256 replies to this topic

[Mister E]

I think Richard Donner or Brian DePalma would have been good choices to direct Licence To Kill.

Edited by Mister E, 06 July 2008 - 04:52 AM.

[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.

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

Agreed, but that's what leads to another of my frustrations with AVTAK, that Chuck Lee is merely around to be a sacrificial lamb when it wasn't necessary.

Tibbitt was a better character played by a beloved actor in the genre who was the only necessary sacrifical lamb in that film. Howe's death was enough to implicate Bond, the line about how his body was found in Chinatown was unnecessary, except to show off how lethal May Day is. Which makes it so shocking when she switches to Bond's side and...

Oh, never mind.

[Mr_Wint]

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.

I think one film with John Terry was more than enough. TLD didn't exactly wet my appetite for more of his Leiter.

[Harmsway]

I don't begrudge people liking LTK; I just don't think it worked as a moody, dark piece. The acting talent was, almost uniformly, made up of strictly straight-to-video actors or 70's has-beens. The caliber of actor needed for a dark, contemplative piece about revenge was not there, nor was the script or director.

Entirely agreed.

[Gabriel]

I still reckon a lot of Bond's 'going rogue' in the film was a set-up arranged in advance with the SIS. Sanchez had moles in the DEA and SIS was probably involved in the mole hunt. Bouvier has to take on the role intended for Felix as Sanchez unexpectedly knobbles him early on.

I think the opening of GE being set in 1986, before Dalton became Bond, was more of an explanation than an apology. Bond went from cheery Roger, bonking Tanya Roberts in the shower, to an angry bitter Bond, who says he would thank M for drumming him out of the service, in the space of two years. Trevelyan is the explanation. Suddenly, being an agent stopped being fun for Bond. Then he went off the rails in LTK. The scene, post-titles, in GE is supposed to show that Bond has grown older and moved past that phase.

When M, later in GE, tells Bond not to make things personal with Ouromov, to which Bond replies 'Never!' Bond is clearly reacting to a dig at his past conduct.

I think LTK is ill-treated retrospectively, in part because the studio publicity for GE wanted to hype the new film by dissing the series' recent history, which wasn't at all fair.

Brosnan has said that he owed a lot of his performance to Dalton and Dalton has remained on good terms with the Broccolis.

[Red Barchetta]

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.

Good point. I think after Tracy, Felix, then Della, Bond decided then and there to get Sanchez, and not wait for another time/place, as with Blofeld.
The revenge factor is what Bond should have had after Tracy's death. Maybe he fell guilt that he didn't / couldn't stop her death, so now he wants revenge- not just for Della, and Felix, but to also bring some closure over Tracy's death.

I think the writers got Bond right in LTK- this is how he would have acted.

My 2cc's.

[Pierce - Daniel]

No they didn't get him wrong, they got him so right.
The plot is fantastic and is catered for Dalton's 'acting' Bond. They got it very right. For me both the Dalton movies are the Bond series gold standard, with the first 4 Connery's. They are intage classics.
LTK could have been a diaster, but Dalton makes it work. The Dalton movies are Glen's finest hour, his last 2 Moore's were poor in terms of direction, especaily OP which is badly made (I hate the random zoom in and outs). LTK is fantastic, you get a feel of the locations and on top of that, Davi is superb as the villain, the parable of him and Bond being very similar and those scenes at Sanchez's house are inspired.
The film is fantastic, the girls are hot, the location is stunning, the action is IMMENCE, and to top it off it has one of the finest Bond preformences.The only other Bond preformences that stand out aside Dalton in TLD and LTK, have to be Moore in TSWLM, and Craig in Cr, i can't pick a Connery, there pretty flawless.
LTK is amazing, the writers did such a great job, Dlton dosen;t have bad chemistry with anyone in this movie, the way him and Hedison play off each other is great, it makes the moment he finds Felix's body a painful and moving scene, it's paradoxed fantastically by the phonecall after, and Bond's hardass reply. One of the franchise's bests.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I think Richard Donner or Brian DePalma would have been good choices to direct Licence To Kill.

