Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

The 'Heat' of all Bond films?


82 replies to this topic

#31 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 24 May 2009 - 09:02 PM

Did I read that right? You think QoS is more of a Bond film than LTK B) Just kidding, I see where you're coming from though. I just prefer QoS different take on Bond than LTK formulaic take on Bond (though I love both pretty much the same).

#32 Shaun Forever

Shaun Forever

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1067 posts
  • Location:Poole UK

Posted 24 May 2009 - 09:34 PM

This is one of my favourite moments in the entire series. Dalton's acting is at its best as he crawls along the ground, exhausted and beat up. It's the kind of moment Moore or Brosnan could never have had.



I agree 100%.

#33 Pierce - Daniel

Pierce - Daniel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 24 May 2009 - 09:55 PM

Argreed Dalton is so on form at this point, I love the action in the finale, Glen said himself that it was like shooting another film within itself. When the tanker finnally falls after the driver decides to escape, you can actually still see the stunt man on the back falling off with the tanker!!!!
Amazing!


Quick question though.....was Pam a pilot working for Sanchez and then defected, or did she work for the CIA and worked for Sanchez and later filled the CIA in on the deal, if so why does she involve the DEA?

#34 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 24 May 2009 - 11:07 PM

Quick question though.....was Pam a pilot working for Sanchez and then defected, or did she work for the CIA and worked for Sanchez and later filled the CIA in on the deal, if so why does she involve the DEA?


Dang, was that even really explained? I know she was an informant for Leiter, that's why her name was all over his files. Other than that I can't say for sure.

#35 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 24 May 2009 - 11:15 PM

Quick question though.....was Pam a pilot working for Sanchez and then defected, or did she work for the CIA and worked for Sanchez and later filled the CIA in on the deal, if so why does she involve the DEA?


Dang, was that even really explained? I know she was an informant for Leiter, that's why her name was all over his files. Other than that I can't say for sure.

I assumed she always worked for the CIA, and was trying to make a deal with Sanchez in an effort to help Bond (and so avenge what Sanchez had done to Leiter). That was my take on it, anyway.

Edited by byline, 24 May 2009 - 11:15 PM.


#36 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 24 May 2009 - 11:21 PM

I assumed she always worked for the CIA, and was trying to make a deal with Sanchez in an effort to help Bond (and so avenge what Sanchez had done to Leiter). That was my take on it, anyway.


No, I don't think so.

The whole point of the film is that Bond is basically getting in over his head. Pam was trying to get the Stingers back for Felix independent of what Bond was doing. Had Bond not shown up in the Bar Pam would either have been killed or perhaps she would have held her own and make a deal with Heller (just as she had done right before Bond's assassanation attempt).

#37 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 25 May 2009 - 12:08 AM

I assumed she always worked for the CIA, and was trying to make a deal with Sanchez in an effort to help Bond (and so avenge what Sanchez had done to Leiter). That was my take on it, anyway.


No, I don't think so.

The whole point of the film is that Bond is basically getting in over his head. Pam was trying to get the Stingers back for Felix independent of what Bond was doing. Had Bond not shown up in the Bar Pam would either have been killed or perhaps she would have held her own and make a deal with Heller (just as she had done right before Bond's assassanation attempt).

Ah, OK. I did realize that Pam was doing this independently of Bond, which is why he confronted her in the hotel, because he thought she was betraying him. But I thought she worked for the CIA all along, and her connection with Sanchez was a CIA assignment, so ultimately the deal she was trying to make with Sanchez would've helped Bond; he just didn't know it. I need to watch "Licence to Kill" again to refresh my memory on a lot of the details!

#38 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 25 May 2009 - 12:30 AM

It's really rather interesting, in that Bond actually hinders many operations already going on within the film. He gets the Hong Kong Narcotics team killed because of his vendetta, and at the same time ruins the deal between Heller and the CIA.

I think it's in the Hotel room where Bond realizes his vendetta is actually hurting more than helping. That's why it's at that point he finally decides to take Pam's help seriously.

