64 replies to this topic

[Stephen Spotswood]

Tim Curry as Koskof

Stacy Keach as Whittaker.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

I wouldn't fix a thing about The Living Daylights. It's perfect just the way it is.

[plankattack]

I'm with all those that see tweaking to be done when it comes to the villains. Any time you have split baddies, you run the risk of undermining both characters and I definitely think that was the case here. But I don't think either man was miscast - JDB I felt was pretty convincing, it was just that Whitaker was stuck between being the bad guy and the henchmen, almost like Renard in TWINE. Ultimately he never quite has a sense of place in the film, unlike the aforementioned Renard, who has to exist to throw the viewer off the scent. Whitaker's death scene at the climax, while exciting enough, seems to be nothing more than tying up loose ends, akin to SC bumping off Wint and Kidd or Sir Rog disposing of Knick-Knack. In fact in terms of plot pacing, TLD suffers from the same problem as TMWTGG in that story's natural climax comes twenty minutes before the end of the film.

Krabbe showed in scenes that he had the duplicitous edge required, and yet he's never quite menacing enough, almost becoming a joke figure by the finish. Frankly he comes across as a someone whose idea of a greedy criminal masterplan is to find a way to cheat at one's weekly bridge game at the country club.

[Zorin Industries]

Frankly he comes across as a someone whose idea of a greedy criminal masterplan is to find a way to cheat at one's weekly bridge game at the country club.

Which is sort of the perfect Bond villain, is it not?

[plankattack]

Frankly he comes across as a someone whose idea of a greedy criminal masterplan is to find a way to cheat at one's weekly bridge game at the country club.

Which is sort of the perfect Bond villain, is it not?

To a point, agreed. Unfortunately I feel with Krabbe's Koskov that that's the extent of his ambitions!

[DR76]

There was nothing wrong with the Brad Whittaker character. The problem was that his role became nothing more than a source of cash for the real villain of the story - Georgi Koskov. Whittaker was to Koskov; as Hai Fat was to Scaramanga in TMWTGG. Only Koskov didn't kill Whittaker. Bond did. In the end, the writers did very little with Whittaker's character. However, I believe that Joe Don Baker did a great job anyway. Especially in Whittaker's showdown with Bond in the game room. It's a favorite of mine, because Whittaker is one of the few villains who never hesitated to kill Bond when needed. I also love it because it contains one of my favorite lines uttered by a Bond villain.

Frankly he comes across as a someone whose idea of a greedy criminal masterplan is to find a way to cheat at one's weekly bridge game at the country club.

Georgi Koskov is the type of guy I would NOT want to meet. Especially if he wanted something from you. Guys like him are more dangerous than the Auric Goldfingers in this world. But because he is not an obvious villainous type or seems friendly and harmless, people tend to underestimate guys like Koskov. I believe that if one pitted Koskov against Goldfinger, he would run circles around the latter. I've never had a high opinion of Goldfinger. I thought he was stupid. Going up against someone like Georgi Koskov, Goldfinger would eventually lose.

[solace]

I love this film. Its the only one that I didnt see at the cinema since TSWLM. (Well I was 17 and didnt have much sense that year.) If I had to tweak somthing it would be the end shoot-out which always seems a little bit awkward to me but other than that I love it.

[Major D.Smythe]

I wouldn't change a thing, it's #1 on my list for a reason.

[Mr.Stamper]

Agree with the above , Nothing needs changing in this great movie.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

Wow, where to start? There are things I like about the film, and it's certainly an improvement over its dismal predecessor, but the story is convoluted and illogical.

Yes, I know it's a Bond picture, and like all Bond films, a certain degree of suspension of disbelief is required. But given that it's supposed to be a somewhat more realistic espionage caper, the plot and character motivations make little sense.

What's the point of Koskov's false defection? If he and Whitaker are merely trying to make money by selling drugs/diamonds/arms, wouldn't it make more sense to remain as low-key as possible? Why on earth fake a defection that will attract the notice of everyone at the KGB, MI6 and the CIA?

