256 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

From Casino Royale:

"Take our friend Le Chiffre. It's simple enough to say he was an evil man, at least it's simple enough for me because he did evil things to me. If he was here now, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him, but out of personal revenge and not, I'm afraid, for some high moral reason or for the sake of my country."

So, I'd say the answer to the original question is: No, they didn't.

[sharpshooter]

Good find.

[BoogieBond]

Ah, The Nature of Evil is a great chapter Royal Dalton. I hope they include it somewhere in the Craig era.

I would have liked a little more humour in LTK.
The Q scenes are added for light relief. But I would have rather Q given Bond his equipment in a short scene, or anonymously. And Dalton doing a little more wry humour, perhaps developing a relationship with Pam, spending some of Sanchez' money with her and having fun with it.
But I understand why it has to be gritty and dark.

Edited by BoogieBond, 25 March 2008 - 12:49 PM.

[Mister E]

The writers got Bond's character nearly right but they got the film wrong. The story was pretty much let down after Felix was attacked. The movie just never picked up and Bond's motivation for vengenace seems to wane in the viewers mind not all after the film leaves Miami. Dalton seemed alot less comfortable as Bond in this film but that seemed more the writer's fault. They let the film have time to play and Bond didn't. Even when Bond was suppose to relax was terrible, like the casino scene which was the worst the franchise's history. Bond's character was at one point so inconsistent, it was laughable. Take for example the Barrel Head Bar scene. Bond was making a liners and fighting a guy with a swordfish. Then when we leave the scene, all of sudden he get's angry for no reason. He cursed Bovier for saving his life after he just made a quip about it with a smile. As for the settings, were more loyal to a Miami Vice Tv show then James Bond. They wanted to make a serious film yet they insisted on putting in cheese that stuck out like a sore thumb. I am tired of people praising Q's role in this film, it was completely out of character for him. He would not go out on a limb to help a rougue 00 agent. Also that "Yes Sir !" made me want to vomit. That is not the Q we know and love dang it ! The plot elements were alos heavily flawed as well. I think Sanchez trusted Bond far too easily. He was way too close to him too soon. Overall, it's a decent Bond film but dosen't deserve alot of the praise it gets.

[baerrtt]

The writers got Bond's character nearly right but they got the film wrong. The story was pretty much let down after Felix was attacked. The movie just never picked up and Bond's motivation for vengenace seems to wane in the viewers mind not all after the film leaves Miami. Dalton seemed alot less comfortable as Bond in this film but that seemed more the writer's fault. They let the film have time to play and Bond didn't. Even when Bond was suppose to relax was terrible, like the casino scene which was the worst the franchise's history. Bond's character was at one point so inconsistent, it was laughable. Take for example the Barrel Head Bar scene. Bond was making a liners and fighting a guy with a swordfish. Then when we leave the scene, all of sudden he get's angry for no reason. He cursed Bovier for saving his life after he just made a quip about it with a smile. As for the settings, were more loyal to a Miami Vice Tv show then James Bond. They wanted to make a serious film yet they insisted on putting in cheese that stuck out like a sore thumb. I am tired of people praising Q's role in this film, it was completely out of character for him. He would not go out on a limb to help a rougue 00 agent. Also that "Yes Sir !" made me want to vomit. That is not the Q we know and love dang it ! The plot elements were alos heavily flawed as well. I think Sanchez trusted Bond far too easily. He was way too close to him too soon. Overall, it's a decent Bond film but dosen't deserve alot of the praise it gets.

The film's shoehorning the 'old school' humour into a 'gritty' entry I agree with you ABOUT. Boothroyd helping Bond isn't impossible as (though it's never shown until GE and TWINE) it's always been obvious they're friends deep down. Bond gets angry at Bouvier is the same reason he angers at Q for showing up initially, he potentially knows he could get killed going after Sanchez without his usual 'resources' at hand and doesn't want the death of anybody else on his head.