#39 Royal Dalton

Royal Dalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4542 posts

Posted 25 May 2009 - 01:36 PM

When happened this?? Which was that character from whom Craig's Bond took violent revenge?? The only characters from which Bond might have had revenge from Vesper's death, will be Mr. White and Yusef, and he didn't kill any of them.

I can only think that you're referring to take revenge from Mathis'death on the Colonel of Police, but that was required for Bond to penetrate Perla De La Dunas looking for a member of the criminal organization Quantum, besides that wasn't a particular violent killing like the one from Dalton's Bond to Sanchez.

He was burnt to death.

... Is funny that you're making this question, 'cause wasn't Dominic Green the one that also try to do that with Bond??!!! And I think you should know, that Craig's 007 didn't respond to his aggression setting on fire Amalric's character , actually he didn't personally kill this villian

No, he left him in the middle of the desert to possibly die of dehydration.

Nice.

#40 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 25 May 2009 - 10:38 PM

When happened this?? Which was that character from whom Craig's Bond took violent revenge?? The only characters from which Bond might have had revenge from Vesper's death, will be Mr. White and Yusef, and he didn't kill any of them.

I can only think that you're referring to take revenge from Mathis'death on the Colonel of Police, but that was required for Bond to penetrate Perla De La Dunas looking for a member of the criminal organization Quantum, besides that wasn't a particular violent killing like the one from Dalton's Bond to Sanchez.

He was burnt to death.

... Is funny that you're making this question, 'cause wasn't Dominic Green the one that also try to do that with Bond??!!! And I think you should know, that Craig's 007 didn't respond to his aggression setting on fire Amalric's character , actually he didn't personally kill this villian

No, he left him in the middle of the desert to possibly die of dehydration.

Nice.

Actually, it was people from Quantum whom shoot Green to death. However, I concede that QOS is more violent than CR, just like LTK is much more violent than TLD -as you should know I'm very far from being a defender of that Forster's work-; but my point is that LTK is more explicit in its display of violence than QOS, and unlike any other Bond movie Dalton's second entry has some gorish moments (i.e. the exploding head).

#41 Tybre

Tybre

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3057 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania

Posted 25 May 2009 - 11:18 PM

When happened this?? Which was that character from whom Craig's Bond took violent revenge?? The only characters from which Bond might have had revenge from Vesper's death, will be Mr. White and Yusef, and he didn't kill any of them.

I can only think that you're referring to take revenge from Mathis'death on the Colonel of Police, but that was required for Bond to penetrate Perla De La Dunas looking for a member of the criminal organization Quantum, besides that wasn't a particular violent killing like the one from Dalton's Bond to Sanchez.

He was burnt to death.

... Is funny that you're making this question, 'cause wasn't Dominic Green the one that also try to do that with Bond??!!! And I think you should know, that Craig's 007 didn't respond to his aggression setting on fire Amalric's character , actually he didn't personally kill this villian

No, he left him in the middle of the desert to possibly die of dehydration.

Nice.

Actually, it was people from Quantum whom shoot Green to death. However, I concede that QOS is more violent than CR, just like LTK is much more violent than TLD -as you should know I'm very far from being a defender of that Forster's work-; but my point is that LTK is more explicit in its display of violence than QOS, and unlike any other Bond movie Dalton's second entry has some gorish moments (i.e. the exploding head).


Exploding head was a bit gratuitous yes, but it fits Sanchez's character, too, so it's not like "Hey, exploding head because we feel like it!" And some of the more violent moments (i.e. Bond burning a gasoline-soaked Sanchez alive) are perfectly fine in context. Hell, that example is essentially the point of the entire film.

#42 Pierce - Daniel

Pierce - Daniel

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 25 May 2009 - 11:38 PM

i'm sorry but you are all wrong, yes LTK has a few gorish moments, Leiter and Killifer's shark incident does come to mind as well as Zerbe's departure from the film. But it isn't the most violent Bond film.