Anyone but Quintin Tarantino.

I was never a big fan of Brian DePalma. His movie Obsession was a terrible Vertigo rip-off and he over uses music and zoom cuts. I did like the Untouchables, but it was a bit too operatic and "arty", but had a fine performance by Sean Connery.

[Mister E]

Anyone but Quintin Tarantino.

Agreed.

I was never a big fan of Brian DePalma. His movie Obsession was a terrible Vertigo rip-off and he over uses music and zoom cuts. I did like the Untouchables, but it was a bit too operatic and "arty", but had a fine performance by Sean Connery.

I found THE UNTOUCHABLES one of the last great romantic films about the era of prohibition. He isn't an auteur but DePalma can make films alot of fun. I think would have made a far more tense and exciting LICENCE TO KILL.

Edited by Mister E, 21 July 2008 - 05:57 PM.

[DR76]

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.

Actually, Bond was supposed to be in Turkey for an assignment, when he decided to remain in Florida and seek revenge.

[Safari Suit]

I was never a big fan of Brian DePalma. His movie Obsession was a terrible Vertigo rip-off and he over uses music and zoom cuts. I did like the Untouchables, but it was a bit too operatic and "arty", but had a fine performance by Sean Connery.

I've never seen a film by DePalma that wasn't at least interesting though, and certainly not one that didn't at least look good. I love LTK, and I love much of Glen's work too, but I admit it could have done with a bit more "umph" (whatever that is). I think DePalma could have provided it, although of course someone like him wouldn't really work within the EON system.

[ChickenStu]

I don't think they got Bond wrong as such, but there is ONE thing which kinda stands out to me.

InFor Your Eyes Only, when Melina Havelock is determined to avenge the death of her parents, Bond tells her something along the lines of "Someone out looking for revenge, should at first dig two graves...
It's a brilliant line (delivered with a surprising amount of gravitas by Moore I must say), as Bond tries to talk this angry young woman out of what she's doing, cause he thinks she's going to make a terrible mistake. That revenge is a bad thing.

With that in mind, Bond's attitude in Licence To Kill surprises me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking movie, and I think Timothy Dalton is brilliant in it. But his hang em high attitude really surprises me, I feel it's at odds with the way we've previously seen the character. His actions were kind of irresponsible, and in previous times, he'd been able to keep his cool when friends and lovers were killed/injured.

Bond as I know him, would've forced the DEA to deputise him and would've worked with them. I find it quite shocking the way he pretty much goes out and kills anyone and anything in his path.

Having said that though, it IS a revenge story with deliberate shades of Yojimbo. I get the feeling that my reaction IS the reaction that filmmakers wanted to get from the Bond audience, so with this in mind I think the film is still a job well done.

[Turn]

I don't think they got Bond wrong as such, but there is ONE thing which kinda stands out to me.

InFor Your Eyes Only, when Melina Havelock is determined to avenge the death of her parents, Bond tells her something along the lines of "Someone out looking for revenge, should at first dig two graves...
It's a brilliant line (delivered with a surprising amount of gravitas by Moore I must say), as Bond tries to talk this angry young woman out of what she's doing, cause he thinks she's going to make a terrible mistake. That revenge is a bad thing.

With that in mind, Bond's attitude in Licence To Kill surprises me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking movie, and I think Timothy Dalton is brilliant in it. But his hang em high attitude really surprises me, I feel it's at odds with the way we've previously seen the character. His actions were kind of irresponsible, and in previous times, he'd been able to keep his cool when friends and lovers were killed/injured.

Bond as I know him, would've forced the DEA to deputise him and would've worked with them. I find it quite shocking the way he pretty much goes out and kills anyone and anything in his path.

