256 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

It just seemed out of place for me . . . like the poppy fields plotline of LALD.

That's how I feel. I thought the whole atmosphere of Licence To Kill was alot more loyal to Miami Vice instead of James Bond. As for Sanchez, Robert Davi did justice to a role that was lacking. There is nothing interesting about the actual character at all. He is a drug dealer with power but so what ?

Edited by Mister E, 16 June 2008 - 10:06 PM.

[Turn]

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.

You do make some good points which I agree with. OHMSS is a better departure from the formula, for sure, but LTK does enough with it to satisfy me.

I really don't find the Joe Butcher any worse or more distracting than the goofy guy from the casino in CR or, shudder, Madonna in DAD. Q probably didn't belong. A scene with him and Moneypenny in London probably would have done. But that still didn't kill things for me.

I guess I just like LTK as a different sort of Bond film and find the low key settings and more believable villain refreshing.

And I retract what I said about TWINE. Didn't meant to make that sound as harsh as it probably came off wrong. I don't know how many times I've heard people try to pass off the Brosnan era as the one where Bond got deeper when it didn't offer much beyond brooding on the beach or betrayals.

[Mister E]

I really don't find the Joe Butcher any worse or more distracting than the goofy guy from the casino in CR or, shudder, Madonna in DAD. Q probably didn't belong. A scene with him and Moneypenny in London probably would have done. But that still didn't kill things for me.

Joe Butcher didn't distract me as much as Q, some of the dumb one liners, that barrel head bar scene, the ninja agents, and the tacky romance. LTK should have gone with dry humor like Dr.No or From Russia With Love.

And I retract what I said about TWINE. Didn't meant to make that sound as harsh as it probably came off wrong

Fuh-getta 'bout it.

Edited by Mister E, 19 June 2008 - 12:55 AM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

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.

I thought the leading ladies were awful. I like them better in Fleming's books. Instead of preaching self-righteously about men's violence, like Lupe, they accepted it as a necessary evil. In the book Dr. No, Bond while escaping had to shoot someone in front of Honeychild Wilder. Then he apologizes to her, and she simply says, "Dont't be silly."

Bond often fought gangsters in the books, LALD, Goldfinger, Diamonds are Forever, The Man With the Golden Gun, so that wasn't new. I thought the chief damage was Wayne Newton as Professor Joe Butcher, "Bless your heart." I wondered when the Danke Shein kid started looking like a Tejano singer. Cary Lowell just plain stunk with a character that trying to be a feminist hold-her-own in a fight type, and then an ingenue, and then jealousy of Lupe.

[Safari Suit]

I don't know how many times I've heard people try to pass off the Brosnan era as the one where Bond got deeper when it didn't offer much beyond brooding on the beach or betrayals.

To be fair, it doesn't happen much these days, does it? (Except perhaps in reference to GE, where I agree its unjustified).

[byline]

I thought the leading ladies were awful. I like them better in Fleming's books. Instead of preaching self-righteously about men's violence, like Lupe, they accepted it as a necessary evil. In the book Dr. No, Bond while escaping had to shoot someone in front of Honeychild Wilder. Then he apologizes to her, and she simply says, "Dont't be silly."

I have mixed feelings about that. I understand your point; violence is part of their world. But are they -- women or men -- supposed to passively accept it? I thought the point of Lupe's comment was that she was being abused, on multiple fronts, and while she withstood it, she didn't accept it and effectively told Bond so. You could see that she was trying to figure out a way to safely extricate herself from that situation, but until the opportunity arose, she felt she had to put up with it.

I always thought the point of that exchange between her and Dalton's Bond was to illustrate the fact that Bond was torn and really didn't like the way violence impacted those other than his intended targets. But, like Lupe, he was caught in the web of his chosen profession, so he let her comment go because there was nothing he could do about it.

By the way, this is not to say that Talisa Soto's performance (or, for that matter, Carey Lowell's) was Oscar-worthy; quite the opposite. But if you look at the track record of all the film Bond girls, very few of them offer convincing portrayals, IMO . . . and that never seemed to be the point. It was their looks that the producers were after, and both Soto and Lowell do reasonably well on that point.

