256 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

I also want to ad DEATH WISH 4 as an influence of this film because Milton Krest had an uncanny simularity to the main villian.

That's an interesting comparison. But I dount such a low profile, low grossing (and critically dismissed) film like DW4 would have had much of an impact on the way they made LTK.

Of course, LTK isn't as much fun as Death Wish 4. But what is?

[DamnCoffee]

Wash your mouth out with soap.

Only if you do it for me, sweetheart.

I'm not lathering you up, matey!

*slowly and silently steps back and runs out of thread*

[Harry Fawkes]

The writers didn't get LTK wrong. They did a wonderful job. The film is bloody good. Dalton was great. It was different in the truest sense. The fact is the timing was completely wrong. The advertisement department and studio heads got it wrong. Everything else was top notch. LTK is one hell of a James Bond film that stands up there with the best of the series!


Harry

[byline]

If anything, the producers and writers played up Dalton's experience with gothic romance, by actually having him wooing the girl in The Living Daylights, first faking it and then for real. And when he doesn't show to her first Carnegie Hall performance, her disappointment was palpable, but then she goes behind a dressing screen where he awaits with his beeping keychain, and it ends on an almost old fashioned note.

Yup, I loved that! Of course, that was a no-holds-barred romantic moment ("The Living Daylights" was full of them), but if that ain't your cuppa tea, then naturally it will be a turnoff. But both my husband and I enjoyed finally seeing that side of Bond (the only other time I recall seeing it portrayed with such intensity was "For Your Eyes Only" . . . which could easily have been a Dalton film).

However, I do agree that Craig's ability to capture much of what Dalton was doing while still having that Bondian swagger, sense of humor, etc. makes him the better Bond.

Agreed. Dalton was good but too sour and Craig gave not only us Bond fans what we wanted but also the general audience. Balance is the key.

Nah. Dalton was better in Daylights than Craig was in Casino Royale. Not that Craig was playing the proper James Bond, anyway.

Craig was far better then Dalton ever was. He was emotionially deeper and far more charismatic, and also sexier. Even if Dalton got the scripts he deserved, I really doubt he would have been better then Craig. Also Craig was oozing James Bond, he had all the Bond flavour and his own style to boot. This claim he didn't "play the proper James Bond" is a load of crap.

I disagree; I think both were equally strong, taking similar approaches to the character but placing slightly different emphasis here and there. I enjoy both portrayals and appreciate their respective takes on the character.

Edited by byline, 30 August 2008 - 05:33 PM.

[DamnCoffee]

Craig was far better then Dalton ever was.

Both actors got off to an equaly good start. I love them both, I can't see how you can say that Craig is better than Dalton after just one film. We never know, maybe with Casino Royale Craig was just lucky. Untill Craig has a good few movies under his belt, then it will be easier to make that decision, BUT he may very well be one of the greatest James Bonds that has ever graced the silver screen.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I really think the M at Hemingway House scene hits a wrong note, in so many ways; from M's stinginess to Bond's jumpiness to the idiotic lines and M's sudden block on shooting Bond only because there are too many witnesses... it just hits a bullshît note.

[Mister E]

Craig was far better then Dalton ever was.

Both actors got off to an equaly good start. I love them both, I can't see how you can say that Craig is better than Dalton after just one film. We never know, maybe with Casino Royale Craig was just lucky. Untill Craig has a good few movies under his belt, then it will be easier to make that decision, BUT he may very well be one of the greatest James Bonds that has ever graced the silver screen.

No, not really. Caiag really nailed it in the emotion department and his charisma. He was alot deeper then Dalton was. That was NOT luck, you don't pull off a preformance like that with luck. You can judge the Bond after one film unless you get the feeling they were bogged down by script problems or direction. CR had neither of those problems.

If anything, the producers and writers played up Dalton's experience with gothic romance, by actually having him wooing the girl in The Living Daylights, first faking it and then for real. And when he doesn't show to her first Carnegie Hall performance, her disappointment was palpable, but then she goes behind a dressing screen where he awaits with his beeping keychain, and it ends on an almost old fashioned note.