Having said that though, it IS a revenge story with deliberate shades of Yojimbo. I get the feeling that my reaction IS the reaction that filmmakers wanted to get from the Bond audience, so with this in mind I think the film is still a job well done.

Interesting thoughts. It almost makes the code name thing plausible. But not quite.

[ChickenStu]

I don't think they got Bond wrong as such, but there is ONE thing which kinda stands out to me.

InFor Your Eyes Only, when Melina Havelock is determined to avenge the death of her parents, Bond tells her something along the lines of "Someone out looking for revenge, should at first dig two graves...
It's a brilliant line (delivered with a surprising amount of gravitas by Moore I must say), as Bond tries to talk this angry young woman out of what she's doing, cause he thinks she's going to make a terrible mistake. That revenge is a bad thing.

With that in mind, Bond's attitude in Licence To Kill surprises me. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a cracking movie, and I think Timothy Dalton is brilliant in it. But his hang em high attitude really surprises me, I feel it's at odds with the way we've previously seen the character. His actions were kind of irresponsible, and in previous times, he'd been able to keep his cool when friends and lovers were killed/injured.

Bond as I know him, would've forced the DEA to deputise him and would've worked with them. I find it quite shocking the way he pretty much goes out and kills anyone and anything in his path.

Having said that though, it IS a revenge story with deliberate shades of Yojimbo. I get the feeling that my reaction IS the reaction that filmmakers wanted to get from the Bond audience, so with this in mind I think the film is still a job well done.

Interesting thoughts. It almost makes the code name thing plausible. But not quite.

I don't subscribe to the codename theory...

[TheHildebrandRarity]

I don't think they got it wrong at all. Remember there were 15 bond films beforehand and I think they wanted to do something different and out of place -in a good way.

I thought Tim was fantastic in the film and played the part very well. I liked all the supporting cast and the locations along with the assasination attempt and how he plays a rogue agent. The plot and script was very good and again Tim gives us a very good James Bond.

Overall LTK is what it is, something different and the only one of its kind in the series.

[Publius]

InFor Your Eyes Only, when Melina Havelock is determined to avenge the death of her parents, Bond tells her something along the lines of "Someone out looking for revenge, should at first dig two graves...

That line annoyed me terribly because it, along with the lame PTS, struck me as the powers that be trying to justify why they didn't have Bond avenge Tracy after OHMSS. We know the real reason is them backpedaling away from a direction audiences seemed lukewarm about, at best, but it's like they wanted to say "hey, we're not ignoring the events of that movie, it's just that Bond's not the kind of guy who'd make a big deal over them." Forget what would be natural for the character to do, the people in charge of the character are simply telling us he wouldn't do it.

[SecretAgentFan]

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.

Have to disagree here. Although LTK is definitely not my favorite Bond film, I´ll have to answer:

1. The lack of "gloss" is there but mostly due to the shrunken budget. Some interiors seem overlit. Bond and Pam on the boat has bad back-projection. Also, since the movie takes place in only two locations it does not feel like the typical globe-trotting Bond. The direction, however, appears to be totally John Glen-like.

2. Michael Kamen was a great composer. Yet, his choice of instrumentation sometimes kept his style in too narrow bounds. "Lethal Weapon 2" did not have the same score. At times it only sounded similar. Apart from that, it was a good Bond score IMO. Especially for the gunbarrel.

3.More gadgets? I think Q and the gadgets did not help the serious tone at all. No Q and no gadgets would have served this story much better. But the courage to do that was not there at that time, understandably. It would be there for CR, though.

4. Pocket stories? Bond rushing from scene to scene? Gee, he is under a lot of pressure in that story. Dalton totally owns the screen whenever he is on it. He´s the best thing about the film IMO.

5. The truck sequence is fantastic. Just the right energy for the finale. Totally Bondian when he drives it on two wheels to escape the stinger (and kind of an homage to DAF).

