But was the budget even the reason for the bad casting? Would $5 million more have induced the producers to get somebody to play Sharkey who could deliver a line (his terrible delivery ruins an otherwise great line that SHOULD have gotten a big laugh from me, "What a terrible waste . . . of money.")?
His delivery hardly sounds terrible to me. Dry, but let's not confuse that wooden, and he gets in a good pause before the "of money."
Well, considering the number of people who have complained about LTK's lack of humor, I imagine there are many other viewers who didn't laugh as they were intended to. Frankly, I think all of Frank McRae's delivery is off. I think it's his voice. There's probably a reason his whole career has consisted of TV guest appearances and roles in films as stereotypical cops.
The two real problems with the film are the script which has Bond basically telling everybody, "Go home" constantly, and the fact that the film doesn't feel like a Bond film.
The same complaint has been made about QoS. What does feeling like a Bond film consist of, adopting a 40 year old set of cliches? The films that feel most like Bond films are usually pastiches of earlier Bond films. And the script is good precisely because it's about a man who think he doesn't need help and comes to accept that he really does, as in Rio Bravo.
Yes, but QOS has been successful in ways that LTK never even came close to. In my view all of the Bond films (including NSNA) have a Bond feel to them except for LTK. It doesn't mean one has to trot out all the cliches. There merely needs to be something there that's recognizable as the cinematic Bond, and frankly, LTK has nothing, other than the Bond theme and a jarring appearance by Q.
To be honest, I don't even see Timothy Dalton as playing James Bond in this movie, though I'll be surprised if any Fleming fans ever admit this. I think they're just so thrilled that elements from
Live and Let Die and "The Hildebrand Rarity" are used in a movie with a serious tone that they ignore obvious problems with Bond in the movie. I don't mean subjective stuff like Dalton's "lack of charm". I mean that Dalton here resigns the service and goes almost psychopathic when his friend is maimed. In the books, he never did that even when his wife was killed. He did go a bit nuts when he finally confronted Blofeld in Japan, but before he was assigned to Japan he was wasting away and probably hoping for his own death, not killing anyone who ever was a part of SPECTRE at some point in the past.
I can't imagine Fleming's character resigning. Threatening to resign or hoping M fires him, definitely. Bringing himself to do it himself, no. At least not unless a girl like Vesper or Tracy (a living girl, mind) were involved and he had a life outside of the service waiting for him. Bond in LTK just acts, without any plan whatsoever. What the hell is he trying to do on the Wavekrest, for instance? He's armed with nothing but a stinking knife!!! Bond in the books certainly acted instinctually at times (his escape from Harlem in LALD comes to mind), but he took his time and trained extensively before acting if he had a chance.
It's shot with no sense of style or class. QOS used third world settings like Haiti and managed to make them look classy (while not ignoring the poverty of the setting). LTK made Key West look cheesy.
How? What I remember are vivid shots of the sky and sea, and a well-shot sequence at Hemingway's house that makes ample use of the location. Key West is not an exotic third-world location like Haiti--complaining that it's not presented as one isn't useful. And LTK hardly lacks for style or class--the casino sequences in Isthmus are up to earlier ones in the series, and Sanchez's residence is as luxurious as one can expect.
The casino sequence is ok, but it is underwhlmed by Bond's distractingly odd hair style (mind, this by itself is not a huge concern, I am just as distracted by Roger Moore's facelift in AVTAK) and Michael Kamen's weird, piano-tinged score. In fact, since musical scores are important to me, the crappy score this movie has may take away charm that was there when the movie was shot, but which I can no longer recognize.
And my point about Haiti was that Bond film's need to make locations look exotic in some way. I think that Haiti is not a tremendously exotic place. The poverty is terrible there. And while QOS did not ignore this poverty, they made Haiti look exotic in the fullest sense of the word - interesting, mysterious, different from what we are used to.