CR is by far the most violent film...why? Becasue the violence had an effect, it wasn't a plot point and drove the story on, it halted the story if anything and we explored the characters and how they felt to it, it felt as though people were losing things. In QOS it was just action after action, yes Bond kiled people but so what? In Cr when he kills anyone it has an effect and you can see it affects him. The consequences really hit home on a number of occasions.

#43 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 25 May 2009 - 11:41 PM

Pierce-Daniel,

Brilliant argument in the opening post here, and completely agree with everything stated there. I had never actually thought about the film this way, but it makes a lot of sense. For me, LICENCE TO KILL sits right alongside QUANTUM OF SOLACE and CASINO ROYALE as the three best entries in the franchise, mainly due to the strong lead performances from Dalton and Craig respectively. I would argue that these are the three best performances of the entire franchise, and Robert Davi certainly puts himself in the conversation for being the best villain. As you said, he's certainly the second leading man in the film, and is a great counterpoint to Dalton.

To go off course just for a second, it's a shame that they had already "adapted" THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, because this might have been the perfect opportunity to make that into a film with Davi as Scaramanga and Dalton as Bond. They could have even kept the drug-dealing plot in place, but with Davi's character primarily being a high-priced hitman who dealt drugs on the side. I certainly see the type of dynamic between Bond and Sanchez in this film that could have worked very well in such an adaptation.

#44 Fan

Fan

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 68 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 25 May 2009 - 11:57 PM

To go off course just for a second, it's a shame that they had already "adapted" THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, because this might have been the perfect opportunity to make that into a film with Davi and Scaramanga and Dalton as Bond. They could have even kept the drug-dealing plot in place, but with Davi's character primarily being a high-priced hitman who dealt drugs on the side. I certainly see the type of dynamic between Bond and Sanchez in this film that could have worked very well in such an adaptation.

That sounds brilliant. However, with a better script, I think the Lee/Moore casting would have worked fine.

#45 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:08 AM

To go off course just for a second, it's a shame that they had already "adapted" THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, because this might have been the perfect opportunity to make that into a film with Davi and Scaramanga and Dalton as Bond. They could have even kept the drug-dealing plot in place, but with Davi's character primarily being a high-priced hitman who dealt drugs on the side. I certainly see the type of dynamic between Bond and Sanchez in this film that could have worked very well in such an adaptation.


I think TMWTGG could still be adapted into an excellent film with a few changes of course (namely the title and villians name). Not to go off on a tangent but it's always been a criminally underrated novel.

#46 tdalton

tdalton

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 11680 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 03:12 AM

However, with a better script, I think the Lee/Moore casting would have worked fine.


I agree as well. Moore/Lee would have worked very well had there been a better, more serious script in place. Given the choice between the two, however, I'd rather see a Dalton/Davi version rather than a Moore/Lee version, but both would have been great. The thing that I have always found interesting about EON's TMWTGG is that, underneath the absolute awfulness of that film is a very good, often times quite serious, portrayal of Bond by Roger Moore, a portrayal that makes me wonder what he would have done if placed into a film like TLD or LTK.

#47 The Ghost Who Walks

The Ghost Who Walks

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 843 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 08:33 AM

The thing that I have always found interesting about EON's TMWTGG is that, underneath the absolute awfulness of that film is a very good, often times quite serious, portrayal of Bond by Roger Moore, a portrayal that makes me wonder what he would have done if placed into a film like TLD or LTK.


Sorry, I'm not sure if that would have worked. I imagine it could have been like placing Dalton in Moonraker or Craig in Die Another Day. Then again, some say TLD is like a modified Moore-veichle.

#48 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 12:45 PM

When happened this?? Which was that character from whom Craig's Bond took violent revenge?? The only characters from which Bond might have had revenge from Vesper's death, will be Mr. White and Yusef, and he didn't kill any of them.

