256 replies to this topic

[dogmanstar]

I've been lurking around here for a while and in reading these great forums I realized what always bothered me about License to Kill. It's been mentioned often on these forums that LTK is more like a Deathwish/Charles Brosnan movie or Miami Vice episode than a Bond film. Though I like Dalton and his performance, I am increasingly wondering about the screenplay.

Is the whole revenge angle wrong for Fleming's Bond? In re-reading LALD, I was struck by how differently Bond reacts to Leiter's maiming in the book compared with the movie. In the book, Bond is more horrified by the act than blinded by rage. He wants to make them pay but he is still very 'professional' about the whole thing. Or, to take another example, Bond never really becomes consumed by revenge even when it comes to Blofeld in the book YOLT. At first, understandably, Bond falls apart with no mention of making Blofeld pay. But even after Shatterhand is revealed as Blofeld, Bond still methodically plans, takes pains, step by step; he only becomes really incensed with rage at the very end of their final meeting/struggle.

When I contrast Bond's reaction in the books--LALD and YOLT--with Dalton's seething rage at M on Hemingway's balcony (look at Dalton's stare--I'd hate to be M at that moment!) and his unremitting persuit of Sanchez, I am left with the question: Did the screenwriters get Bond's reaction wrong?

Any thoughts?

[00Twelve]

I think you've got something there. While Bond did have flashes of rage (see: The Robber's demise) over Felix in LALD, he mainly wanted to plan methodically to make them pay. Thus the tedious training, the night swim, the limpet mine, and the theatrics to make sure the bomb went off with Mr. Big aboard the Secatur.

Now, LTK Bond went through plenty of methodical planning and such, but the main difference is that it wasn't a part of his original mission (unlike the novel). I can't understand how anyone can discredit CR Bond's "unFleming-like" behavior in the early parts of the film, and say that LTK Bond's AWOL behavior is any different.

Fleming didn't write either of those plot sequences, and probably wouldn't have.

But as far as the mannerisms and character of FlemingBond go, Craig, Dalton, and Connery (early on) got it dead on.

[David_M]

I'm glad someone else said it so I didn't have to.

Yes, I've always thought Bond is completely out of character in LTK. What happens to Felix is no worse than the fate of any "sacrificial lamb" in the series and frankly the producers never did an adequate job of establishing the great closeness these men were supposed to share, anyway (it doesn't help that they recast him with every danged film).

For Bond to just go totally off his nut as he does in this film just doesn't add up for me, and unlike a lot of fans who embrace the film as "Flemingesque," I really don't believe blood and violence are what define Fleming's Bond at all.

I always marvel at the moment when Sanchez says "I knew it...[that Bond is a British agent]...you've got class!" Huh? Based on what? The fact that he has a British accent? What's classy? The rent-a-wreck? The wrinkled K-Mart fashions? The Dracula comb-over in the casino? Are we watching the same film?

Don't get me wrong, LTK is a cool movie with lots to recommend it, but it's never fit in for me with the other films or the books. It's a curiosity for me, the James Bond of an alternate universe, fun for one outing but I'm glad we didn't stay there.

Still and all, even Bond isn't as out of character as M, who cheerily calls at the end of the film to tell Bond all is forgiven and he can come back to work Monday morning.

[plankattack]

For Bond to just go totally off his nut as he does in this film just doesn't add up for me, and unlike a lot of fans who embrace the film as "Flemingesque," I really don't believe blood and violence are what define Fleming's Bond at all.

I don't know - I never feel that he's completely off his head in LTK. Sure he want's revenge, and yes, he's clearly very emotional in the sequences right after finding Felix. But really, once Sharkey gets speared, he does become as Twelve said, Fleming's methodical agent. Off-the-job sure, but I never feel the character changes that much when he's on assignment.

I do agree that LTK isn't "Flemingesque" in tone, but I'll always defend it for at least getting some chunks of the source material up on screen, which after the tone of the 70s and early 80s Bonds - FYEO excepted - was no small achievement. And I always defend it, and I know this is a different debate, for starring an actor who made every attempt to get Fleming's character up onscreen, with, IMHO, considerable accuracy. I know it's that old nugget - "who do you see when you read" Bond? Well for me if it's anyone, it's TD.