[Mister E]

The writers got Bond's character nearly right but they got the film wrong. The story was pretty much let down after Felix was attacked. The movie just never picked up and Bond's motivation for vengenace seems to wane in the viewers mind not all after the film leaves Miami. Dalton seemed alot less comfortable as Bond in this film but that seemed more the writer's fault. They let the film have time to play and Bond didn't. Even when Bond was suppose to relax was terrible, like the casino scene which was the worst the franchise's history. Bond's character was at one point so inconsistent, it was laughable. Take for example the Barrel Head Bar scene. Bond was making a liners and fighting a guy with a swordfish. Then when we leave the scene, all of sudden he get's angry for no reason. He cursed Bovier for saving his life after he just made a quip about it with a smile. As for the settings, were more loyal to a Miami Vice Tv show then James Bond. They wanted to make a serious film yet they insisted on putting in cheese that stuck out like a sore thumb. I am tired of people praising Q's role in this film, it was completely out of character for him. He would not go out on a limb to help a rougue 00 agent. Also that "Yes Sir !" made me want to vomit. That is not the Q we know and love dang it ! The plot elements were alos heavily flawed as well. I think Sanchez trusted Bond far too easily. He was way too close to him too soon. Overall, it's a decent Bond film but dosen't deserve alot of the praise it gets.

The film's shoehorning the 'old school' humour into a 'gritty' entry I agree with you ABOUT. Boothroyd helping Bond isn't impossible as (though it's never shown until GE and TWINE) it's always been obvious they're friends deep down. Bond gets angry at Bouvier is the same reason he angers at Q for showing up initially, he potentially knows he could get killed going after Sanchez without his usual 'resources' at hand and doesn't want the death of anybody else on his head.

But Q wouldn't going that far to help Bond, he isn't that loyal or close to Bond. He would also never say "yes sir !". The most I can see him doing his sending him gadgets somehow.

[Donovan]

I'll throw M into the mix (and probably stir up a hornet's nest as I think Lee and Brown played the same character). The story FYEO, which is considered by many Fleming fans to provide one of the best overall glimpses of M, begins with his sending Bond out on a mission to avenge the murder of his personal friend and his wife (for whom M was the best man). So the subplot of Bond resigning/M revoking his license and bringing along sharpshooters to stop him is where the film falls off the Fleming rails.

The other problem with LTK is what has been afflicting the Bond series for decades. After the 1960s, in which the Bond films blazed the trail for action films, the various producers have settled into a routine of following popular trends in the cinema. Blacksploitation (LALD), kung fu (TMWTGG), science fiction (MR), fast-paced action (OP), and Joel Silver modern violence (LTK) all were obvious influences of a Bond film's tone depending on when it was released. Even CR seemed to be jumping on the modern "re-boot" bandwagon that "Batman Begins" initiated.

[MajorB]

A lot of the responses have captured, in bits, my overall feeling about LTK: It was dour, it was unglamorous (even the more sumputous locations), and mainly, Bond was just so grim throughout. Plus, while I didn't have a problem with his going out for revenge, it seemed out of character for him to do it so heedlessly. (Out of character for Bond 1.0, that is; for the Bond in CR, it would have been right in keeping.) I would have liked the film much better if Bond had coldly determined to destroy Sanchez and gone through his paces with more relish. Of course, that would have killed some of the drama in the middle sections when we see Bond screwing up someone else's operation--that portion of the story would have to be sustained in some other fashion. But it would have seemed more consistent with the Bond we know, and would have played up the darker parts of him more satisfactorily, at least IMO. And it might have left more room for the sardnic Bond humor that some audience members found lacking in the film.

[Safari Suit]

The other problem with LTK is what has been afflicting the Bond series for decades. After the 1960s, in which the Bond films blazed the trail for action films, the various producers have settled into a routine of following popular trends in the cinema. Blacksploitation (LALD), kung fu (TMWTGG), science fiction (MR), fast-paced action (OP), and Joel Silver modern violence (LTK) all were obvious influences of a Bond film's tone depending on when it was released. Even CR seemed to be jumping on the modern "re-boot" bandwagon that "Batman Begins" initiated.

I don't really consider that a problem, I think it's the best way to keep a franchise alive. Sadly, you can only be the innovators for so long.

[Turn]

Even CR seemed to be jumping on the modern "re-boot" bandwagon that "Batman Begins" initiated.