With Lowell, her "acting" is just too obvious. I'm not sure how much training she had by this point; she was vastly improved by the time she walked through the revolving door of "Law & Order" ADAs. She just comes across to me as very amateurish, and it undermines her character's supposed strength and feisty independence as a CIA pilot. But that's hardly the first time I've seen that happen to a Bond girl. Very often, their credentials were one thing, their demeanor quite something else. It was like they were Playboy Bunnies dressed up in a costume of the producer's choice.

Edited by byline, 22 June 2008 - 08:20 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I seem to recall women preaching against the violence of men in some late Bond movies starring Roger Moore too.

However, that's one of the qualities of Ian Fleming's James Bond that Timothy Dalton captured, a certain loathing for his job. One of the best lines in TLD was Bond saying how he doesn't kill amateurs, and if M fires him, he'll thank him.

Later while chasing after Necros, who just killed an agent named Saunders with some cafe doors, Bond pulls his gun and scares a mother and her young child. He immediately reholsters it with a look that was a cross between embarrassment at pulling his gun at the wrong time, and scaring a couple of innocent bystanders.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 23 June 2008 - 05:18 PM.

[Mister E]

Someone referred to the film as having "80's cheese", but that's a very revisionist way of looking at things. We were IN THE 80's, so we didn't know we were being offered "cheese", and I don't think the film was cheesy anyway. I think it made an honest attempt at being different than what had gone before, but the wrong people were in the decision making roles.

Maybe cheese wasn't right word but LTK feels alot more dated then Glen's four previous films. The first half in Miami felt too much like a 80's action tv show instead of a Bond film.

Even Brosnan's films were certainly different and a bit more progessive (a female "M"; rogue MI6 agents gone bad i.e. Trevelyan and Frost; more topical, political slants to the films than in years past; no bimbos purposefully written into the stories, Richards casting notwithstanding)

I found the ideas in the Brosnan films woefully under written overall. They were muddled by alot of action and bad one liners.

Edited by Mister E, 23 June 2008 - 11:11 PM.

[Publius]

Maybe cheese wasn't right word but LTK feels alot more dated then Glen's four previous films. The first half in Miami felt too much like a 80's action tv show instead of a Bond film.

I felt similarly before I got the Ultimate Edition. Still falls short of where I think Bond should be in terms of production values, but far better than the dusty VHS I first saw the film on. For whatever reasons, it seems to have benefited from the remastering more than any movie since the 60s ones.

[tambourineman]

I think the big problem that they made was that Sanchez was not Bond's man, and had nothing to do with Bond. I think it would have been a HUGE improvement to the script if Bond had been after Sanchez to begin with, in a joint CIA-MI6 operation, that way Bond would already have had a vested interest in capturing Sanchez to start off with, with what happened to Leiter simply making it personal.
I think that would have played far better then Bond going nuts, quitting MI6 and going after a man MI6 has nothing to do with for revenge for a man the other movies have never shown as having anything more then a casual working relationship with Bond.

Maybe this would have been better: Movie starts with Bond and Leiter capturing Sanchez after a long joint MI6/CIA operation, headed by Leiter. As in the film, Sanchez escapes and kills Della and maims Leiter. An enraged Bond, who has already been on the Sanchez case, wishes to continue his mission and go after Sanchez. M refuses and takes Bond off the case because he has made it personal. As in the film, Bond goes rogue and goes after Sanchez, and the rest of the film plays out as it was.

[Mister E]

I think they should have stuck closer to LIVE AND LET DIE. LICENCE TO KILL was a perfect opprotunity to make a faithful adaption but EON blew it.

[FlemingBond]

I've never had a problem with LTK. Had the budget been slightly higher, and with a John Barry score it would be remembered even better. It's failure at the box office was a little inexplicable.

[tambourineman]

I dont think its too inexplicable, look at the competition that year. '89 was a huge year for blockbuster movies, franhcises especially. Indiana Jones, Batman, Lethal Weapon, Back To The Future, Ghostbusters and James Bond.

[Harry Fawkes]

Simply put: no! LTK was one of the best Bond movies ever to grace the silver screen and if you can't see that yer blind!