Yup, I loved that! Of course, that was a no-holds-barred romantic moment ("The Living Daylights" was full of them), but if that ain't your cuppa tea, then naturally it will be a turnoff. But both my husband and I enjoyed finally seeing that side of Bond (the only other time I recall seeing it portrayed with such intensity was "For Your Eyes Only" . . . which could easily have been a Dalton film).

However, I do agree that Craig's ability to capture much of what Dalton was doing while still having that Bondian swagger, sense of humor, etc. makes him the better Bond.

Agreed. Dalton was good but too sour and Craig gave not only us Bond fans what we wanted but also the general audience. Balance is the key.

Nah. Dalton was better in Daylights than Craig was in Casino Royale. Not that Craig was playing the proper James Bond, anyway.

Craig was far better then Dalton ever was. He was emotionially deeper and far more charismatic, and also sexier. Even if Dalton got the scripts he deserved, I really doubt he would have been better then Craig. Also Craig was oozing James Bond, he had all the Bond flavour and his own style to boot. This claim he didn't "play the proper James Bond" is a load of crap.

I disagree; I think both were equally strong, taking similar approaches to the character but placing slightly different emphasis here and there. I enjoy both portrayals and appreciate their respective takes on the character.

I think the differences are far more obvious. Dalton's Bond took life with a grain of salt with some humor and Bond dose the same but with a more humorous and dry approach. The only simularity is that they are emotionial but even then, Craig still wins.

That's an interesting comparison. But I dount such a low profile, low grossing (and critically dismissed) film like DW4 would have had much of an impact on the way they made LTK.

Milty did look alot like him. I can't find an image to compare but they sure do look alike.

Of course, LTK isn't as much fun as Death Wish 4. But what is?

Oh god. I may not like LTK but DW4 was a terrible film. Now Death Wish 1 and 3, those were alot more fun then LTK.

Edited by Mister E, 30 August 2008 - 11:08 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

Says the person who thought Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a good film.

[Mister E]

Says the person who thought Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a good film.

It was good you big meanie.

Edited by Mister E, 31 August 2008 - 12:01 AM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I'm still not sold on Daniel Craig as James Bond. In too many scenes, he lookes blond. He has a Roman style haircut that's ugly. This is not the man with the unruly hair of the books. They gave his facial scar to a too young Le Chiffre. They're bringing back Spectre under the new name name of Quantum. The scene at the airport was as idiotic as anything I've seen in the execrable Moore/Brosnan movies. However, Craig has that Hoagy Carmichael sculpture to his face. They essentially gave him Dalton like scripts. He looks more like one of Commander Fleming's 30AU commandoes. The entire ouvre is too reminscent of other action films that came out earlier. And they still have Judy Densch as M.

[Safari Suit]

Oh god. I may not like LTK but DW4 was a terrible film. Now Death Wish 1 and 3, those were alot more fun then LTK.

Curmudgeon!

[baerrtt]

I'm still not sold on Daniel Craig as James Bond. In too many scenes, he lookes blond. He has a Roman style haircut that's ugly. This is not the man with the unruly hair of the books. They gave his facial scar to a too young Le Chiffre. They're bringing back Spectre under the new name name of Quantum. The scene at the airport was as idiotic as anything I've seen in the execrable Moore/Brosnan movies. However, Craig has that Hoagy Carmichael sculpture to his face. They essentially gave him Dalton like scripts. He looks more like one of Commander Fleming's 30AU commandoes. The entire ouvre is too reminscent of other action films that came out earlier. And they still have Judy Densch as M.

At least spell DENCH's name right if you're going to complain about irrelevant nonsense like 'roman gladiator blond hair' and SPECTRE being brought back as Quantum. How good that most fans, critics and crucially audiences don't keep a bedside companion on Fleming's Bond when judging the films. I found CR more Fleming like than anything in the Dalton era including Tim's admittedley excellent performances.