[Mister E]

4. Pocket stories? Bond rushing from scene to scene? Gee, he is under a lot of pressure in that story. Dalton totally owns the screen whenever he is on it. He´s the best thing about the film IMO.

I didn't feel Bond had any pressure during most of LTK really. The film lacked tension. The only scene I found rather tense was when Bond snuck into Krest's lab at night.

[Major Tallon]

InFor Your Eyes Only, when Melina Havelock is determined to avenge the death of her parents, Bond tells her something along the lines of "Someone out looking for revenge, should at first dig two graves...

That line annoyed me terribly because it, along with the lame PTS, struck me as the powers that be trying to justify why they didn't have Bond avenge Tracy after OHMSS. We know the real reason is them backpedaling away from a direction audiences seemed lukewarm about, at best, but it's like they wanted to say "hey, we're not ignoring the events of that movie, it's just that Bond's not the kind of guy who'd make a big deal over them." Forget what would be natural for the character to do, the people in charge of the character are simply telling us he wouldn't do it.

I think there's a different reason that the "two graves" line was included in the film. They were simply adapting the source material(FYEO):

"He [Bond] said with sympathy and respect, 'You're quite a girl Judy. It's a long walk from Jamaica. And you were going to take him on with your bow and arrow. You know what they say in China: "Before you set out on revenge dig two graves." Have you done that, or did you expect to get away with it?'"

I don't think they were considering Bond taking revenge for Tracy's death at all.

[Stephen Spotswood]

Actually Mr. E. I thought LTK was one of the most suspensful Bond movies ever made. Robert Davi seemed downright as coldblooded and lizard like as his iguana. Benecio Del Toro seemed downright deranged. And after some earlier PG-13 violence of Sanchez escaping a police truck, and Leiter's mutilation by sharks, and of course the head blowing up scene, when Bond puts himself in dangers way by working for Sanchez, it was totally different and totally effective form of tension than we had ever seen in the 007 movies to that point. It was brilliant cat-and-mouse scenes of Bond planting doubts in Sanchez mind about his own people, while having to dodge suspicions that he actually never left the Secret Service. I mean, he was sleeping with Sanchez's mistress in the man's own house! Sanchez earlier in the movie had a man brutally killed, Aztec style, off-camera for just that reason. And then the movie had pretty intense scenes where Bond is captured by the Asian agents, only to have one of them take the shots meant for him. The movie's pièce de résistance was Dalton's frantic battle with Benecio Del Toro on a conveyer belt.

That forklift through the chest of the bad guy scene was also very memorable, especially since Don Stroud usually plays good guys.

I wonder how many people today would burn the cocaine, but keep the gas?

But the movie was hurt by the back-projection, low budget look as another has already said, the bad acting of Carrie Lowell, and just the mere presence of Huey Newton. (Strangely enough I liked Carrie Lowell's scene with Newton as a fake goo-goo eyed acolyte.) I too cringed during the truck stunt scene, but they more than made up for it with a dusty, bleeding Bond in a torn suit, torching the gas drenched bad guy (who was now almost a friend.) And he did it with the lighter Felix and Darla gave him as a best man's gift at their tragic wedding.

And then stuck in the middle of nowhere, Bond had to be rescued by the Pam Bouvier in her helicopter.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 27 August 2008 - 05:42 PM.

[Mister E]

Stephen, I'll give you only the scenes in Miami were there was actually tension but evyerthing else was dreadfully banal. The secret service was barely a factor in this film. They only intervened once during the entire film and Bond was quickly captured later by Sanchez, who warmed up to Bond too quickly in the first place. By they way, the ninja stuff was extremely corny and lame, "hi-yahs" and all that rubbish. You never felt Bond's life was in danger while he was with Sanchez because he was too nice to him and no one else could possibly blow his cover because the only one who could, Dario, conventiently dissapeared until the last the act of the film. Some minor tension was there when Bond was on Krest's ship to frame him but not enough to call it better then anything we saw in the Bond series before. Krest's death was also extremely stupid to be taken seriously, his head blew up like a baloon then exploded. Then of course Q who shouldn't have been in the film at all and dumb one liners on the level of Roger Moore.