[dee-bee-five]

It's funny. I think the film Bond has never been more in character than he was in LTK. Especially the cold-hearted blunt instrument he was in Fleming's first book.

[baerrtt]

I've always felt that Dalton's Bond's reaction to Felix's maiming and Della's death is justified by Della questioning Felix earlier if she offended JB by throwing the flowers at him and Leiter's response ' He was married once but it was a long time ago'.

Basically remembering what happened to Tracy at the hands of an enemy brought back the pure anger and rage he felt.

[David_M]

Basically remembering what happened to Tracy at the hands of an enemy brought back the pure anger and rage he felt.

That's a good point.

Part of the problem for us fans is that we can never totally forget the other films. Thus the Bond/Felix friendship is undermined by the fact that we saw a totally different guy play Felix in the previous film (and the one in LTK is "Roger's" Felix, and thus more a father figure to Bond than a brother) and the "I'll kill them for killing Della like they killed Tracy" angle is ruined...RUINED, I say...by the fact that Bond does almost NOTHING to avenge Tracy's death in DAF. So the whole time I'm thinking, "Dude, where was all this anger when your own wife was killed?"

Of course none of that is the fault of Dalton or Glen (except Hedison's casting, maybe), and it's not fair to mark down LTK because of deficiences elsewhere in the series. But I do it anyway. The film will forever be flawed for me because it asks us to believe Bond would throw away everything to avenge the maiming of his best friend (the Della/Tracy angle is probably lost on most viewers), when up to that point the audience had almost nothing invested in the Bond/Felix relationship. I mean, Felix didn't even put in an appearance for 13 years between LALD and TLD, then he was onscreen in TLD for five minutes delivering lines any character could have delivered. Then we change actors again just in time to maim and widow the guy. I'm sorry; I read the books, I like Fleming's Felix and even I didn't care enough about Hedison-Felix to swallow Bond's vendetta.

Now, if someone had murdered Q or Monepenny, it would be a whole different story...

[dogmanstar]

I agree that Timothy Dalton tried to bring Bond into Fleming's original concept. And, for the most part, his portrayal is the real deal. What seems to me a huge problem, though, is that the center of the movie is so un-Bondlike (especially since we were told this is Fleming's Bond). It seems we got a human Bond--one who feels, emotes, rages, etc. But Fleming's Bond? Dalton in LTK seems to go the opposite direction of Fleming's writing. We don't get rage in LALD when Leiter is maimed nor do we get rage when Tracy is killed--Bond falls apart. Now when they make that movie, it'll get interesting!

[Publius]

I've rarely seen the Bond from the novels in the Bond of the movies, so I don't much care that it's no different in LtK. Did they do something interesting and exciting with the character for the first time in decades without detracting from what makes him so cool and iconic in the first place? Yes. That's all that matters to me.

In fact, this is one of those instances where I think they improved on the literary version, in this case by humanizing him so much. That humanity makes the character more engaging and sympathetic, which means I can invest something into what I'm seeing rather than just passively watching it, and thus I can feel the highs and lows of the movie much more strongly. For me, that makes the experience incredibly rewarding.

And the rage Bond feels is not just over Leiter's maiming, but the murder of Leiter's wife and the memories it dredges up of an eerily similar experience that he went through. It's like the events of OHMSS being allowed to simmer for years inside of Bond, then he's forced to relive them vicariously through Leiter's tragedy. The novels didn't play out that way.

By the way, as a casual fan of Miami Vice, I have never seen the connection to LtK or Dalton's Bond. The only similarities I see are the locales featured and the relatively realistic nature of the content. The darkness and revenge angle are nothing new, even for Bond, it's just that this time it was stretched out for the entire movie rather than just being a subplot or one part of the story. It was bound to happen after 17 movies and 27 years. Even if they wanted to mimic Vice, why would they do so during its last season?

[dogmanstar]

By the way, as a casual fan of Miami Vice, I have never seen the connection to LtK or Dalton's Bond.

Publius, maybe it has to do with the look of the film? Glen's direction here doesn't seem like his previous films at all--the slow motion run in the PTS with the horn music, the Bond theme played out in a South American style, and just the whole location of the thing.

I don't think I would have guessed the same director was behind this one and TLD, for example.

[plankattack]

Basically remembering what happened to Tracy at the hands of an enemy brought back the pure anger and rage he felt.