LTK gave us sets that looked very much like sets from a TV show. Bond films have been good at making simple locations like offices, hotel rooms, private homes look really classy. Other than Sanchez's home and the inside of the drug labs, none of the sets on LTK have that feel. Note that I'm not complaining that they should have hired Ken Adam to design a giant volvano lair. FYEO had simple locations that nevertheless had a classy touch - like the Countess' living room or Colombo's office on his boat. The monastery set at the end was good too. It made use of local color (of which there was none in LTK) without overwhelming the actors in a sprawling, all-metal set. What do we get in LTK? Baseball pennants in Leiter's office, a cheap looking airport that makes the local airport near me look grand, fake panelling in Krest's office, and a crude attempt at having a film noir atmosphere in Krest's boat with the use of the Venetian blinds. The hotel in Istmus City looks particularly tacky, like the sort of place I could imagine myself being misfortunate enough to stay at if I were visiting some place in the sticks here in the USA.
In fact, at least with movies like Batman Begins and THE DARK KNIGHT, there is a moral dilemma/debate about revenge. Only lip service is paid to the idea that Bond's vendetta may cost other people more than just money or lives or prestige.
Hardly lip-service--scenes revolve exactly around the idea. We're shown in the most emphatic terms that Bond's egotistical attempt at single-handed revenge frustrates better-plotted attempts that would have done the job just as well within official channels: Bond pulling a gun on Pam after seeing her with Heller, followed by his chagrined silence at Pam showing him how he's fouled up, a silence that speaks volumes, along with Pam's soft admonition. And there's no obfuscation of the fact that both Kwang and his helper died, violently and before our eyes, because Bond insisted on killing Sanchez by himself. Kwang tells Bond how he's screwed up quite vigorously. It's only after Bond has accepted the necessity of both Q and Pam's help that he's finally able to succeed. He has to put aside his own egotistical desire to do the job single-handed. Batman Begins and THE DARK KNIGHT state similar themes, but in a more pretentious way and with more platitudes, good films though they are.
Give me the platitudes of the Nolan Batman films ANY day over LTK's script. I suppose that there is a point to what you're saying, but it's a half-considered, ultimately stillborn point. The most obvious problem with it is that we the viewers are meant to cheer Bond on in his quest for revenge. If we're not cheering him on, then what's the point of the movie? One of the few moments in the first half of the film that actually holds my interest is when Bond, after
ting around inside, outside and under the Wavekrest, manages to water ski behind the plane, commandeers it, and disposes of the pilots. Bond then laughs when he sees all the money he's got. He's exhilerated, and so is the viewer. And more importantly, Bond has just made a major coup against Sanchez by luck. So his self-centered, one man quest for revenge is paying off.
Next, Kwang. Kwang is clearly meant to strike the viewer as a villainous figure. I don't see what help he would have been to Bond. Sanchez is already on to him before the assassination attempt. In fact, had it not been for Kwang's squad of ninjas (ninjas? In Latin America?!?! What the
!?!?!?!) Bond would have killed Sanchez with the signature gun, and the movie would be over. So Kwang is a hinderance rather than a help. In fact, Bond's one man blundering pays off again here. By being tied up by the villainous Kwang, Sanchez accepts him into his confidance.
Finally, even after the scene with Pam where they discuss Heller, Bond still tells Q and Pam to go home after the WaveKrest operation. This is bad screenwriting, since his "go home" gets very repetitive. It also undercuts any realization he supposedly has that he needs help. After all, the only reason he isn't killed on that conveyor belt is because:
1. Q and Pam are stubborn and refuse to leave Istmus.
2. Lupe insists on sleeping with him even after he (drum roll please!) tells her to leave.
3. Lupe (not Bond) asks for Pam and Q to help Bond.
4. Q and Pam decide to help Bond in return for all the times he treated them so well . . . or something like that.
It's also a film with no real emotional center or core. LTK wasn't planned for as TLD was being filmed, so the idea of enlarging Leiter's role in TLD to make him more familiar to viewers in LTK was never considered. As a result, Leiter's relationship with Bond gives little impetus for the viewer to care about why Bond feels the need to go after Sanchez.