[JimmyBond]

What you see as negatives I see as just fine (and I don't agree that Krest's death was stupid, it made sense in the context of the scene. Not sure I agree about Q either, his role was just right, he acted like a real character for once and not just set up for the gadgets Bond would use later on.

And one liners on the level of Roger moore? I think you were watching a different film than I was

[Mister E]

What you see as negatives I see as just fine (and I don't agree that Krest's death was stupid, it made sense in the context of the scene.

I thought the head epxloding was a corny effect and totally un-menacing.

Not sure I agree about Q either, his role was just right, he acted like a real character for once and not just set up for the gadgets Bond would use later on.

What the hell are you talking about ? Q is a prideful stiff that can't stand Bond's abuse of his gadgets. It's like an artist watching his work being destroyed. LICENCE TO KILL just made him a yes man to 007. They ruined his character in the film. Everytime I hear that "Yes Sir" line, it pisses me off.

And one liners on the level of Roger moore? I think you were watching a different film than I was

Mostly the crap from that awful Barrelhead bar scene.

Edited by Mister E, 28 August 2008 - 02:06 AM.

[JimmyBond]

I thought the head epxloding was a corny effect and totally un-menacing.

I really don't think it's given enough screentime to matter one way or the other, a small thing to dislike in the grand scheme of the film.

What the hell are you talking about ? Q is a prideful stiff that can't stand Bond's abuse of his gadgets. It's like an artist watching his work being destroyed. LICENCE TO KILL just made him a yes man to 007. They ruined his character in the film. Everytime I hear that "Yes Sir" line, it pisses me off.

You say tomatoh I say tomato.

Mostly the crap from that awful Barrelhead bar scene.

I love that whole sequence, so un-Bondlike.

[Donovan]

Six years ago I posted this opinion on LTK's script where Fleming's characterizations were concerned:

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

I think, overall, the writers/producers wanted to shake things up a bit. You can't blame them for that considering the Moore films were creatively formulaic to the point of paint-by-numbers scripts. And after reading a post about OHMSS I would concede that Fleming's Bond took matters into his own hands in order to exact vengeance upon Blofeld in YOLT. Of course, he was pretty screwed in the head by this time.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

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�, Brosnan himself said that he simply couldn't have done Bond without Timothy Dalton setting the scene for him.

Dalton was a sacrificial lamb: his portrayal single-handedly pulled Bond out of self-parody, allowing James Bond to become a character in his own right again, rather than Roger Moore spoofing his own image. In the space of four years, Bond went from the established jokey style of A View to a Kill, to a hard-nosed tough thriller like LTK. A lot of people had a difficult time dealing with that. An entire generation considered Roger Moore to be Bond and suddenly there was a new actor and a completely different style.

For me, I love LTK as the first Bond I saw in the cinema, the first Bond to make knuckle down and read all of the Fleming Bonds, the Bond that made me serious about seeing the Connery films and Lazenby's film again. GoldenEye, with its re-introduction of the Roger Moore silliness felt like a massive backwards step and Martin Campbell has since admitted that GE was a creative cul-de-sac for the series, even though I think it's a very nice looking film.

Its ironic that a younger Timothy Dalton could easily have played Bond in Casino Royale. For all the complaints lodged at LTK, it represented a turning point for the series. Without it, I'm not sure we'd have new Bonds in the cinema now!

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!

Both good posts, Gabriel. Especially like your point about CR seeming like a progression from LTK. Lately, I've come to feel that Brosnan films seem like a waste of time by comparison. I'm grateful for their financial success and the new fans they brought to the series but that's about it. I'd rather view just about any Bond film made pre-1995 than the Brosnans right now.

look at the string of films Glen directed. I think they're all pretty good, with OP and TLD being his best work.