I don't agree. CR was in the planning stages long before Batman Begins came out. And even then I remember some people being skeptical as to how it would be received. It was a big hit, but I don't think CR was as spawn of that.

I remember thinking some critics may use that excuse when CR came out, but as it turned out they didn't, at least the ones I read or listened to.

[Peckinpah1976]

I don't think LTK gets "Bond wrong" at all; in fact tonally, structurally and character wise it's pretty spot-on. What problems there are, are partly circumstantial (writers strike, budgets not keeping up with inflation, Clapton dropping out etc.) and the producers half-hearted attempts at "re-energizing the series" (John Glenn, again?!!?, going serious and yet keeping the jokes, Michael Wilson being allowed anywhere near a typewriter?!!?).

What the film really needed is the kind of passion, self-confidence and unity of vision that Barbara Broccoli, Paul Haggis and Martin Campbell would bring to CR 15 years later. As it stands LTK isn't a great Bond film but despite it's faults it's a damn good one.

[Mister E]

I don't think LTK gets "Bond wrong" at all; in fact tonally, structurally and character wise it's pretty spot-on. What problems there are, are partly circumstantial (writers strike, budgets not keeping up with inflation, Clapton dropping out etc.) and the producers half-hearted attempts at "re-energizing the series" (John Glenn, again?!!?, going serious and yet keeping the jokes, Michael Wilson being allowed anywhere near a typewriter?!!?).

I don't think all the blame of the writing should go to Micheal Wilson. You can also accuse Dick Maibaum of being artistically exuasted at that point in his career. The general problem of the eighties Bonds is that they were a bit too routine save some great moments.

Edited by Mister E, 02 June 2008 - 03:32 PM.

[Gabriel]

No I don't think the writers got Bond wrong as such, but there are problems with LTK. To address some of the issues, I don't have any worries about the supposed lack of establishment of Bond's and Felix's friendship. Very few people in the 1980s had seen all of the Bonds and even fewer knew what order they were in. My first was OHMSS, the second, The Spy Who Loved Me. Most people's Bond 'education' in the mid-eighties was a bit of Sean, a load of Roger and a dash of George. Everyone knew who Felix was: we'd all seen Goldfinger and Dr No. LaLD was VERY popular in the mid-eighties. We didn't even have perfect VHS collections on our shelves back then and relied on ITV broadcasts!

Seeing LTK after years of Roger was amazing. Seeing Bond show he could take care of himself in the era of ultra-violent, ultra-gory actioners was mindblowing. At the age of 14 (I was technically too young to see the film at the cinema, but so what?) I had started to read the Fleming books. To me, this was the tough guy of the books transplanted into the late-80s.

The biggest problem with LTK is that they take a big step in the direction of doing something new, but can't quite let go of the old baggage. Moneypenny is rubbish. M is marvellous: just that little bit tougher than before and willing to use heavies on Bond, if he has to. Q is great in this film, demurring to Bond's authority in the fireld: the implication being that since Bond is doing such a good job of getting into Sanchez's empire, SIS might help him out.

I loved Bond's ruthless manipulation of Sanchez, though. I also like that Pam got hurt when she discovered Bond's seduction of Lupe Lamora. And Dario was a really good psycho!

But a lot of the gags fall flat: they don't belong in the film and make the shift in tone half-hearted. The ending is definitely off-beam with Leiter being all smiles.

What I'd have liked to have seen for the next film was for Bond still to be a rogue agent who is captured by SIS and offered a pardon and full re-instatement if he goes on some insanely dangerous mission.

I think that LTK was a bold step for Bond, but about 15 years too early. For all the creative cowardice evidenced in GoldenEye and its successors with Brosnan where they went back to living the clich

[JimmyBond]

I don't think LTK gets "Bond wrong" at all; in fact tonally, structurally and character wise it's pretty spot-on. What problems there are, are partly circumstantial (writers strike, budgets not keeping up with inflation, Clapton dropping out etc.) and the producers half-hearted attempts at "re-energizing the series" (John Glenn, again?!!?, going serious and yet keeping the jokes, Michael Wilson being allowed anywhere near a typewriter?!!?).