[Safari Suit]

At least spell DENCH's name right if you're going to complain about irrelevant nonsense like 'roman gladiator blond hair'

Irrelevant certainly, but also quite funny

[DamnCoffee]

At least spell DENCH's name right...

And Judi.

[Turn]

I really think the M at Hemingway House scene hits a wrong note, in so many ways; from M's stinginess to Bond's jumpiness to the idiotic lines and M's sudden block on shooting Bond only because there are too many witnesses... it just hits a bullshît note.

Thinking about it, I'm finding this to be an extremely underrated scene in the series. And for several reasons.

The Hemingway House is a nice locale, not quite bizarre but extremely fitting for the series and probably the best location in the film.

The tension between M and Bond is different here. Is the Connery or Moore Bonds' borderline disrespect for M really better? Connery showing up his boss on his knowledge of wines in two films or Moore trying his boss's patience in front of the minister and others? It's amusing for the audience, but doesn't show the respect from the novels the two had.

I thought one of the most memorable touches of the final two Bernard Lee M movies was what seemed like a mutual respect between M and Bond, with M almost fatherly acting. But we have to realize this is the movie Bond, which differs from the literary series in so many ways.

On "M's stinginess", where is he any worse than Dench's M, who acts like a scolding mother more than a boss, even referring to her children and sarcasm in one film. Can the dialogue be any more obvious? This doesn't work nearly as well as the above example from Lee as it just makes her seem to try to justify being tough and a woman at the same time.

And we just differ on our takes. I don't see Bond as jumpy, just annoyed at this reception and the dialogue isn't any worse than what I've said above during Dench's run. I think the "Farewell to Arms" line was rather nice as to the location.

M's blocking the shot was the obvious respect he has for Bond, no BS there. If you notice when Bond goes into the place there's a sign that says "Closed" and there wouldn't be any people to hit there. It's a way of showing he knows Bond won't stop and he'll be back.

And as for somebody elsewhere in this thread saying Bond kicks M, he doesn't, he kicks the agent next to M, who brushes past him. Bond did not physically do anything to his boss.

It's a good scene because it doesn't just show Bond being disprespectful of his boss for a quick laugh, but being upfront about his actions. It's different and stands out.

[baerrtt]

I really think the M at Hemingway House scene hits a wrong note, in so many ways; from M's stinginess to Bond's jumpiness to the idiotic lines and M's sudden block on shooting Bond only because there are too many witnesses... it just hits a bullshît note.

Thinking about it, I'm finding this to be an extremely underrated scene in the series. And for several reasons.

The Hemingway House is a nice locale, not quite bizarre but extremely fitting for the series and probably the best location in the film.

The tension between M and Bond is different here. Is the Connery or Moore Bonds' borderline disrespect for M really better? Connery showing up his boss on his knowledge of wines in two films or Moore trying his boss's patience in front of the minister and others? It's amusing for the audience, but doesn't show the respect from the novels the two had.

I thought one of the most memorable touches of the final two Bernard Lee M movies was what seemed like a mutual respect between M and Bond, with M almost fatherly acting. But we have to realize this is the movie Bond, which differs from the literary series in so many ways.

On "M's stinginess", where is he any worse than Dench's M, who acts like a scolding mother more than a boss, even referring to her children and sarcasm in one film. Can the dialogue be any more obvious? This doesn't work nearly as well as the above example from Lee as it just makes her seem to try to justify being tough and a woman at the same time.

And we just differ on our takes. I don't see Bond as jumpy, just annoyed at this reception and the dialogue isn't any worse than what I've said above during Dench's run. I think the "Farewell to Arms" line was rather nice as to the location.

M's blocking the shot was the obvious respect he has for Bond, no BS there. If you notice when Bond goes into the place there's a sign that says "Closed" and there wouldn't be any people to hit there. It's a way of showing he knows Bond won't stop and he'll be back.

And as for somebody elsewhere in this thread saying Bond kicks M, he doesn't, he kicks the agent next to M, who brushes past him. Bond did not physically do anything to his boss.

It's a good scene because it doesn't just show Bond being disprespectful of his boss for a quick laugh, but being upfront about his actions. It's different and stands out.