[Gabriel]

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

Maybe I did. But since you're clearly such an pompous , it might have been better you didn't mention it at all. Instead you act like a playground bully and attack me for even posting on here! If you were trying to be funny, there are smileys available on the forum, so bone up on how to use them! If you were being serious, then get lost and join your saddo mates on danielcraigisnotbond.com, you steaming great prat!

[Stephen Spotswood]

I always wondered what a follow-up to LTK would've been like with Timothy Dalton. Since he attacked M (Sir Miles Messervy) in the begining of the film, you would think Bond would be persona non grata. However, it could be doctored to look like a set up, especially since Q later showed up on the scene with government equipment to help Bond.

Obviously MI6 were already involved with the DEA for some unexplained reason, but like Leiter said earlier to Bond, as an observer only. They were further involved when Miami police were questioning Bond. So it's like the Brits had an interest in Sanchez, but in deference to the CIA had to act "unofficially."

That was one of my main beefs with Goldeneye, although it came five years later. They never mentioned how Bond came back into the Service good graces, and was the biggest lapse in story continuity since Connery took the part back over from Lazenby. Here Bond kills the man who killed his wife in the begining of the movie, and it's unemotional, like Countess Teresa never existed at all. Of course later it turned out not to be Blofeld at all.

Additionally, in GE, Sir Miles was gone and there was an female M with no real explanations for anything.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 01 July 2008 - 07:37 PM.

[dogmanstar]

Interesting gamut of opinions and a lot of side issues here. But consider:

The closest parallel to LTK is Fleming's LALD. In this novel, Bond has so much respect for M he won't even smoke in his office uninvited! But in LTK, Bond participates in an act of violence toward M--that would have gotten any one of us fired. It seems out of character for such a professional.

Second, in LALD, Bond's response to Felix's maiming: He completes the job but does not go on a personal vendetta. In fact, following the discovery of Felix, Fleming does little to describe how Bond feels and only when he's told that Felix will survive does Bond show some emotion--and then it's welling up with warmth and compassion, no rage.

Finally, Bond going off the rails in rage seems so un-Fleming to me. Where does the literary Bond do this? After OHMSS, he checks out like a Zombie, not a revenge obsessed narcissist. He sleep walks (and I mean that in a very positive sense) through Fleming's YOLT as a bruised and broken man. LTK has none of that for me.

[Mister E]

Interesting gamut of opinions and a lot of side issues here. But consider:

The closest parallel to LTK is Fleming's LALD. In this novel, Bond has so much respect for M he won't even smoke in his office uninvited! But in LTK, Bond participates in an act of violence toward M--that would have gotten any one of us fired. It seems out of character for such a professional.

Second, in LALD, Bond's response to Felix's maiming: He completes the job but does not go on a personal vendetta. In fact, following the discovery of Felix, Fleming does little to describe how Bond feels and only when he's told that Felix will survive does Bond show some emotion--and then it's welling up with warmth and compassion, no rage.

Finally, Bond going off the rails in rage seems so un-Fleming to me. Where does the literary Bond do this? After OHMSS, he checks out like a Zombie, not a revenge obsessed narcissist. He sleep walks (and I mean that in a very positive sense) through Fleming's YOLT as a bruised and broken man. LTK has none of that for me.

Well Bond kicked the guy next to M but not the man himself. I agree with your post though.

[Turn]

That was one of my main beefs with Goldeneye, although it came five years later. They never mentioned how Bond came back into the Service good graces, and was the biggest lapse in story continuity since Connery took the part back over from Lazenby. Here Bond kills the man who killed his wife in the begining of the movie, and it's unemotional, like Countess Teresa never existed at all. Of course later it turned out not to be Blofeld at all.

Additionally, in GE, Sir Miles was gone and there was an female M with no real explanations for anything.

I think a lot of that was MGM's attempt to basically wipe away memories of the Dalton era, rather like the way DAF handled OHMSS. I think it's almost a slap at Dalton to have the GE's PTS take place in 1986, further proof they tried to distance the series from those days.

