not just a profit maker.
As for the villain - he's merciless, cruel, but with a strange code of honour and loyalty - plus he actually poses a physical threat to Bond instead of the normal wimpy excuses for Bond villains. It is a reaction to the Moore era, but a much needed and a very fine one at that. An overreaction? Never - that's like saying that good is an overreaction to evil - it can never nor will never be.
As for his resignation - it's brave and the resignation scene is the best scene in a Bond film since the Connery days - it crackles with tensiona and power. It shows a loyalty much more powerful than loyalty to country - loyalty to your friends. As for it being uncharacteristic - then good, because you're measuring it towards the character of Moore's Bond, the indifferent Bond, the amused, unbothered Bond - a Bond Dalton bust his gut to get away from.
Without an occasional break from the tired 'for queen and country' formula the Bond series would get unoriginal and boring. LTK injected a new life into Bond, an antedote to the awful Moore years. If you're looking for the same old escapist, unrealistic, OTT, formulaic claptrap then LTK isn't for you. LTK develops Bond as a person and not as a human tool with whom no emotions nor feelings are associated. LTK was a suitable and much needed reaction to the Moore years which invigorated the whole Bond set up and was the most realistic and emotionally charged Bond film since OHMSS.

[IrishCrown]

Well, judging from your first few words, here you go again, Bondpurist, and I really should thank you for making this all so invigorating. It's not every day I come across someone with such a magnetic personality as yourself. I almost don't know where to begin. First, I will not use profanity like you do, since I don't seem to have the same problem you do in expressing yourself.
1. Roger Moore did actually develop Bond. His best moments were among his most subtle. Witness his reactions to finding out that Mrs. Bond was in his motel room in Live and Let Die. The Spy Who Loved Me had the great scene were Major Amasova rattled off his history until he cut her off when it got too personal. His performance in For Your Eyes Only was his best. Helping Melina avenge her parents was like reaching into his own psyche when it came to avenging his wife, which he apparently did in the opening credits. Roger did that part beautifully. Yeah, he had some stinkers, but I'll always remember the great moments he did.
2. I really don't care too much about the box office side of things, despite what you think. Remember I told you in another post I like Kevin Costner movies, and he's not exactly the flavor of the month when it comes to that stuff. MGM execs however did not like Dalton all that much. Despite what you believe, the US market is very important in the scheme of things. When a Bond picture does lousy here but still rakes it in overseas, they worry. In fairness, they worries the same way when The Man With The Golden Gun sank here, but took in a lot overseas.
I could go on and on, and you will inevitably find yourself backpedaling as usual, changing your story left and right. I've got a lot of your responses right next to me, so if you still want to ante up the table and tell your side of the story, I'll be happy to bring in exhibits A-Z. I anxiously await your response here.

[Bondpurist]

I have no trouble in expressing myself Irishcrown. If I did I wouldn't make so many posts doing just that. There's no need for such overt sarcasm either.

1) Roger Moore didn't develop the character very much at all considering he had 7 films as 007. Dalton did more in two than Moore's 7. They sure are subtle - so subtle most of them don't even exist. I'm not going to deny that he did indulge in a little character development, but it was too fragmented and not coherent enough to make much of an impact.
2) Neither of us find box office stats to be very important. Something we agree on then!

[IrishCrown]

"Dalton was serious and actually developed Bond's character, something Moore never really did."

Read my above comments and if you can read them without sweating and cursing, I'll provide you with more of Moore's moments. Sarcasm? I'm only following your very wide lead, sir.

[Bondpurist]

I'm not sweating. I'm not cursing. I'm glad that Moore actually did SOME very limited character developments. I did say he didn't really develop the character, not that he didn't at all. He wasn't in Dalton's league when it came to character development.

[IrishCrown]

Was Roger a member of the Shakespearean Company? Not that I am aware of, no. BTW, my friends have been getting a kick out of you calling Sean Connery a something or other schoolboy compared to Dalton. They thank you for providing them with such a good laugh. See? You are good for something.

[Bondpurist]

So you're basically admitting that Moore wasn't in Dalton's class as an actor. Thank you. As for the last bit - who's getting personal now?

[IrishCrown]

I never had a thing about Moore and Dalton being in the same class. My argument was in your taking a royal dump on him as Bond. It's not getting personal at all, I'm complimenting you for making us laugh.