I can only think that you're referring to take revenge from Mathis'death on the Colonel of Police, but that was required for Bond to penetrate Perla De La Dunas looking for a member of the criminal organization Quantum, besides that wasn't a particular violent killing like the one from Dalton's Bond to Sanchez.

He was burnt to death.

... Is funny that you're making this question, 'cause wasn't Dominic Green the one that also try to do that with Bond??!!! And I think you should know, that Craig's 007 didn't respond to his aggression setting on fire Amalric's character , actually he didn't personally kill this villian

No, he left him in the middle of the desert to possibly die of dehydration.

Nice.

Actually, it was people from Quantum whom shoot Green to death. However, I concede that QOS is more violent than CR, just like LTK is much more violent than TLD -as you should know I'm very far from being a defender of that Forster's work-; but my point is that LTK is more explicit in its display of violence than QOS, and unlike any other Bond movie Dalton's second entry has some gorish moments (i.e. the exploding head).


Exploding head was a bit gratuitous yes, but it fits Sanchez's character, too, so it's not like "Hey, exploding head because we feel like it!" And some of the more violent moments (i.e. Bond burning a gasoline-soaked Sanchez alive) are perfectly fine in context.

Yes, they're perfectly fine in context but with the eighties american action films trend, not with EON's Bond.

#49 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 01:09 PM

i'm sorry but you are all wrong, yes LTK has a few gorish moments, Leiter and Killifer's shark incident does come to mind as well as Zerbe's departure from the film. But it isn't the most violent Bond film.

CR is by far the most violent film...why? Becasue the violence had an effect, it wasn't a plot point and drove the story on, it halted the story if anything and we explored the characters and how they felt to it, it felt as though people were losing things. In QOS it was just action after action, yes Bond kiled people but so what? In Cr when he kills anyone it has an effect and you can see it affects him. The consequences really hit home on a number of occasions.

I agree with the core of your post. In CR are reflected the consequences of some use of violence, but I don't think that qualifies to state that Craig's debut is the most violent film in the franchise; when somebody use the adjective 'violent' I tend to think that this person is referring to a gratuitous and very graphic use of violence in a movie (aka gore).

When I talked about the gorish moments of LTK, I was pointing to the the glorification of violence in that film. Put it in simple words, in Dalton's second entry violence is showed as a good thing that the hero at certain point enjoys to do, whereas in CR (and even in QOS, albeit in a lesser degree) regrets some killings, particularly when they happeneed in a very nasty context like with Dryden's contact or Obanno- a similar thing to what Bond reflects in the first chapter of the novel Goldfinger-.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 26 May 2009 - 01:19 PM.


#50 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 02:55 PM

When I talked about the gorish moments of LTK, I was pointing to the the glorification of violence in that film. Put it in simple words, in Dalton's second entry violence is showed as a good thing that the hero at certain point enjoys to do, whereas in CR (and even in QOS, albeit in a lesser degree) regrets some killings, particularly when they happeneed in a very nasty context like with Dryden's contact or Obanno- a similar thing to what Bond reflects in the first chapter of the novel Goldfinger-.


And you don't think Dalton's heavy sigh and weary look after Sanchez is cremated suggests the futility of all the mass murder that has gone before it?

Dalton/Bond knows that for all his revenge, Della is still dead, and Leiter maimed.

Along comes Pam moments later as his "compensation", but the weariness and futility is still there at the Presidente's party...

#51 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 04:28 PM

When I talked about the gorish moments of LTK, I was pointing to the the glorification of violence in that film. Put it in simple words, in Dalton's second entry violence is showed as a good thing that the hero at certain point enjoys to do, whereas in CR (and even in QOS, albeit in a lesser degree) regrets some killings, particularly when they happeneed in a very nasty context like with Dryden's contact or Obanno- a similar thing to what Bond reflects in the first chapter of the novel Goldfinger-.


And you don't think Dalton's heavy sigh and weary look after Sanchez is cremated suggests the futility of all the mass murder that has gone before it?

Dalton/Bond knows that for all his revenge, Della is still dead, and Leiter maimed.