From a realistic perspective Bond directly refusing to obey an order from M (abandoning the Leiter business)is far more disrespectful than his occasional arrogance/frivolity irritating his boss (the Connery/Moore years).

I never got the idea from the latter examples that it was Bond taking the piss out of Sir Miles and showing disrespect but when Bond decides to go on the run, irrespective of Hargreaves (if it is Hargreaves) refusal to have him shot, it crossed the line and set up the 'edgy' relationship Bond would have with Judi's M.

[Publius]

And as said before, the person who could have revealed him ,Dario, was gone most of the film for pretty much no reason. Bond was in never any danger.

That's my point. We know that now, but on first viewing it was anyone's guess. I'm hard-pressed to think of a scene that I still find tense after seeing it multiple times, and right now I can only think of Bond scaling the cliff in FYEO. I'm sure LTK could have been more tense, but the same could be said about every other Bond film. Even as a fan, this is a series that always delivers "pretty good" when it has the potential to deliver excellence.

The British and Hong Kong agents only appeared once during the whole film to stop Bond and then they were quickly disposed of.

Again, between them popping up, the knowledge that the Americans aren't happy with what Bond's doing, and so many of Sanchez' men having their own motivations, there were a lot of "sides" endangering Bond as he tried to stay undercover.

No it hasn't. Q has been always close to Bond but they ultimately are two different people. One's a stiff old coot that goes by the book and another likes to be live up life and be a rebel. What he did LTK was out of character for him. He would not help a rogue agent, at the very least he would send his gadgets out to Bond and that was it. Q helping Bond made more snes in OCTOPUSSY because he was aiding Bond during an official mission. The same goes for FYEO.

The point of contention seems to be Bond's rogue agent status. I don't see as much of a problem as you do, because Bond has gone on personal missions while "on leave" (that is, M knew what was really going on) before -- see OHMSS. Q would be doing the same thing here.

Also, there are many things a rogue agent could be doing that I'd agree Q wouldn't have a part of, but arming Bond in his solo quest to bring down a man both the American and British governments realize is a colossal threat, given that his empire holds considerable influence in half the Western hemisphere and is about to make a major deal with his Asian counterparts, isn't one of those.

M's objections are that Bond is interfering in an operation that hasn't been assigned to him (while abandoning one that has) and that he has too many personal feelings about the case. He doesn't for a second doubt the morality of Bond's actions.

I didn't see a single thing of Dr.No besides the simular climate. When I say Miami Vice, I mean the villians and the drugs. I also want to ad DEATH WISH 4 as an influence of this film because Milton Krest had an uncanny simularity to the main villian.

The rawness of Bond in both and the more low-key nature of the plots are what I'm referring to, combined with the setting you mention (which is more than just scenery, as it reinforces the "masculinity" of both plots).

And Miami Vice doesn't have a monopoly on realistic villains and drug trafficking plots. Considering how widespread the problem was, it was perfectly appropriate for Bond to tackle it. And what made it work was that (1) there was still an epic Bondian scale to the whole affair and (2) Bond wasn't being driven by any compulsion to stop drug peddling -- hell, Bond's principle reason for destroying all those drugs is to hit his enemies where he knows it'll hurt them most (their wallets).

Agreed. Dalton was good but too sour and Craig gave not only us Bond fans what we wanted but also the general audience. Balance is the key.

And just because there seems to be a Dalton vs. Craig divide developing here, let me just say Dalton is a close second to Craig in my book. I still prefer Dalton when it comes to depicting emotion (Craig is a close second in that regard), it's just that I think Craig hits a better balance for Bond. Not by a huge margin, but enough.

I really think the M at Hemingway House scene hits a wrong note, in so many ways; from M's stinginess to Bond's jumpiness to the idiotic lines and M's sudden block on shooting Bond only because there are too many witnesses... it just hits a bullshît note.