I think this is a canard. LTK wouldn't have been any better had Leiter been built up. Anyone familiar with the Bond films (presumably a not-disposable segment of the audience) already knows that Leiter has been a good friend of Bond's for a very long time, and that's enough motivation. And even those who don't see enough scenes of Bond and Felix together to know these men are friends--the wedding scene of Bond being presented with the Leiter is effective enough, and the scene of Sanchez's revenge is horrific enough to make us want revenge on his behalf. What happens to Leiter is a springboard for the bulk of the movie, not the thematic heart of the movie, which is the process of revenge and Bond learning how to go about achieving it in through both wrong (viewing it as a single-handed, private affair) and right ways. The emotional core of the movie is embodied in how his relations with Sanchez, Pam, Lupe and Q fluctuate and are resolved within the process of his revenge.
As I just pointed out above, I think that you are right and we are meant to see this process happen, but somewhere in the screenwriting process it got fumbled, and we are left with only a few hints of this theme. So we the audience have nothing to hold onto other than a simple revenge story, which puts LTK back into Chuck Norris/Steven Segal territory (Come to think of it, When Bond threatens Lupe with the knife and says, "Make a sound, and you're dead" he does look an awful lot like Steven Segal!).
I always found the idea of Sanchez not knowing that Bond was part of the team that reeled him in ludicrous. How could Sanchez not have known; Bond was 10 feet behind him on the tail of the plane. Killifer most certainly would have brought up Bond's name.
It's hardly as if Sanchez had a perfect view of the exact rear of his plane. I'll have to rewatch the film to see about Killifer, but as far as plot holes go, it's hardly worse than Bond and Blofeld not recognizing each other in OHMSS.
I just watched this, and you're completely right. Sanchez at most was able to see that there was someone on his tail (a leg perhaps). And since to Kilifer, Bond was "along for the ride" i.e. the observer, he wouldn't have been worth mentioning to Sanchez.
There is inconsistency in the Bouvier character; one minute she's a tough-as-nails broad who has been to every third-world hellhole and back, and the neck minute she's a jealous, catty girly-girl who can't stand the idea that James was with Lupe (and by "with" I mean they were having S-E-X).
This is only inconsistent for people under the impression that tough ladies are incapable of feeling jealousy. I found this one of the more charming aspects of Pam's character--she acts cool around Bond but deep down is riled up over the idea of him being less than cool with a woman she looks down.
Point taken, but these two elements of her character are totally mixed up throughout the movie. She acts as tough as nails, jealous, independent and bitchy, all in one scene. Take the bar scene. She's miss independent, toting a shotgun (how did she get a SHOTGUN into a bar with no one noticing?!), and yet when the barmaid makes a slightly flirtatious remark to Bond, Pam starts shooting daggers. It makes Pam's character seem like she's suffering from some serious mental problems. Her bitchy exterior is some osrt of cover for deep feelings of inadequacy, neglect, whatever.
The boat scene is the same way. She yells her horrid speech about going to the "toughest hell-holes". Tells Bond he's crazy, then sleeps with him. Very strange, and almost as awkward for me as Bond undressing Manuela 30 seconds after he's met her in MR.
One minute Bond is telling Pam "it's a tough business you picked Miss Bouvier; leave it to the professionals" and 30-seconds later he's asking her for her help. I don't think the audience bought that relationship.
I don't think many others have pinpointed this as a problem for the film, especially since there aren't any scenes of Bond telling Pam to piss off and then asking for her help 30 seconds later. It's a more drawn-put process of Bond realizing he can't make it alone.
Well the "leave it to the professionals" line is on the boat immediately after the bar, and just a little bit later, Bond does ask, "Will you help me?". Then the two negotiate a price. Then they have sex. And they argue throughout the movie. Weird.
Edited by right idea, wrong pussy, 04 July 2009 - 02:00 AM.