Along comes Pam moments later as his "compensation", but the weariness and futility is still there at the Presidente's party...

I think that is more your interpretation than what is really presented in the movie. The reality is that Bond decided to take a violent vengeance in LTK, whereas in CR and even QOS, Bond like a true professional, decided to not take vengeance from the ones that are guilty of Vesper's death (Mr. White and Yusef), and instead he captures them for further MI6's interrogation.

#52 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 04:46 PM

When I talked about the gorish moments of LTK, I was pointing to the the glorification of violence in that film. Put it in simple words, in Dalton's second entry violence is showed as a good thing that the hero at certain point enjoys to do, whereas in CR (and even in QOS, albeit in a lesser degree) regrets some killings, particularly when they happeneed in a very nasty context like with Dryden's contact or Obanno- a similar thing to what Bond reflects in the first chapter of the novel Goldfinger-.


And you don't think Dalton's heavy sigh and weary look after Sanchez is cremated suggests the futility of all the mass murder that has gone before it?

Dalton/Bond knows that for all his revenge, Della is still dead, and Leiter maimed.

Along comes Pam moments later as his "compensation", but the weariness and futility is still there at the Presidente's party...

I think that is more your interpretation than what is really presented in the movie. The reality is that Bond decided to take a violent vengeance in LTK, whereas in CR and even QOS, Bond like a true professional, decided to not take vengeance from the ones that are guilty of Vesper's death (Mr. White and Yusef), and instead he captures them for further MI6's interrogation.


Of course, your entire pro CR/QOS "professionalism" is based upon Bond ACTUALLY being sufficiently motivated to seek revenge for Vesper.

What is "the bitch is dea" actually means that (as it does in the novel). What if "I never left" and "will do", is response to M's request to Bond to return emphasis Bond has no interest in vengeance. After all, the dead don't believe in it. Therefore, being professional, having been betrayed by Vesper, is easy.

But Dalton-Bond is emotionaally attached to Leiter and his bride, and does seek revenge. But, ultimately, he knows it is futile.

#53 Mr. Arlington Beech

Mr. Arlington Beech

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1112 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 05:51 PM

When I talked about the gorish moments of LTK, I was pointing to the the glorification of violence in that film. Put it in simple words, in Dalton's second entry violence is showed as a good thing that the hero at certain point enjoys to do, whereas in CR (and even in QOS, albeit in a lesser degree) regrets some killings, particularly when they happeneed in a very nasty context like with Dryden's contact or Obanno- a similar thing to what Bond reflects in the first chapter of the novel Goldfinger-.


And you don't think Dalton's heavy sigh and weary look after Sanchez is cremated suggests the futility of all the mass murder that has gone before it?

Dalton/Bond knows that for all his revenge, Della is still dead, and Leiter maimed.

Along comes Pam moments later as his "compensation", but the weariness and futility is still there at the Presidente's party...

I think that is more your interpretation than what is really presented in the movie. The reality is that Bond decided to take a violent vengeance in LTK, whereas in CR and even QOS, Bond like a true professional, decided to not take vengeance from the ones that are guilty of Vesper's death (Mr. White and Yusef), and instead he captures them for further MI6's interrogation.


Of course, your entire pro CR/QOS "professionalism" is based upon Bond ACTUALLY being sufficiently motivated to seek revenge for Vesper.

What is "the bitch is dea" actually means that (as it does in the novel). What if "I never left" and "will do", is response to M's request to Bond to return emphasis Bond has no interest in vengeance. After all, the dead don't believe in it. Therefore, being professional, having been betrayed by Vesper, is easy.

But Dalton-Bond is emotionaally attached to Leiter and his bride, and does seek revenge. But, ultimately, he knows it is futile.

Facts are facts, and actions speak louder than words... we can't really know what's happening in Bond's mind, but the reality is that Bond kills Sanchez in a violent- and vengeful- way , whereas he avoids to kill Mr. White in CR and to Yusef in QOS.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 26 May 2009 - 05:58 PM.