I always took that as M giving the professional excuse, when really he just doesn't want Bond dead or even injured (especially by American agents, which ties into his desire to keep a healthy distance from the Americans and their mess-making). He probably even feels for the guy and the situation he's in, but doesn't think that's an excuse to let him be a loose cannon.

[Turn]

From a realistic perspective Bond directly refusing to obey an order from M (abandoning the Leiter business)is far more disrespectful than his occasional arrogance/frivolity irritating his boss (the Connery/Moore years).

I never got the idea from the latter examples that it was Bond taking the piss out of Sir Miles and showing disrespect but when Bond decides to go on the run, irrespective of Hargreaves (if it is Hargreaves) refusal to have him shot, it crossed the line and set up the 'edgy' relationship Bond would have with Judi's M.

Being that you've never seen Bond confront M and directly disobey him to his face it sets up something that hadn't been done before and in that alone it's unique.

Call it sexist if you want, but I don't think the relationship with the M Dench is anything more than trying to show a female boss trying to establish her authority. Dench is good, but it really comes off that way to me.

If anything, the Edward Fox M in NSNA is a more unique representation of the character as he's seen as more of a realistic portrait of a beancounter more interested in the bottom line than the agents who carry out the missions.

[byline]

Craig was far better then Dalton ever was.

Both actors got off to an equaly good start. I love them both, I can't see how you can say that Craig is better than Dalton after just one film. We never know, maybe with Casino Royale Craig was just lucky. Untill Craig has a good few movies under his belt, then it will be easier to make that decision, BUT he may very well be one of the greatest James Bonds that has ever graced the silver screen.

No, not really. Caiag really nailed it in the emotion department and his charisma. He was alot deeper then Dalton was. That was NOT luck, you don't pull off a preformance like that with luck. You can judge the Bond after one film unless you get the feeling they were bogged down by script problems or direction. CR had neither of those problems.

Maybe it's less a matter of luck, more one of timing. It's only now that audiences are ready for a more serious Bond, and decisions were made accordingly. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I think that Daniel Craig has the good fortune of having everyone -- both in front of the camera and behind -- on board with his interpretation of how to portray the character. My sense was that Timothy Dalton wanted to play Bond truer to Fleming's novels, and on the surface the powers that be said they were behind him. But then, behind the scenes they kept making decisions that went in the opposite direction, fashioning scripts that kept harking back to Roger Moore's more clownish ways. There was no such ambivalence in "Casino Royale"; everyone was of one mind this time around, and it shows.

Edited by byline, 31 August 2008 - 05:23 PM.

[Publius]

There was no such ambivalence in "Casino Royale"; everyone was of one mind this time around, and it shows.

Plus, and this started with GE, they actually promoted the film and released it in the sparse fall season rather than the crowded summer season. It doesn't hurt that the first (pre-GE), second (pre-CR), and third (pre-DAD) longest gaps between Bond movies have all occurred since LTK.

[Mr. Blofeld]

There was no such ambivalence in Casino Royale ; everyone was of one mind this time around, and it shows.

Plus, and this started with GE, they actually promoted the film and released it in the sparse fall season rather than the crowded summer season. It doesn't hurt that the first (pre-GE), second (pre-CR), and third (pre-DAD) longest gaps between Bond movies have all occurred since LTK.

You're forgetting the three-year-gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM, which ties with the gap pre-DAD.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I don't have a bedside collection on the Bond movies, just the Ian Fleming books, and maybe two or three of John Gardner, before I decided he was a sick SOB in the way he plotted his books.

As for the female M, I don't care how she spells her name; she's too limited as an actress. I've seen her on her Britcom, one performance as Queen Victoria and another as the wife of King George V, and in any case, she seemed to be essentially playing the same character.

It even makes no sense to have Brosnan's M with Craig, when he's supposedly relaunching the series.

By the way, how many actors have played Sir Miles? I get the impression it's somewhere around 5 or 6. Do they die off too soon for more films each?

[Turn]

By the way, how many actors have played Sir Miles? I get the impression it's somewhere around 5 or 6. Do they die off too soon for more films each?