Agreed. See my sign. OP and TLD were Glen's finest hours. Of course, the John Barry scores, the Cold War atmosphere and the fact that the lead actor was perfect for each individual film helped also.

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.

That bothered me as well. Unless of course one can argue the "death" of Alec Trevelyan is what caused Bond to be much darker and more serious in TLD and LTK than he was in AVTAK.

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.

Agreed as well. I've read a reviewer call the GE we do have in existence a "dumbed down" Dalton film.

[Dekard77]

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.

Have to disagree here. Although LTK is definitely not my favorite Bond film, I´ll have to answer:

1. The lack of "gloss" is there but mostly due to the shrunken budget. Some interiors seem overlit. Bond and Pam on the boat has bad back-projection. Also, since the movie takes place in only two locations it does not feel like the typical globe-trotting Bond. The direction, however, appears to be totally John Glen-like.

2. Michael Kamen was a great composer. Yet, his choice of instrumentation sometimes kept his style in too narrow bounds. "Lethal Weapon 2" did not have the same score. At times it only sounded similar. Apart from that, it was a good Bond score IMO. Especially for the gunbarrel.

3.More gadgets? I think Q and the gadgets did not help the serious tone at all. No Q and no gadgets would have served this story much better. But the courage to do that was not there at that time, understandably. It would be there for CR, though.

4. Pocket stories? Bond rushing from scene to scene? Gee, he is under a lot of pressure in that story. Dalton totally owns the screen whenever he is on it. He´s the best thing about the film IMO.

5. The truck sequence is fantastic. Just the right energy for the finale. Totally Bondian when he drives it on two wheels to escape the stinger (and kind of an homage to DAF).

It's obvious that you felt complete opposite to what I said. '89 this film was good to me, I love Dalton as an actor. He did make a good change and he should have been given more lines to work on rather than rely on the Eastwood like presence which really doesn't work with him. But the film has budget and script problems added with Glen running out of steam as a director. This mistake was corrected in the Brosnan years.
A good Bond movie with good characters but the overall look of the film doesn't live up in the Bond world. Also the score and the sets make a big difference in these movies as that's why we love em. They're not exactly character driven pieces like the Constant Gardener. I have a strong feeling that Loan Gufford will play Bond one day and will be very similar to Dalton.

[Publius]

I didn't feel Bond had any pressure during most of LTK really. The film lacked tension. The only scene I found rather tense was when Bond snuck into Krest's lab at night.

My first time watching it, I found it among the most tense Bond films. I knew Bond was going to make it out alive, as he always does, -- although having known it was the last Bond film for a long time, it was still a great mystery to me how everything would be left off... the OHMSS references kept me on my toes -- but I had no idea when and if he would be found out by Sanchez.

The scenes where Bond breaks into Krest's warehouse, when he's on the WaveKrest, when he's at Sanchez' casino, when he's at Sanchez' estate... all provide a constant level of suspense for me. Obviously, having seen it a million times means that there's not much genuine worry in my mind anymore, but that's not a fault of the film.

I think there's a different reason that the "two graves" line was included in the film. They were simply adapting the source material(FYEO):

"He [Bond] said with sympathy and respect, 'You're quite a girl Judy. It's a long walk from Jamaica. And you were going to take him on with your bow and arrow. You know what they say in China: "Before you set out on revenge dig two graves." Have you done that, or did you expect to get away with it?'"

I don't think they were considering Bond taking revenge for Tracy's death at all.

I don't doubt that they're just using the source material, but given the PTS it just sat differently with me.

I thought the head epxloding was a corny effect and totally un-menacing.

It was an homage to LALD.

What the hell are you talking about ? Q is a prideful stiff that can't stand Bond's abuse of his gadgets. It's like an artist watching his work being destroyed. LICENCE TO KILL just made him a yes man to 007. They ruined his character in the film. Everytime I hear that "Yes Sir" line, it pisses me off.