That's a good point.

Part of the problem for us fans is that we can never totally forget the other films. Thus the Bond/Felix friendship is undermined by the fact that we saw a totally different guy play Felix in the previous film (and the one in LTK is "Roger's" Felix, and thus more a father figure to Bond than a brother) and the "I'll kill them for killing Della like they killed Tracy" angle is ruined...RUINED, I say...by the fact that Bond does almost NOTHING to avenge Tracy's death in DAF. So the whole time I'm thinking, "Dude, where was all this anger when your own wife was killed?"

Of course none of that is the fault of Dalton or Glen (except Hedison's casting, maybe), and it's not fair to mark down LTK because of deficiences elsewhere in the series. But I do it anyway. The film will forever be flawed for me because it asks us to believe Bond would throw away everything to avenge the maiming of his best friend (the Della/Tracy angle is probably lost on most viewers), when up to that point the audience had almost nothing invested in the Bond/Felix relationship. I mean, Felix didn't even put in an appearance for 13 years between LALD and TLD, then he was onscreen in TLD for five minutes delivering lines any character could have delivered. Then we change actors again just in time to maim and widow the guy. I'm sorry; I read the books, I like Fleming's Felix and even I didn't care enough about Hedison-Felix to swallow Bond's vendetta.

Now, if someone had murdered Q or Monepenny, it would be a whole different story...

Great post, which really does sum up the schizophrenic relationship between the literary Bond, his celluloid counterpart, the films themselves, and ultimately the audience's relationship with the character.

I find it hard to fault LTK's intent, but the realities of bringing that intent to the screen are the same ones that doom it's success. Fans such as ourselves are split on LTK's "success" but I would think that is only a small minority of fans that would dismiss in it's entirety, finding nothing redeeming in it at all.

But the masses find it much easier to dismiss the film completely, and while it's never for the reason's listed in David M's post, it is those reasons that undermine the film.
I don't for the most part think the writers got it wrong in what they created, but it's not always what you make but who you make it for.

The films and the books went their distinct ways, oooh, somewhere in the middle of GF. LTK is what occurs when you make an attempt to blend the two back together, something which since 1969 happened only once (FYEO) with pretty decent success and it is a near impossible task to pull off. Take CR - I feel EON didn't try to blend "Bonds"; instead they tried to make a Bond pre-1963 - an adaptation of the book which at most, makes a nod to the celluloid character.

I know I'm rambling here, but I don't feel it's just the writers that contributed to LTK's status - it's EON as a whole. I'd never thought of it before but David M is right. It's all DAF's fault. And not just because of the clothes......

[Publius]

Publius, maybe it has to do with the look of the film? Glen's direction here doesn't seem like his previous films at all--the slow motion run in the PTS with the horn music, the Bond theme played out in a South American style, and just the whole location of the thing.

I don't think I would have guessed the same director was behind this one and TLD, for example.

The slow motion run is definitely odd and out of place, but the remixed Bond theme is fitting given the location and revenge theme of the movie, and the location is fitting given the themes of loyalty and backstabbing (although they had been considering China first, had they not?). I'm not denying there was a subconscious influence, or that they were trying to make Bond better fit the overall "gritty action hero" style of the time, just like they tailored the previous Bonds to the times, but I just always have to object to the suggestion that they veered off the Bond path and into some exclusive Vice or Charlie Bronson territory.

[dogmanstar]

Publius, well said.

And I'm not being critical of that late 80's influence--just noting a difference with what had gone before and what has come since.

[R. Dittmar]

0012 and I shared some thoughts on this in the course of another thread, and I hope no one minds my repeating some of my thoughts at the time.

I

[David_M]

By the way, as a casual fan of Miami Vice, I have never seen the connection to LtK or Dalton's Bond.

It's just one of those snarky little things people say to dismiss a film out of hand. To critics, at least in 1989, James Bond was about glamorous locales, comic book supervillains, gadget-laden cars and a tuxedo-clad hero who sipped champagne and offed the bad guys without breaking a sweat. Miami Vice, reduced to the same simplistic generalizing, was about drug running, shady characters from south of the border, and loose canon cops who never wore neckties and used methods not too different from the bad guys. Except for the fact that Crockett and Tubbs had a better wardrobe than Dalton and "Vice" had a soundtrack that on it's worst day was ten times better than Kamen's work for LTK, I have to say I DO see the resemblance, but the analogy is way overused and simplistic.