I don't think all the blame of the writing should go to Micheal Wilson. You can also accuse Dick Maibaum of being artistically exuasted at that point in his career. The general problem of the eighties Bonds is that they were a bit too routine save some great moments.

I wouldnt lay any of the blame at Maibaum, actually. The writers strike precluded him from putting in any more work on the script so the whole thing was basically the work of Wilson, I like to think Maibaum came up with the outline and Wilson fleshed it out.

For what it's worth though, I enjoy the movie and don't really have any problems with it

[Mister E]

I wouldnt lay any of the blame at Maibaum, actually. The writers strike precluded him from putting in any more work on the script so the whole thing was basically the work of Wilson, I like to think Maibaum came up with the outline and Wilson fleshed it out.

For what it's worth though, I enjoy the movie and don't really have any problems with it

It wasn't just Licence To Kill, it was all Maibaum eighties Bond scripts. All the Bonds in that era just all felt tired.

[JimmyBond]

I think it had more to do with the direction than anything. John Glen's direction just never really had that much of a quickness to it, it lacked energy, I think his best work is FYEO, followed closely by TLD, only because I think the casting of a new Bond (temporarily) reenergized him.

[Mister E]

I think it had more to do with the direction than anything. John Glen's direction just never really had that much of a quickness to it, it lacked energy, I think his best work is FYEO, followed closely by TLD, only because I think the casting of a new Bond (temporarily) reenergized him.

It was the writing as well. John Glen didn't help things with his workman like direction but what also didn't help was the ideas for the scripts. The Dalton era gave the series a little boost at the time but still, the material Timmy had to work with wasn't that good. None of the characters in the eighties Bond films are very memorable. As for FYEO, I actually just posted a review of it in the "last film you watched" thread. Check it out if you like.

Edited by Mister E, 12 June 2008 - 03:53 AM.

[DR76]

It wasn't a spy movie and had nothing to do with international espionage. Even the villain was nothing more than a drug dealer. I didn't have a problem with Bond's attitude in this movie. He was a man out for revenge and because of this, was tense and slightly dark. But to seek revenge against a drug dealer?

[tdalton]

It wasn't a spy movie and had nothing to do with international espionage. Even the villain was nothing more than a drug dealer. I didn't have a problem with Bond's attitude in this movie. He was a man out for revenge and because of this, was tense and slightly dark. But to seek revenge against a drug dealer?

I think that the decision to have Bond go after a drug dealer in LTK was simply a case of EON following the trend of popular movies. When they made Moonraker, Star Wars as big at the time, and EON decided to play off the interest in sci-fi films and make a film in a similar style. I think that the same could be said for LTK, which was made at a time when Miami Vice was popular (although I believe that the show was canceled in the year that LTK was released).

One possibility, though, that I think plays into how LTK was done is that I think it was a case of EON deciding to go back and do what they should have done with Diamonds Are Forever. Having Felix get married and then lose his wife in a similar fashion to the way that Bond lost his made it a situation of Bond's exacting of revenge against Sanchez for Felix's loss standing in for Bond getting his own revenge against Blofeld. Making a true sequel to DAF almost two decades later would have been impossible, but I think that may have been the kind of idea that they were going for with LTK, or at least I would like to think that was the case.

[dinovelvet]

A lot of the responses have captured, in bits, my overall feeling about LTK: It was dour, it was unglamorous (even the more sumputous locations), and mainly, Bond was just so grim throughout. Plus, while I didn't have a problem with his going out for revenge, it seemed out of character for him to do it so heedlessly. (Out of character for Bond 1.0, that is; for the Bond in CR, it would have been right in keeping.) I would have liked the film much better if Bond had coldly determined to destroy Sanchez and gone through his paces with more relish. Of course, that would have killed some of the drama in the middle sections when we see Bond screwing up someone else's operation--that portion of the story would have to be sustained in some other fashion. But it would have seemed more consistent with the Bond we know, and would have played up the darker parts of him more satisfactorily, at least IMO. And it might have left more room for the sardnic Bond humor that some audience members found lacking in the film.