It depends. The Eon series has had two - Bernard Lee from DN to MR; M is on leave due to Lee's death in FYEO; Robert Brown took over from OP through LTK.

In CR '67, John Huston played M and in NSNA it was Edward Fox.

As far as comparisons of Craig vs. Dalton, I'm surprised it's even an issue as I can't play that game. I equally like both as each brought a new interpretation that didn't play to normal audience expectations and I'm glad to see Craig's portrayal has actually opened some fans' eyes to Dalton's portrayal.

[Mister E]

That's my point. We know that now, but on first viewing it was anyone's guess.

What do you mean anyone's guess ? No one at Sanchez's place or anyone in all of Ithumus City scenes saw Bond at the Barrelhead Bar.

I'm hard-pressed to think of a scene that I still find tense after seeing it multiple times, and right now I can only think of Bond scaling the cliff in FYEO.

That's only scene I found tense in FYEO but only once.

I'm sure LTK could have been more tense, but the same could be said about every other Bond film. Even as a fan, this is a series that always delivers "pretty good" when it has the potential to deliver excellence.

You maybe comfortable settling for less then, I am not.

Again, between them popping up, the knowledge that the Americans aren't happy with what Bond's doing, and so many of Sanchez' men having their own motivations, there were a lot of "sides" endangering Bond as he tried to stay undercover.

And yet neither side really showed much of a threat. I am going by what I saw in the film. You say they were such a big deal but they only showed their hand once and then they were quickly removed from the picture.

The point of contention seems to be Bond's rogue agent status. I don't see as much of a problem as you do, because Bond has gone on personal missions while "on leave" (that is, M knew what was really going on) before -- see OHMSS. Q would be doing the same thing here.

But those missions concerned the government, they were of mutual interest. Bond's own personal feelings and Her Majesty's Secret Service. This was another can of worms, Bonds own private vendetta and his superiors did not care about Sanchez. I'll say this again, Q would not help a rogue agent on the feild. Look at the past films for reference.

Also, there are many things a rogue agent could be doing that I'd agree Q wouldn't have a part of, but arming Bond in his solo quest to bring down a man both the American and British governments realize is a colossal threat, given that his empire holds considerable influence in half the Western hemisphere and is about to make a major deal with his Asian counterparts, isn't one of those.

The Birtish government honestly didn't care enough to bring Sanchez down.

The rawness of Bond in both and the more low-key nature of the plots are what I'm referring to, combined with the setting you mention (which is more than just scenery, as it reinforces the "masculinity" of both plots).

But Dr.No was more then low key, it was also thrilling and exotic. Grit accompanied with a unique villian and a bizarre plot. LICENCE TO KILL was generic and mundane 80's action film that today feels painfully dated.

And Miami Vice doesn't have a monopoly on realistic villains and drug trafficking plots. Considering how widespread the problem was, it was perfectly appropriate for Bond to tackle it. And what made it work was that (1) there was still an epic Bondian scale to the whole affair and (2) Bond wasn't being driven by any compulsion to stop drug peddling -- hell, Bond's principle reason for destroying all those drugs is to hit his enemies where he knows it'll hurt them most (their wallets).

Just because it was a popular subject dosen't make it right for Bond. Drug dealing is a boring affair unless you make it very realistic. Hell, that is why Fleming only regulated it minor ventures of villians or short stories. The fun James Bond stories are ones that break out of conventional crimes like knocking over Ft. Knox or stealing buried treasure.

[byline]

As for the female M, I don't care how she spells her name; she's too limited as an actress. I've seen her on her Britcom, one performance as Queen Victoria and another as the wife of King George V, and in any case, she seemed to be essentially playing the same character.

"Limited as an actress"? I've read a lot of things about Judi Dench, but I have to say that's the first time I've ever seen her described that way. Check her out in "84 Charing Cross Road"; I doubt you'd recognize her. I've also heard/read that she's amazing in "Notes on a Scandal" (must add that to my list of upcoming DVD rentals).

Edited by byline, 01 September 2008 - 03:33 AM.