The point I think people are trying to make is that "busting up a drug operation" doesn't seem like a "big" enough premise for a Bond outing. In fact, Maibaum himself said the thing about LALD, so we can assume that's not what he meant LTK to be. But I think it once again underscores the weakness of the Bond/Leiter friendship/revenge angle that so many critics outside the Bond community do, in fact, think LTK is about "Bond versus a drug lord" and not "Bond on a personal mission of revenge." In the end, the fate of Felix and Della just doesn't resonate strongly enough with most viewers to drive the events of the whole film.

In fact, in the end one could be forgiven for not even remembering what happened to Felix and Della way back in the first few minutes (heck, Felix seems to be pretty much over it himself!). By this point, we've seen people get eaten, speared, electrocuted, crushed and burned up and one guy's had his head exploded. Do we really care anymore that Felix lost part of one leg and a trophy wife from "Three's Company" that we only knew for five minutes?

[plankattack]

Do we really care anymore that Felix lost part of one leg and a trophy wife from "Three's Company" that we only knew for five minutes?

I'd definitely be more upset (and for longer) if I'd lost a trophy wife from a sitcom (or a trophy from anywhere, for that matter). Then again, that's says as much about my own sense of inadequecy.....

[MarcAngeDraco]

And the rage Bond feels is not just over Leiter's maiming, but the murder of Leiter's wife and the memories it dredges up of an eerily similar experience that he went through. It's like the events of OHMSS being allowed to simmer for years inside of Bond, then he's forced to relive them vicariously through Leiter's tragedy. The novels didn't play out that way.

That's pretty much the way I've always thought of it as well.

[WC]

Basically remembering what happened to Tracy at the hands of an enemy brought back the pure anger and rage he felt.

That's a good point.

Part of the problem for us fans is that we can never totally forget the other films. Thus the Bond/Felix friendship is undermined by the fact that we saw a totally different guy play Felix in the previous film (and the one in LTK is "Roger's" Felix, and thus more a father figure to Bond than a brother) and the "I'll kill them for killing Della like they killed Tracy" angle is ruined...RUINED, I say...by the fact that Bond does almost NOTHING to avenge Tracy's death in DAF. So the whole time I'm thinking, "Dude, where was all this anger when your own wife was killed?"

Maybe Bond is partly angry at himself for not having taken proper revenge on Blofeld or SPECTRE all those years before, but simply taking a more casual attitude towards it like Sean Connery did in DAF. So since DAF, Bond has been playing it up with a "devil may care" attitude (in the form of Roger Moore) which was really masking all those hidden feelings of rage beneath a veneer of good humour and geniality. But when Della was killed, he snapped and metamorphosised into the full-on seething Dalton in LTK. So Bond did have plenty of anger before but was in denial with his gentlemanly attitude until he finally found someone to unleash all this pent-up rage.

[David_M]

And the rage Bond feels is not just over Leiter's maiming, but the murder of Leiter's wife and the memories it dredges up of an eerily similar experience that he went through. It's like the events of OHMSS being allowed to simmer for years inside of Bond, then he's forced to relive them vicariously through Leiter's tragedy. The novels didn't play out that way.

BTW, that might work for you and me, but not so much for the general audiences of 1989, back in the day when OHMSS was still the least-remembered and least-respected entry in the series among non-Bond fanatics. Glenn and company would have been daft to expect the majority of audiences to get the reference to events from a twenty-year-old film with a forgotten Bond actor and spin an entire movie around it when said reference is presented in such a low-key and throwaway manner.

What does Felix even say? "He was married once...it was a long time ago." Della -- and the audience -- can tell from the way he says it that things ended badly, but how badly? Divorce? Infedility? Turned out they were cousins? What?

Now if he'd said, "She was killed by a slimeball even worse than Sanchez," THEN I might believe we're supposed to see Tracy's death as a motivating factor in this film ("Never again! It ends here!"). Or perhaps if the end of the film had Sanchez saying, "It'll only take me a moment to cut your throat", and Bond answering, "Yes, but for you that's all the time in the world", THEN I'd buy the Tracy connection. But that's not what happens. What happens is he pulls out the lighter (ahem) and says, "Don't you want to know why?" and we read the "Felix and Della" inscription. No, it's clear that Bond is out to avenge what happened to those two, and whatever further spin we put on it is our doing, not the filmmakers'.