[Mister E]

That was one of my main beefs with Goldeneye, although it came five years later. They never mentioned how Bond came back into the Service good graces, and was the biggest lapse in story continuity since Connery took the part back over from Lazenby. Here Bond kills the man who killed his wife in the begining of the movie, and it's unemotional, like Countess Teresa never existed at all. Of course later it turned out not to be Blofeld at all.

Additionally, in GE, Sir Miles was gone and there was an female M with no real explanations for anything.

I think a lot of that was MGM's attempt to basically wipe away memories of the Dalton era, rather like the way DAF handled OHMSS. I think it's almost a slap at Dalton to have the GE's PTS take place in 1986, further proof they tried to distance the series from those days.

I agree. The fact that Trevelyan pointed out that "007's loyality was only to the mission and never to his friend" was totally out of character for Dalton's Bond. That basically ignores LICENCE TO KILL entirely. *sigh* I really wish we would have had that GOLDENEYE with Dalton and a version closer to the first draft.

[Turn]

Interesting gamut of opinions and a lot of side issues here. But consider:

The closest parallel to LTK is Fleming's LALD. In this novel, Bond has so much respect for M he won't even smoke in his office uninvited! But in LTK, Bond participates in an act of violence toward M--that would have gotten any one of us fired. It seems out of character for such a professional.

Second, in LALD, Bond's response to Felix's maiming: He completes the job but does not go on a personal vendetta. In fact, following the discovery of Felix, Fleming does little to describe how Bond feels and only when he's told that Felix will survive does Bond show some emotion--and then it's welling up with warmth and compassion, no rage.

Finally, Bond going off the rails in rage seems so un-Fleming to me. Where does the literary Bond do this? After OHMSS, he checks out like a Zombie, not a revenge obsessed narcissist. He sleep walks (and I mean that in a very positive sense) through Fleming's YOLT as a bruised and broken man. LTK has none of that for me.

I'll have to disagree with most of what you say. You bring up too many cases comparing the literary Bond to the cinematic Bond, when the two were never really that similar. There are touches here and there, but not that many and probably with good reason.

On the first point, the cinematic Bond and M seemed to have a quiet respect for one, but the rebellious side of Bond came out. Right from DN he disagrees right to M's face about use of the Beretta vs. the Walther, even trying to keep the Beretta until M stops him. Bond is sarcastic when M confronts him on Jill Masterson's death in GF.

And just as often, M shows disapproval of Bond's attitude at times like in the dinner scene of GF and the scenes at the beginning of DAF.

While not quite as rough as the resignation in LTK, isn't Bond's going above M's head to go after Blofeld after Tracy is captured in OHMSS somewhat similar? And even in the modern era Bond and M seem to have a grudging respect for each other rather than a genuine one.

Secondly on the revenge factor for Felix, Bond wasn't on an assignment when he began to take revenge in LTK. He was still on leave. Add to the fact Felix's bride was killed, which may have reminded Bond of Tracy, and that may add to it.

On the last point, nobody would pay to see James Bond as a sleepwalking zombie affected by what has happened to him. Again, two different mediums that work in different ways.

[Mister E]

Interesting gamut of opinions and a lot of side issues here. But consider:

The closest parallel to LTK is Fleming's LALD. In this novel, Bond has so much respect for M he won't even smoke in his office uninvited! But in LTK, Bond participates in an act of violence toward M--that would have gotten any one of us fired. It seems out of character for such a professional.

Second, in LALD, Bond's response to Felix's maiming: He completes the job but does not go on a personal vendetta. In fact, following the discovery of Felix, Fleming does little to describe how Bond feels and only when he's told that Felix will survive does Bond show some emotion--and then it's welling up with warmth and compassion, no rage.

Finally, Bond going off the rails in rage seems so un-Fleming to me. Where does the literary Bond do this? After OHMSS, he checks out like a Zombie, not a revenge obsessed narcissist. He sleep walks (and I mean that in a very positive sense) through Fleming's YOLT as a bruised and broken man. LTK has none of that for me.

I'll have to disagree with most of what you say. You bring up too many cases comparing the literary Bond to the cinematic Bond, when the two were never really that similar. There are touches here and there, but not that many and probably with good reason.