[Publius]

What do you mean anyone's guess ? No one at Sanchez's place or anyone in all of Ithumus City scenes saw Bond at the Barrelhead Bar.

We didn't know if and when Dario was going to show up. We didn't know if and when Krest was going to show up. We didn't know if and when government agents were going to show up looking for Bond.

You maybe comfortable settling for less then, I am not.

Not much of a Bond fan, I take it. Look, I'm the first to say this and that should have been done better, but I'm also not about to pretend it's exclusive to any one Bond film. I'm not holding out for a Bond film that rivals Citizen Kane or The Godfather.

And yet neither side really showed much of a threat. I am going by what I saw in the film. You say they were such a big deal but they only showed their hand once and then they were quickly removed from the picture.

That's all they were needed for, really. They served to throw a wrench in Bond's original plan to directly assassinate Sanchez, forcing him to work from within his organization. It also reminded us that Bond is a wanted man. It'd have been bizarre for them to not show Bond having to deal with the various governments that want him out of the picture.

But those missions concerned the government, they were of mutual interest. Bond's own personal feelings and Her Majesty's Secret Service. This was another can of worms, Bonds own private vendetta and his superiors did not care about Sanchez. I'll say this again, Q would not help a rogue agent on the feild. Look at the past films for reference.

There was no reason to think Bond's superiors did not care about Sanchez. They were obviously deferring more to the Americans, that being "their" hemisphere and all, but they did have a man already stationed in Isthmus (a country Sanchez is known to directly control through puppet institutions) working with Hong Kong narcotics. Clearly, Sanchez was perceived as a serious problem.

As for Q, he was never in a position to help a rogue agent before, so there is no reference. If you take the Dalton era as a reboot of any kind, it's completely unknown how Q would react to the situation. If you consider Dalton's Bond basically the same as his predecessors, or having experienced the same events, then it's up for debate, but I still think there was enough of an evolution in the dynamic between them for Q's actions to make sense. Their relationship had begun warming as early as OHMSS at Bond's wedding.

But Dr.No was more then low key, it was also thrilling and exotic. Grit accompanied with a unique villian and a bizarre plot. LICENCE TO KILL was generic and mundane 80's action film that today feels painfully dated.

Yes, there was a blandness in many places (although I say the same about Dr. No), but I blame much of that on the budget. Glen probably didn't help matters. Nevertheless, I do think people over-penalize the film for the naturally sandy hues of its locations. The Keys in particular look like they do in real life (hell, probably better), not the idealized depictions you usually see in movies.

Just because it was a popular subject dosen't make it right for Bond. Drug dealing is a boring affair unless you make it very realistic. Hell, that is why Fleming only regulated it minor ventures of villians or short stories. The fun James Bond stories are ones that break out of conventional crimes like knocking over Ft. Knox or stealing buried treasure.

Drug dealing as seen in TLD is boring, although even then that was only a component of a much larger plot involving arms trading and misinforming intelligence agencies. In LTK, it's drug trafficking on an international level, but once again it takes a backseat to the real plot, which in this case is Bond getting revenge.

And stealing gold from Ft. Knox is a lot more boring.

[Mister E]

We didn't know if and when Dario was going to show up. We didn't know if and when Krest was going to show up. We didn't know if and when government agents were going to show up looking for Bond.

And when they did show there hands, it was conviently too late or just minor interference in Bond's plans. A cop out to the so called "fighting both sides" angle of the film.

Not much of a Bond fan, I take it. Look, I'm the first to say this and that should have been done better, but I'm also not about to pretend it's exclusive to any one Bond film. I'm not holding out for a Bond film that rivals Citizen Kane or The Godfather.

Why is it I never fail to get this stupid reponse every time I debate the quality of films like these ? If your going have a good idea, plan it out. Give it some thought, don't just stick in there because then it will be a gimmick. This thought process dosen't require genius, it's called common sense. Also, I am a fan of the books first and the movies secound.

That's all they were needed for, really. They served to throw a wrench in Bond's original plan to directly assassinate Sanchez, forcing him to work from within his organization. It also reminded us that Bond is a wanted man. It'd have been bizarre for them to not show Bond having to deal with the various governments that want him out of the picture.