I'm reminded of the climbing scene at the end of FYEO, where I kept thinking, "Wow, this must be hairy for him; his parents died in a climbing accident." Now there's no way the filmmakers were trying to get that across, but as a Fleming fan, I added it myself. And you know what? It added a lot to the scene. But it was something I forced onto it, not something that was there naturally. Same with the "delayed justice for Tracy" theories in LTK. If they wanted it to be about Tracy, they'd have told us so.

[Turn]

I still look back on how fresh the concept of a rogue Bond out for revenge was back in 1989 when LTK came out. That teaser trailer was so different I couldn't help but be thrilled. It may seem out of character for some people, but there are really more layers than in most of the previous Bond films where everything had hit a pretty predictable pattern.

As I mentioned in another similar thread, LTK's story resembles the classic Japanese revenge film Yojimbo, where it's as much about a lone warrior getting his enemies to destroy each other.

Funny that nobody looks at the four films that followed LTK all contain the "this time it's personal" theme to it to some degree or another. I was kind of tired of that pattern after a while. Quantum of Solace at least gives a solid reason for Bond having that type of mindset going in.

[byline]

Still and all, even Bond isn't as out of character as M, who cheerily calls at the end of the film to tell Bond all is forgiven and he can come back to work Monday morning.

He did? I thought it was Leiter and Dalton talking on the phone at the end. Too cheerily, I might add. That was one major mistake I thought the writers made. It should've been two men commiserating over shared pain. Maybe not openly, but that understanding should've been there, as opposed to Leiter laughing breezily like he's just lost a football bet . . . not a limb and his wife.

[00Twelve]

Still and all, even Bond isn't as out of character as M, who cheerily calls at the end of the film to tell Bond all is forgiven and he can come back to work Monday morning.

He did? I thought it was Leiter and Dalton talking on the phone at the end. Too cheerily, I might add. That was one major mistake I thought the writers made. It should've been two men commiserating over shared pain. Maybe not openly, but that understanding should've been there, as opposed to Leiter laughing breezily like he's just lost a football bet . . . not a limb and his wife.

yyyyyep.

And you're right, it was Leiter talking to Bond. But he mentioned that "M called. I think he may have a job for you! " Oh, cakes and pies, cakes and pies...

[tdalton]

Still and all, even Bond isn't as out of character as M, who cheerily calls at the end of the film to tell Bond all is forgiven and he can come back to work Monday morning.

He did? I thought it was Leiter and Dalton talking on the phone at the end. Too cheerily, I might add. That was one major mistake I thought the writers made. It should've been two men commiserating over shared pain. Maybe not openly, but that understanding should've been there, as opposed to Leiter laughing breezily like he's just lost a football bet . . . not a limb and his wife.

yyyyyep.

And you're right, it was Leiter talking to Bond. But he mentioned that "M called. I think he may have a job for you! " Oh, cakes and pies, cakes and pies...

That scene was, to me, the one weak point that the film had. The conversation between Bond and Leiter should have been very somber and should have been a reflection on what had happened to them, rather than a cheery look towards the future. I've always felt that LTK was a natural endpoint for the Bond franchise anyway, and that the Brosnan films should have been the films to reboot the franchise in the way that CASINO ROYALE did, and the ending of LTK could have reflected this, with Bond saying goodbye to the chapter of his life where he was a special agent and moving into another chapter of his life. But, either way, the conversation between Bond and Leiter should not have occurred in the manner that it did, and it did slightly damage what was an otherwise fantastic final few moments of the film.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Either way, the conversation between Bond and Leiter should not have occurred in the manner that it did, and it did slightly damage what was an otherwise fantastic final few moments of the film.

Even with the winking fish?

[tdalton]

Either way, the conversation between Bond and Leiter should not have occurred in the manner that it did, and it did slightly damage what was an otherwise fantastic final few moments of the film.

Even with the winking fish?