On the first point, the cinematic Bond and M seemed to have a quiet respect for one, but the rebellious side of Bond came out. Right from DN he disagrees right to M's face about use of the Beretta vs. the Walther, even trying to keep the Beretta until M stops him. Bond is sarcastic when M confronts him on Jill Masterson's death in GF.

And just as often, M shows disapproval of Bond's attitude at times like in the dinner scene of GF and the scenes at the beginning of DAF.

While not quite as rough as the resignation in LTK, isn't Bond's going above M's head to go after Blofeld after Tracy is captured in OHMSS somewhat similar? And even in the modern era Bond and M seem to have a grudging respect for each other rather than a genuine one.

Secondly on the revenge factor for Felix, Bond wasn't on an assignment when he began to take revenge in LTK. He was still on leave. Add to the fact Felix's bride was killed, which may have reminded Bond of Tracy, and that may add to it.

On the last point, nobody would pay to see James Bond as a sleepwalking zombie affected by what has happened to him. Again, two different mediums that work in different ways.

I agree with Bond's motives but LTK severely lacked the spectacle and exoctism that made the earlier films alot more fun and interesting. I much rather have Bond going after a villian who had some sort colour to him and a far more interesting plot. Drug dealers are simply is not that interesting.

[baerrtt]

I always wondered what a follow-up to LTK would've been like with Timothy Dalton. Since he attacked M (Sir Miles Messervy) in the begining of the film, you would think Bond would be persona non grata. However, it could be doctored to look like a set up, especially since Q later showed up on the scene with government equipment to help Bond.

Obviously MI6 were already involved with the DEA for some unexplained reason, but like Leiter said earlier to Bond, as an observer only. They were further involved when Miami police were questioning Bond. So it's like the Brits had an interest in Sanchez, but in deference to the CIA had to act "unofficially."

That was one of my main beefs with Goldeneye, although it came five years later. They never mentioned how Bond came back into the Service good graces, and was the biggest lapse in story continuity since Connery took the part back over from Lazenby. Here Bond kills the man who killed his wife in the begining of the movie, and it's unemotional, like Countess Teresa never existed at all. Of course later it turned out not to be Blofeld at all.

Additionally, in GE, Sir Miles was gone and there was an female M with no real explanations for anything.

If you watch LTK again towards the end Bond is told that M needs him for a job asap which pretty much means that once news of Sanchez's fall came through pretty much all was forgiven (yes one of the many, many flaws of LTK). Some fans have speculated on this and other forums that M would have punished Bond but that's fan fiction at best and doesn't chime with the described ending.

[byline]

Had EON at least brought back John Terry from The Living Daylights as Felix, there might've been more of a connection with Dalton's Bond, and since this was a PERSONAL STORY (no big world-in-crisis plot), it needed a personal, human touch. But it didn't have that because of the arbitrary nature of the casting decision to bring Hedison back. The audience really had nothing invested in Hedison by that point, so his maiming was less impactful with the audience.

Yup, IMO, that was the biggest mistake made in "Licence to Kill," bringing David Hedison back rather than maintaining continuity with John Terry. Of course, I thought Terry was awful in "The Living Daylights." They could've planted a tree there and it would've been about as animated. Not sure why that happened, and maybe he could've done a better job with a better script, not just a bit part on a boat.

[byline]

Not sure what Glen was looking for in Terry's three scenes that he wasn't able to get out of the actor, but I think whatever damage Terry did was minimal, and he should've been brought back for LTK. I've read the official account of how Hedison got the job, but I can't remember who told it. As I recall, Barbara or Dana ran in to David coming out of a gym and he looked fit and tan (I agree; he looked good as Leiter, but his Leiter belonged to Moore's Bond since that was the last actor we saw Leiter work off of) and they thought "what the hell!" and so they rehired him. That was it.

Wow, that was it? I agree with you; it had just been too long since Hedison last played the role, and it would have been better to have continued on with Terry. I don't watch "Lost" and so haven't kept track of his other acting roles, but I'm sure you're right, that he's done much better work and would've been far better in the role. Especially since Dalton ended up doing only two Bond films, it would've made a lot more sense, continuity-wise, to keep the two actors together for those films. Of course, I realize that no one was looking that far into the future, and perhaps no one anticipated that "Licence to Kill" would be Dalton's last Bond film, so maybe they felt that kind of continuity didn't matter. But it's something that grates on my nerves every time I watch "Licence to Kill."