Lot of mistakes made on this one. The decision to bring David Hedison was just wrong; John Terry's delivery was a bit flat in TLD, but he still deserved another shot at the character. The arbitrary decision to bring Hedison back (an actor with no connection to Dalton's Bond) was just stupid. It broke continuity for a storyline that really could've used some.

The decision to set the entire last half of the movie in a fictional country was a bad idea. Since when did EON worry about offending real governments and countries? The attempt to spare Mexico any embarrassment by renaming the locations as "Isthmus" was painful. The beauty of Acapulco was largely squandered in the film; in fact, Mexico is such a beautiful and colorful country, and it's a shame that the film didn't do more to emphasize that rather than try and use Mexico to double for "Isthmus".

I've always had major problems with the storyline. I never found it believable that Sanchez wouldn't have found out that Bond was on the helicopter AND was the one who actually captured him. It's a major plot point that Wilson tries to get around, and he does so rather awkwardly.

The film has almost no plot whatsoever to keep it going, so it needs consistent and compelling characters and drama to keep the interest, yet it basically fails to do even that. It tries to be a psychological drama, with Bond trying to bring Sanchez down from within the inside. But as a psychological piece, it's pretty much a failure.

Patti Labelle and Gladys Knight are great singers, but their sound was all wrong for a Bond film, and having two R&B acts doing the title and love song was essentially the kiss of death for the soundtrack, or for any hope or chance of getting any heavy rotation on Billboard's Hot 100 or on MTV's video rotation.

Just seemed like, by this point, almost everyone involved with the making of 007 had either become creatively impotent or simply lost interest. The studio...EON...the writers...Glen...the whole thing was very perfunctory. The marketing was abysmal...Dalton wasn't clicking with audiences...was a real bad time to be a Bond fan. I know; I remember. I lived through it. I remember the packed houses for the opening night of TLD. Two years later the same theater I attended had an almost entirely empty theater for LTK. Nobody seemed to care anymore about Dalton or Bond.

I agree with absolutely everything in this post! I too lived through it, and remember it well. For teens back in 89, Bond was just Not Cool. Batman was the new news, and Indiana Jones was the equivalent of a new Bond movie for most people. I do wonder if a 61 year old Roger Moore would have brought in bigger box office? He certainly couldn't have fared worse, box office wise, than Dalton did.

[Mister E]

I think another thing was EON did not have the balls to make a bolder conception of a Bond film. My problem has always been with the film not taking any chances and less about Bond's personality. The film wanted to have time for the standard camp like Q's gadgets and conry characters like Joe Butcher. They also removed the sense and awe of spectacle and gave us blandess and 80's cheese. Overall, it was really a half effort on EON's part.

[Turn]

It wasn't a spy movie and had nothing to do with international espionage. Even the villain was nothing more than a drug dealer. I didn't have a problem with Bond's attitude in this movie. He was a man out for revenge and because of this, was tense and slightly dark. But to seek revenge against a drug dealer?

Technically, yes, Sanchez was a drug dealer, but much, much more. He was a kingpin, a man with enough clout to use a $1 million bribe to get him out of federal custody, to have his own city and army.

People can look at him as just a drug dealer, but they'd be missing out on what had to be the best Bond villain of the '80s and certainly one of the most underrated villains of the entire series. It's one of the things I can never understand about certain criticisms of LTK.

[Turn]

I think another thing was EON did not have the balls to make a bolder conception of a Bond film. My problem has always been with the film not taking any chances and less about Bond's personality.

Maybe we weren't watching the same film. It seems as if they were taking great chances and a bold move in straying away from the formula to have a non-secret service story and make it personal years before the "this time it's personal concept" became the norm in the Brosnan era.

So you think things like Bond going rogue, disobeying M to his face, killing people when he isn't on a mission, putting others' lives in danger, risking his own life and career for a personal vendetta don't account for being bold, taking chances and not learning anything about Bond's personality?

My guess is if I asked what your definition of a bold, chance-taking film Bond's personality the answer would be TWINE.