#54 Fan

Fan

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 68 posts
  • Location:London

Posted 27 May 2009 - 03:53 AM

The thing that I have always found interesting about EON's TMWTGG is that, underneath the absolute awfulness of that film is a very good, often times quite serious, portrayal of Bond by Roger Moore, a portrayal that makes me wonder what he would have done if placed into a film like TLD or LTK.


Sorry, I'm not sure if that would have worked. I imagine it could have been like placing Dalton in Moonraker or Craig in Die Another Day. Then again, some say TLD is like a modified Moore-veichle.

Watch the gun shop scene, the hotel room interrogation and the dinner table scene. All three feature quite a serious, even Flemingesque Bond.

#55 staveoffzombies

staveoffzombies

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 176 posts

Posted 27 May 2009 - 06:54 PM

It's really rather interesting, in that Bond actually hinders many operations already going on within the film. He gets the Hong Kong Narcotics team killed because of his vendetta, and at the same time ruins the deal between Heller and the CIA.

I think it's in the Hotel room where Bond realizes his vendetta is actually hurting more than helping. That's why it's at that point he finally decides to take Pam's help seriously.


I've long wondered...was Bond responsible for the Hong Kong team getting killed? Or was it just coincidence that Sanchez's men attacked their hideout when they did?

#56 bond 16.05.72

bond 16.05.72

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1068 posts
  • Location:Leeds, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:14 PM

Is LTK the 'Heat' of the Bond films?

I've just finsihed watching it, and i can see why some critics may describe the film has slightly messy. But...is the film film messy or explorative in terms of plot?

firstly I want to put to bed the whole 'its too dark' talk, the first half is very dark, but the second half is quite light with moments of darkness.

But as far as the messy narrative goes.....could this be the only Bond movie when Bond and the villian really went against each other?

Sanchez is not just the villian of the piece, he's the second leading man to Dalton. From the opening reel we are learning about Sanchez. We learn about his control around the world and explore the people he trusts and looks after in his buisness. Bond at times takes a back seat to him while Sanchez takes the lead at times. bond still gets to do what he does best, but this is as much Sanchez's film as it is Bonds. Like Pacino and DeNiro in Heat or even Bale and Ledger in the Dark Knight.
Not to undersell Dalton at all, but Davi does steal the show in LTK. He is by far the most rememoral proformence in the movie, Dalton meanwhile gives a stunning turn as Bond, the moment he finds Leiter is shocking, he really does a great job, he is able to play dark so very well, but when it comes to the ladies, he really lets his charisma shine through. The women of the story do fall fowl though, as the film concentrates on Dalton and Davi, the female roles are under-developed, so much so that Soto seems to just be there to move the plot further a few steps.

Maybe the whole head-to-head thing brought LTK down, after all who wants to see a Bond move without a full helping of Bond?
What do you think?


What do you mean by is it the 'Heat' of Bond films?

Are you saying LTK is like the Michael Mann film 'Heat'?

Personally if that's the case I don't see a similarity, I'd be hard pushed to compare any Bond film to Mann's masterpiece (yes I know some hate this film)

As much as I like LTK I don't see the relevance of this thread and would like a clear explanation to what you mean?

Sometimes I wonder where some of these threads come from, for it to get to 2 pages and no one question what you mean by The 'Heat' of Bond films, no Davi & Dalton are nothing like Pacino & DeNiro not even on the same planet.

One is a film with awkward lurches between violence and usual Moore like antics, Dalton's portrayal is fine but the script he's served with is not. Davi makes a good villain but the uneven tone of the film does it no favours.

Heat on the other hand is a masterful crime drama with 2 great leads and brilliant supporting cast. If I've got the wrong end of the stick sorry but this all I can see your trying to say from your question.

#57 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 27 May 2009 - 07:54 PM

It's really rather interesting, in that Bond actually hinders many operations already going on within the film. He gets the Hong Kong Narcotics team killed because of his vendetta, and at the same time ruins the deal between Heller and the CIA.