[Bondpurist]

Roger Moore wasn't totally without merit as Bond - if he was the only one to have ever of been Bond I would think that he was OK, but Tim, Sean and Pierce make him look incredibly bad in comparison. As for the other bit - I'm glad someone's laughing.

[IrishCrown]

You mean you're not laughing. Why? It's not the fate of the world we're typing back and forth about here. It's not politics. It's about an actor who only played a part twice. The more I keep typing back and forth here, the more I find myself smiling because it's all pretty ridiculous.

[Bondpurist]

Ridiculous? It's deadly serious. It's much more important than the fate of the world or politics. It's Bond. James Bond.
(Incidentally we're actually discussing Roger Moore now, and he played a part seven times.)

[IrishCrown]

I'm sorry, Bond is Bond. It's fun, it's great, it's wonderful to partake in, but it's not reality. Bond is a fictional character in the books and in the movies. He isn't real, unless you count the guy who wrote about the Birds of the West Indies. I'm just glad we're not arguing about the physics of Star Wars or Star Trek or I'd really be embarrassed.

[Bondpurist]

I take Bond deadly seriously and that's mainly why I hate Moore's Bond and love Dalton's. But I can see where you're coming from. So fair enough.

[007.5]

I love LTK, I admit that there are times when you ask the question "What am I watching, James Bond or Lethal Weapon?" Dalton is great in the role and he's my favourite Bond, under Roger(who is my 2nd favourite Bond) 007 did get really jokey jokey.

[ThomasCrown76]

Well, with Michael Kamen, who did the scores for both Die Hard and Lethal Weapon, doing the score for License To Kill, it can't help but feel like one of those movies with the gaggle of violence and profanity that is often in movies like those.

[Jim]

Yes

[mrmoon]

Originally posted by Bondpurist
F-------- Irishcrown
I don't think LTK was an overreaction at all. Dalton was serious and actually developed Bond's character, something Moore never really did. The Dalton films, and especially LTK were the exact opposite to the Moor films, so if you liked the Moore films you may not like the Dalton films. If you hated the Moore films then you may well like the Dalton films.

Firstly Bondpurist, did you actually read what Irishcrown had to say with an impartial viewpoint. What Irishcrown says, is in my opinion is very plausible. You say Dalton was 'serious' and actually developed Bond's character. In my opinion 'serious' is one of the most non-descript words in the english language (along with 'nice'). Was Dalton ever more 'serious' than Connery, Lazenby, Moore, or now Brosnan? Secondly you say Dalton developed Bond's character. Well, did he? He didn't actually develop the character, he simply played it in a different manner to his predecessors. The only development he could have personally made is from The Living Daylights to Licence to Kill, and in my opinion his performance in Licence to Kill is in no way 'developed' from The Living Daylights.

Also, I don't belive the Dalton films are the exact opposite to the Moore films. Even Licence to Kill for that matter. The opposites you seem to contrast are the 'character' and not the 'films', and you seem to basing your appreciation of a 'film' based on the 'character'. Although the main character is an essential ingredient there is so much more to a Bond film than just Bond.

[Donovan]

I don't think that "Licence To Kill" is reactionary to the Moore Bond films, but to films such as Joel Silver's action films ("Lethal Weapon" and "Die Hard") and Paul Verhoeven's "Robocop". Those films all had quite a bit of violence mixed with fairly decent stories and main characters. Also, "Licence To Kill" sought to capitalize on certain aspects of Dalton's performance in "The Living Daylights". The line about thanking 'M' if he gets fired and the scene with Pushkin in the hotel room are the two strongest scenes in that film.

The pace of "Licence To Kill" moves really well, but suddenly (and strangely) downshifts as soon as Pam Bouvier shows up at the Olympatic whatever-it-is temple. The tanker scene also moves at a moderate pace, where breakneck speed (like the tobbogan chase in OHMSS) would have been better.

I think the Bond films during the twelve-year run between "Spy" and "Licence" (what I call the "second wind" era of the series) have all been relatively influenced by Hollywood films, especially "Moonraker" as a result of "Star Wars", and "Octopussy" as a result of "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Before that, "LALD" had a 'blacks-ploitation' influence, and "Golden Gun" had a king-fu influence.