[Mister E]

Maybe we weren't watching the same film. It seems as if they were taking great chances and a bold move in straying away from the formula to have a non-secret service story and make it personal years before the "this time it's personal concept" became the norm in the Brosnan era.

LICENCE TO KILL really didn't stray away form the formula, it was just really watered down. If you want to talk about a Bond not relying on the standard formula ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE accomplished that far better then LTK did.

So you think things like Bond going rogue, disobeying M to his face, killing people when he isn't on a mission, putting others' lives in danger, risking his own life and career for a personal vendetta don't account for being bold, taking chances and not learning anything about Bond's personality?

You mis-read my post. I thought Bond's personality was good move for the film but the plot itself was weak. They set up the revenge concept but they do nothing to make it interesting. They never made coming so close to Sanchez believable, he had no scheme of anything remotely interesting, the settings and locales were dull, Q shouldn't have even been there,they wanted to have the standard Bond cheese like Joe Butcher or that Barrel Head Bar Scene, and both Bond girls were inept. LICENCE TO KILL was a generic action film of the 1980's with Bond's name on it. They bastard-ized their obvious source material, Fleming's LIVE AND LET DIE, to fit with the times and they failed.

My guess is if I asked what your definition of a bold, chance-taking film Bond's personality the answer would be TWINE.

Guess what genius, you would be wrong. I hated Brosnan and GOLDENEYE was his only decent film.

Edited by Mister E, 15 June 2008 - 04:50 AM.

[honeyjes]

The film was ahead of it's time. I think they got it wrong in the sense that people still wanted Cappuccino but got Espresso.

[Gabriel]

I liked the Bond girls in LTK. They seemed a little different. Pan was a believable CIA pilot and Lupe Lamora was of a class not seen in a Bond film in years. Lupe Lamora is clearly an assumed name. Almost certainly she grew up in poverty and probably became a whore before meeting Sanchez. And Sanchez himself is the kind of guy who would have grown up on the streets, becoming a drug dealer as a way of digging himself out of poverty. It doesn't excuse what sort of man he is, but how many other Bond villains came from that sort of background? Invariably, they were aristocratic supervillain types. Sanchez is a peasant with pretensions.

And I think the point of the film was that it was a violent 80s action film. Basically they lift the safe SIS agent character of Bond they'd been using for years and dumped him into a different type of film, meaning we get to see Bond have to cope with being in the world of Crockett and Tubbs and Riggs and Murtaugh. And he struggles: he bleeds, he screws up badly. Look at what happened to the Hong Kong Narcotics team and Sharky: Bond gets them killed, pursuing his vendetta. Essentially, everything that should happen in a Bond movie can't happen. Q can't stay in his safe lab with his convenient gadgets which telegraph plot points later on: he has to go active in the field. And it's not one of his gadgets that finishes off the bad guy: it's a lighter.

I think Sanchez is a great villain: one of the best in the series. On one level, he's willing to countenance shocking brutality, yet has a bizarre code of honour, rescuing Bond.

What this film really does is push Bond as a character. It shows just how dangerous an agent can be if he goes rogue, how many resources he can call on and just how far he'll go. Basically the the film is ''What happens when our suave hero loses his temper!' We were used to Roger Moore and his oh-so-cool Bond, who despatched bad guys with with a twinkle in his eye and a handy quip at the ready. Roger's Bond never lost his cool.

We all remember the line from The Incredible Hulk: 'Don't make me angry: you wouldn't like me when I'm angry!' Well, Bond gets angry here. Suddenly we have o reassess everything we've seen in the past few films. We've seen Roger's friendly Bond. Then we realise he must have killed people just as brutally.

LTK forces you to reassess Bond's character: it reveals the truth about what sort of a man Bond is. Pierce Brosnan wanted to build on Dalton's portrayal: he's always said, had it not been for Dalton, he couldn't have played Bond as he did. Unfortunately, just as LTK couldn't quite shake off the goofiness of the Roger Moore years, GoldenEye's Roger Moore-style 'humour' is an example of creative cowardice on the part of the producers.

But LTK was ahead of its time. After the creative cul-de-sac that was Brosnan's era, Casino Royale feels like a progression from Licence to Kill, making the four Brosnan films seem a complete waste of time!