The winking fish doesn't really bother me. It's certainly leaps and bounds better than the closing moments of some of the Brosnan films, with those awful closing lines in TWINE and DAD. I think that any weakness that the winking fish may add to the scene (which isn't much, if any, IMO) is overcome by the great song that closes the film, "If You Asked Me To" by Patti LaBelle.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Either way, the conversation between Bond and Leiter should not have occurred in the manner that it did, and it did slightly damage what was an otherwise fantastic final few moments of the film.

Even with the winking fish?

The winking fish doesn't really bother me. It's certainly leaps and bounds better than the closing moments of some of the Brosnan films, with those awful closing lines in TWINE and DAD. I think that any weakness that the winking fish may add to the scene (which isn't much, if any, IMO) is overcome by the great song that closes the film, "If You Asked Me To" by Patti LaBelle.

I've always liked GoldenEye's ending better than Licence to Kill's; it's nowhere near as cheesy, and actually kind of cool. Also, I think "The Experience of Love" beats "If You Asked Me To" as an end titles song hands down.

[5 BONDS]

I think the conversation between Bond and Leiter at the end was just a way to lighten up the events in a way...there is satisfaction between both characters knowing that Sanchez has been killed...what has happened is part of the risks that both would have to adhere in their jobs...you can clearly notice in the pre-title sequence that Leiter found getting Sanchez was more important then his wedding which meant his vendetta was somewhat personal too.

Obviously out of what has happened you can probably guess that M has spoken to Leite, a sincere conversation about the whole matter which could have quashed any pains felt within,this could have led to the conversation between Bond and Leiter being more the kind where you just don't feel like talking about the events..both know what each other are thinking so the fishing talk was just Leiter trying to humour the situation with a sigh of relief..Bond too at the end seems tired.

Even though the film makers kind of brushed of Bond's anger in DAF in such a quick fashion we can see the films were heading in a different direction but in the opening of FYEO you can see the sombre reflective mood within Bond's face... the hurt is clearly felt within..so by LTK feeling happy for his friends wedding and then seeing that too was quickly ended was enough for him to seeth with rage.

The films were never meant to be continuations of each other but at times you can see the film makers would like us to remember that this is the same man we are watching.

[baerrtt]

Given that (in concept) LTK was crafted for Dalton it fits what he wanted to do with the character (and what is evident in some moments in TLD). A man who, sometimes, you get the impression WANTS to walk away from his job, hence why in LTK I always found it logical that he would be willing to throw his job away to avenge Felix and Della.

The 'realism' Tim wanted to bring was centred around the fact that if you detracted the Playboy fantasy lifestyle (girls,cars etc) wouldn't a life/career like Bond's mentally (as well as physically) take it's toll on you and me? Indeed would anyone of us be willing to risk our lives for a belief or cause EVEN when it becomes clear that doing that doesn't lead to any long-lasting satisfaction? A life filled with deaths and near misses, deaths that he has been powerless to stop (Tracy in OHMSS).

I always felt the 'this time it's personal' storylines shouldn't have been carried onto the Brosnan era because the overall impression I have of Brosnan's Bond (compared to Dalton's) is that he loves his job (in other words LOVES being James Bond) or rediscovered his love for the job/lifestyle he leads more than Dalton's Bond clearly did.

[tdalton]

Also, I think "The Experience of Love" beats "If You Asked Me To" as an end titles song hands down.

I like both songs, but "If You Asked Me To" is, IMO, one of the best songs to be featured in a Bond film, and it really would have been a much better choice as the title track for LTK than the actual title song was, IMO.

[stamper]

I think LTK low point is the need to justify thru revenge Bond's actions.

At this point in history, Bond had become a sad git, the hero from another age who keeps going.

Dalton casting in LD was supposed to shake this the same way CR did in 2005, alas the movie was not much better in the rest of the dept, than the precedent Moore movies.

LTK was a step towards the good way, but they got it wrong. People wanted a Bond like in CR already, a Bond who kills because it's his job, just like Connery would in the heydays. The filmmakers / producers were afraid of this, so they made it a revenge thing to justify the killings.

The winking fish and happy ending, just shows how much Brocolli was having problems at this point dealing with the 007 character, there's too much by the numbers (and often the wrong numbers) filmmaking in this movie (and scriptwriting too).

It still have much charm than all Brosnan movies put together thought, but CR was the true Bond movies the fan awaited since OHMSS.