I think it's in the Hotel room where Bond realizes his vendetta is actually hurting more than helping. That's why it's at that point he finally decides to take Pam's help seriously.


I've long wondered...was Bond responsible for the Hong Kong team getting killed? Or was it just coincidence that Sanchez's men attacked their hideout when they did?


After Bond's assassanation attempt goes awry Sanchez is probably wanting to get the people who were behind it. They probably then saw the Hong Kong team leaving (after all, they were just across the street), and followed them back to their hideout. Had Bond not tried what he did, Sanchez and Heller might not have suspected anything and thus wouldnt have went after them.

#58 Revelator

Revelator

    Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 28 May 2009 - 05:39 PM

To go off course just for a second, it's a shame that they had already "adapted" THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, because this might have been the perfect opportunity to make that into a film with Davi as Scaramanga and Dalton as Bond.


In one sense, they already did. LTK replicates and deepens Bond's infiltration of Scaramanga's organization in the novel, and does so more convincingly.

The Heat comparison to LTK, while perhaps detrimental to LTK, points to one of that Bond film's strengths--it has a genuinely coherent plot, whose character relations are strong and clearly defined.
This in contrast to the Bond films after OHMSS--from DAF onward and throughout the Moore years, the plot was either just a string to hang stunts off of, or something that just got in the way of the stunts. TLD was a rare exception to this, but its plot was complicated just for the sake of complicaton--by the time you figure out what the relations are of the diamonds to the arms deals and Koskov's defection, you cease to care, and the villains aren't strong enough to make up for that.
LTK on the other hand has a straight and clear narrative line--Sanchez is captured, breaks loose and has revenge on Leiter, and Bond follows Sanchez to Isthmus City, joins his group, plays off Sanchez'z men against each other, and finally kills Sanchez--that is propelled forward by the subplots, such Bond meeting up with Pam and her rivalry with Lupe, and Bond's blundering into other plans to get Sanchez. Those subplots feed into the film by emphasizing its themes--for the first time we see that Bond's self-righteous actions can have terrible consequences for others, and Bond himself has to cast aside his self-reliance and, like John Wayne in Rio Bravo, accept the help of others, like Pam, Q, and Lupe. And all the while, he must contend with Sanchez, by far the most charismatic and directly menacing villain since Telly Savalas's Blofeld, and the fact that Sanchez--in his vigor, shrewdness, ruthlessness, bravado, and killer instinct--encapsulates many of the qualities of Bond himself.
LTK is thus distinguished by two qualities mostly absent in the films between OHMSS and LTK--a coherent storyline that moves forward of its own accord rather than that of the stunts, and a Bond villain strong enough to emphasize an old truth--a film is only as good as its bad guy.

Edited by Revelator, 28 May 2009 - 05:40 PM.


#59 byline

byline

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Canada

Posted 28 May 2009 - 10:55 PM

Quick question though.....was Pam a pilot working for Sanchez and then defected, or did she work for the CIA and worked for Sanchez and later filled the CIA in on the deal, if so why does she involve the DEA?


Dang, was that even really explained? I know she was an informant for Leiter, that's why her name was all over his files. Other than that I can't say for sure.

Having just watched it again, I agree now that it's not clear. She was the only one on Leiter's list who wasn't listed as deceased, so it looks like Sanchez had killed everyone else working as an informant except Pam. It was clear she had done some work for Sanchez before, but whether it was for the CIA or just on her own, I'm not sure.

And, I must say, I enjoyed "Licence to Kill" on this latest viewing more than ever before. I found I could finally relax and just roll with the story, whereas before I found myself getting hung up on certain aspects. It's vastly better than I'd remembered!

#60 JimmyBond

JimmyBond

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10559 posts
  • Location:Washington

Posted 02 June 2009 - 08:41 AM

As soon as I get the DVDs from my folks house I plan to watch this film again. It really does get better with repeated viewings.