Edited by Gabriel, 15 June 2008 - 08:30 AM.

[tdalton]

I liked the Bond girls in LTK. They seemed a little different. Pan was a believable CIA pilot and Lupe Lamora was of a class not seen in a Bond film in years. Lupe Lamora is clearly an assumed name. Almost certainly she grew up in poverty and probably became a whore before meeting Sanchez. And Sanchez himself is the kind of guy who would have grown up on the streets, becoming a drug dealer as a way of digging himself out of poverty. It doesn't excuse what sort of man he is, but how many other Bond villains came from that sort of background? Invariably, they were aristocratic supervillain types. Sanchez is a peasant with pretensions.

And I think the point of the film was that it was a violent 80s action film. Basically they lift the safe SIS agent character of Bond they'd been using for years and dumped him into a different type of film, meaning we get to see Bond have to cope with being in the world of Crockett and Tubbs and Riggs and Murtaugh. And he struggles: he bleeds, he screws up badly. Look at what happened to the Hong Kong Narcotics team and Sharky: Bond gets them killed, pursuing his vendetta. Essentially, everything that should happen in a Bond movie can't happen. Q can't stay in his safe lab with his convenient gadgets which telegraph plot points later on: he has to go active in the field. And it's not one of his gadgets that finishes off the bad guy: it's a lighter.

I think Sanchez is a great villain: one of the best in the series. On one level, he's willing to countenance shocking brutality, yet has a bizarre code of honour, rescuing Bond.

What this film really does is push Bond as a character. It shows just how dangerous an agent can be if he goes rogue, how many resources he can call on and just how far he'll go. Basically the the film is ''What happens when our suave hero loses his temper!' We were used to Roger Moore and his oh-so-cool Bond, who despatched bad guys with with a twinkle in his eye and a handy quip at the ready. Roger's Bond never lost his cool.

We all remember the line from The Incredible Hulk: 'Don't make me angry: you wouldn't like me when I'm angry!' Well, Bond gets angry here. Suddenly we have o reassess everything we've seen in the past few films. We've seen Roger's friendly Bond. Then we realise he must have killed people just as brutally.

LTK forces you to reassess Bond's character: it reveals the truth about what sort of a man Bond is. Pierce Brosnan wanted to build on Dalton's portrayal: he's always said, had it not been for Dalton, he couldn't have played Bond as he did. Unfortunately, just as LTK couldn't quite shake off the goofiness of the Roger Moore years, GoldenEye's Roger Moore-style 'humour' is an example of creative cowardice on the part of the producers.

But LTK was ahead of its time. After the creative cul-de-sac that was Brosnan's era, Casino Royale feels like a progression from Licence to Kill, making the four Brosnan films seem a complete waste of time!

One of the best reviews of LTK that I've ever read. I completely agree on all counts. Great post.

I especially agree on the Bond girls. In my own experience, I've found that the two Bond girls in this film aren't among the most popular in the series, but I find them to be some of the better Bond girls in the entire franchise.

[Mister E]

but I find them to be some of the better Bond girls in the entire franchise.

Oh I agree with that because the majority of Bond girls are horribly written.

[Mr_Wint]

I liked the Bond girls in LTK. (...)

Maybe you had something good to say but I decided to stop reading after that line, so I'll never know.

The so-called Bondgirls in LTK are at the bottom of my list. Awful writing, awful... 'acting'. I always use the fast-forward button when Lupe visits Pam and Q. Always.

[DR76]

People can look at him as just a drug dealer, but they'd be missing out on what had to be the best Bond villain of the '80s and certainly one of the most underrated villains of the entire series. It's one of the things I can never understand about certain criticisms of LTK.

As a character, I had nothing against Sanchez. Robert Davi had portrayed him with a lot of style, charm and menace. Character wise, he did a great job.

I would probably have less of a problem with LTK, if Bond was an Interpol agent or an American DEA agent. But after a real spy thriller like TLD, it was hard seeing Bond go up against a drug dealer . . . even a kingpin like Sanchez. It just seemed out of place for me . . . like the poppy fields plotline of LALD.