Although I hated his gadget scene (the actual "gadgets" he gives Bond are fine, since they're just a gun and a disguised explosive), I think Q was great in this film. The "Yes sir" line didn't strike me as Q being under Bond's control so much as Q making a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgment that (1) the usual roles had switched and (2) Q understands that in the field he should defer to the more experienced field agent.

Q was there to support Bond despite their rocky history, and I think it's here, outside the comfort of a lab where you can joke about hating each other, in a gravely dangerous situation, that the true nature of their close friendship and immense respect for each other comes out. Q also receives his greatest character development to date, having finally realized that keeping equipment in pristine order is not a priority when you're on a life-threatening mission.

Mostly the crap from that awful Barrelhead bar scene.

Even as a rabid LTK fanboy, I gotta agree with you there.

[Mister E]

I didn't feel Bond had any pressure during most of LTK really. The film lacked tension. The only scene I found rather tense was when Bond snuck into Krest's lab at night.

My first time watching it, I found it among the most tense Bond films. I knew Bond was going to make it out alive, as he always does, -- although having known it was the last Bond film for a long time, it was still a great mystery to me how everything would be left off... the OHMSS references kept me on my toes -- but I had no idea when and if he would be found out by Sanchez.

Unlike LTK, OHMSS actaully felt tense when Bond was in Piz Gloria. Sanchez was clearly in no rush to discover who Bond was while Blofeld and his aides kept a close eye on everyone at Piz Gloria. There was that threat of exposure while in LTK, it's obvious only you as the viewier you fear it will happen but it's no evident on the film very much.

The scenes where Bond breaks into Krest's warehouse, when he's on the WaveKrest, when he's at Sanchez' casino, when he's at Sanchez' estate... all provide a constant level of suspense for me. Obviously, having seen it a million times means that there's not much genuine worry in my mind anymore, but that's not a fault of the film.

I'll only give you the warehouse and the wavekrest and the last half of the casino, everything else was weak and with rather poor dialogue and no tension at all.

It was an homage to LALD

Where was that in LALD ? I have read it three times before.

Q was there to support Bond despite their rocky history, and I think it's here, outside the comfort of a lab where you can joke about hating each other, in a gravely dangerous situation, that the true nature of their close friendship and immense respect for each other comes out. Q also receives his greatest character development to date, having finally realized that keeping equipment in pristine order is not a priority when you're on a life-threatening mission.

His character dosen't develop at all, it's watered down for this film. He never realizes that his equipment gets damaged for purpose. He just becomes Bond's "Yes Man". And it's totally out of character of him to leave MI6 to help a rogue agent. He clearly has always had a respect for 007 but to risk his own job and life to help him is another extreme, they simply were never that close. He was just written because "a Bond movie has to have Q".

I really don't think it's given enough screentime to matter one way or the other, a small thing to dislike in the grand scheme of the film.

His death had to be better. He was number two is Sanchez's orginization and his death was extremely lame.

You say tomatoh I say tomato.

Yeah if you ignore Q's character entirely.

I love that whole sequence, so un-Bondlike.

It's not a matter of being of how "Bond-like" it was, it was a matter of how it was written and it was terribly. I am not surprised too much though since this was less of a Bond film and more like Die Heard, Leathal Weapon, or Miami Vice.

Edited by Mister E, 28 August 2008 - 05:37 PM.

[Safari Suit]

I thought the head epxloding was a corny effect and totally un-menacing.

I really don't think it's given enough screentime to matter one way or the other, a small thing to dislike in the grand scheme of the film.

If we start working on that basis, the post count will decrease by about 60%!

I am not surprised too much though since this was less of a Bond film and more like Die Heard, Leathal Weapon, or Miami Vice.

Miami Vice I can see. Lethal Weapon? I guess, a little. Die Hard? Nah