Edited by byline, 04 July 2008 - 06:05 PM.

[Mister E]

Not sure what Glen was looking for in Terry's three scenes that he wasn't able to get out of the actor, but I think whatever damage Terry did was minimal, and he should've been brought back for LTK. I've read the official account of how Hedison got the job, but I can't remember who told it. As I recall, Barbara or Dana ran in to David coming out of a gym and he looked fit and tan (I agree; he looked good as Leiter, but his Leiter belonged to Moore's Bond since that was the last actor we saw Leiter work off of) and they thought "what the hell!" and so they rehired him. That was it.

Yeah I heard that. Hedison got the job because he just looked good for his age. He did but still, that shouldn't have been a reason he needed to return. Hedison's preformance in LIVE AND LET DIE wasn't even that good. Yes John Terry's was worse but I blame the script really and also he the advantage of being in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS so logic dictated he had to be in LICENCE TO KILL.

[Turn]

There were a lot of missed opportunities with Leiter over the years. They should have had Hedison play Leiter in AVTAK to finish the Moore era rather than the forgettable sacrificial lamb that was Chuck Lee. The actor portraying him had a more memorable death scene at the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

[Blofeld's Cat]

There were a lot of missed opportunities with Leiter over the years. They should have had Hedison play Leiter in AVTAK to finish the Moore era rather than the forgettable sacrificial lamb that was Chuck Lee. The actor portraying him had a more memorable death scene at the beginning of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

I've always thought that the Chuck Lee character replaced Leiter only because he dies. Can't have Leiter getting killed off.

[Dekard77]

I think the film worked in many aspects. I watched it '89 with a great amount of fear that Dalton will not shine as bright as Moore. But figured the movie was really good and ending well suited for a new age Bond film. But there are few reasons why I think it never clicked in the with audience the way it should have to become a Big Success at the B.O.

1. The style of direction is not a typical Bond film. OHMSS,CR and FYEO were also same type as LTK but still had the Bond gloss all over them . Whenever you watch them you feel like your watching a Bond movie. Locations. Clothes and a sense of style. Take Bond into a nice location and you can do anything with the characters and story. Best example CR.

2. The music score was a complete miss. The track Ninja was very effective but the rest was really out of place. Later on I found it very annoying Lethal Weapon 2 had the same score. This I feel was another reason why it didn't feel good. The creative team behind Bond should have rejected the score and gone with Barry or Conti or even a new composer like Anne Dudely.

3.Gadgets. The writers should have incorporated more gadgets to help the story. Q's gadget bag looked like it as taken from an old Mission Impossible tv series. There was absolutely no presentation. I know Bond is not working for the govt in this film but if they decided to bring Q at least show him with a better brief case.

4.The relationships with M,Lieter, Sanchez, Dario and Pam all worked for me except where Bond got involved as it looked like he was rushing through everyone to get to the next scene. There is not enough time given for Bond to behave like the lead character, instead you have pocket stories. The opening scene you hardly notice Bond. I applaud Moore, Connery and Brosnan for being able to hold their presence with the audience. Dalton's biggest weakness. Love the guy though. There is a nice but slightly OTT deleted scene in LTK where you see Bond watching Sanchez on TV and messing around with the lighter. Cool moment with Dalton. They could have changed the TV part to Sanchez being hunted by DEA officers than showing him attending a function like he has no fear being noticed or tracked. Silly.

5.Who wrote the truck wheeling scene anyway?? In '89 when I was watching the film glued to the screen thinking my god Bond has come a long way and he one tough mother.... I see the truck wheeling scene and crawled into a hole of shame. To this date I hate that scene cos it tips off the movie's balance.







5.

[DavidSomerset]

LTK would have worked out well as a all out violent film, albeit a PG13 under a good 80s action director like John McTiernan or Paul Verhoeven. James Cameron would have probably made the best 007 film of all time if he was given the basic thread of LTK.