The only threats in the film, the British government and Sanchez's orginization. Yes, we did need more. Your ideas are just speculation, not what was presented in the film.

There was no reason to think Bond's superiors did not care about Sanchez. They were obviously deferring more to the Americans, that being "their" hemisphere and all, but they did have a man already stationed in Isthmus (a country Sanchez is known to directly control through puppet institutions) working with Hong Kong narcotics. Clearly, Sanchez was perceived as a serious problem.

No it wasn't because MI6 has numerous stations around the world. We all know that already. It was the Chinese who had the most interest in the film and for the one thousand time, they were quickly disposed of.

As for Q, he was never in a position to help a rogue agent before, so there is no reference. If you take the Dalton era as a reboot of any kind, it's completely unknown how Q would react to the situation. If you consider Dalton's Bond basically the same as his predecessors, or having experienced the same events, then it's up for debate, but I still think there was enough of an evolution in the dynamic between them for Q's actions to make sense. Their relationship had begun warming as early as OHMSS at Bond's wedding.

That's your evidence ? He attended Bond's wedding ? That's flimsy. You are just taking what you saw in OHMSS and none of his other appearances that define his character.

Yes, there was a blandness in many places (although I say the same about Dr. No), but I blame much of that on the budget. Glen probably didn't help matters. Nevertheless, I do think people over-penalize the film for the naturally sandy hues of its locations. The Keys in particular look like they do in real life (hell, probably better), not the idealized depictions you usually see in movies.

You don't think it could have been shot better ? I have been to Florida and dosen't look as banal as it did in LTK. Also nothing in Dr.No looked bland, the scenic beauty and Ken Adam's wonderful set deceration.

Drug dealing as seen in TLD is boring, although even then that was only a component of a much larger plot involving arms trading and misinforming intelligence agencies. In LTK, it's drug trafficking on an international level, but once again it takes a backseat to the real plot, which in this case is Bond getting revenge.

Which wasn't enough to carry the film. A greater plot should have been constructed to keep the movie afloat, see Fleming's LIVE AND LET DIE and YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE as proof.

And stealing gold from Ft. Knox is a lot more boring.

I rather have a fun plot instead Miami Vice: The TV movie.

Edited by Mister E, 01 September 2008 - 05:53 AM.

[baerrtt]

I don't have a bedside collection on the Bond movies, just the Ian Fleming books, and maybe two or three of John Gardner, before I decided he was a sick SOB in the way he plotted his books.

As for the female M, I don't care how she spells her name; she's too limited as an actress. I've seen her on her Britcom, one performance as Queen Victoria and another as the wife of King George V, and in any case, she seemed to be essentially playing the same character.

It even makes no sense to have Brosnan's M with Craig, when he's supposedly relaunching the series.

By the way, how many actors have played Sir Miles? I get the impression it's somewhere around 5 or 6. Do they die off too soon for more films each?

Judi Dench, to echo a poster's earlier response, is one of the finest actresses in any medium the UK has produced. You may not like her M, but she sure as hell isn't a 'limited' actress. Nobody outside fandom (critics, audiences) gave a damn(I know of nobody outside our tiny little world that let this spoil their enjoyment of the film) that M was carried on from one continuity to another.

To answer your last question only one actor has played Sir Miles officially (Bernard Lee) or possibly two if you believe Robert Brown was playing the same character, (I and some others believe he was playing a promoted Admiral Hargreaves from TSWLM)though it's never been made clear.

[Stephen Spotswood]

If the producers want a female M, how about this actress? I'm sure she's slummed through some parts for the pay-check, but take a look at these:

http://i212.photobuc...ard/morgana.jpg

Kinda tiny

http://ia.media-imdb...6,256_SS90_.jpg

http://wwwimage.cbsn...age2048934g.jpg

And now:

http://images.google...htt...l=en&sa=N

[DamnCoffee]

Helen Mirren? For some reason I'm oddly unmoved by this suggestion.