I know Koskov is trying to frame Pushkin so that Bond will kill him and Kara, but isn't there an easier way of doing that? Induce a heart attack? Have him slip in the bathtub? Traffic accident? Why not just use some anonymous hitman like the one who killed the 00s in Gibraltar?

And why doesn't the KGB seem to know that Koskov has disappeared? Given that the British newspapers have headlines declaring "Russian General Defects", you'd think that someone in the Kremlin might have noticed. As it stands, only Pushkin seems to suspect that something is up. Why doesn't he inform his superiors about his suspicions? Why doesn't he tell the British that the Russians had nothing to do with the murder of the their agents?

Why does Koskov have himself kidnapped from the British safe house? He could have saved a great deal of time and effort simply by sending an unsigned note implicating Pushkin.

How is Koskov able to travel to Morocco without either the British or the Russians noticing? How is he able to procure a Russian cargo plane and land it in Morocco and Afghanistan without attracting anyone's attention?

Why doesn't Bond confide in Kara sooner, given that he seems to realise that she's not involved in any of this early on? They should have made her less of an innocent and more mysterious, so that Bond can't decide whether to trust her or not.

Why does Necros eventually agree to kill Pushkin, when the entire plan seemed to be put into motion precisely to avoid that?

Even worse, we never really see exactly what Koskov and Whitaker are planning. The plot has to be explained by Bond in a lengthy, clunky bit of exposition. If you've slipped out to get popcorn during that scene, you'll never know what the entire story is about.

[Major D.Smythe]

If you've slipped out to get popcorn during that scene, you'll never know what the entire story is about.

But who would do that? Common sense is that you get all your food before hand. You're going to miss something if you pop out for food, if it's for a jimmy then that's a different matter.

Edited by Major D.Smythe, 14 December 2009 - 07:34 PM.

[Satorious]

I love this film too. It was certainly my favourite when I was growing up in my teens. But as said - still could use some tweaks. I think the things they need concentrate on are:

1. Beef up the Whittaker role. He needs more screen time and to be more menacing. He doesn't even kill anyone - so he doesn't come over as remotely intimidating.

2. Trim down the second half of the movie. There seems to be some kind of shift in momentum once things shift to Tangiers. And by the time things have got to the Afghan scenes, they really start to drag badly in one or two places.

3. Ditch John Terry and the "Party" girls, and rework (possibly with Pushkin instead - eg. He knows some of what Koskov is up to. He's already seen the villa - so knows the design + it might explain why he suddenly decides to burst in guns blazing at the end)

4. Talking of which, redevelop the final confrontation between Whittaker and Bond. It all feels rather rushed and tacked on. I like the idea of Whittaker using his war-toys against Bond - perhaps more could have been made of this.

5. Find an alternate Moneypenny. Nothing against Caroline though, she seems perfectly lovely - she's just wrong for the role.

What works brilliantly:

1. The first half. Notably: PTS, Koskov defecting, Kitchen fight, Ice Chase, Vienna/Fair. Later scenes which I like: Pushkin's interrogation, Cargo net fight, Jeep ejects. The jail fight was good too, although the jailer strikes me more as a scouser than a Russian.
2. The Score. One of John Barry's finest and I certainly don't agree with anyone who says otherwise.
3. Necros.
4. The love story. Although she's a bit of a naive muppet - you could tell Bond actually cared for Kara. Unlike many of his previous conquests.
5. The locations. Spot on!
6. The Q scenes.

Until Casino Royale came along, this was what I considered to be the last decent Bond film. I really wanted to like Licence to Kill more, but sadly it still doesn't really work for me. The villains were great (better than TLD's - probably it's weakest point), but evenso, I found TLD to be a stronger Bond film. The Tanker finale was great though, that was the last decent Bond climax.

[The Shark]

2. The Score. One of John Barry's finest and I certainly don't agree with anyone who says otherwise.

Really? I like the score, but I'd easily take TB, OHMSS, YOLT, GF, DAF, FRWL, AVTAK and MR over it any day of the week.

[Louis Armstrong]

Why does Koskov have himself kidnapped from the British safe house? He could have saved a great deal of time and effort simply by sending an unsigned note implicating Pushkin.

Koskov most likely wanted to make a personal appeal to the British, and not try half-heartedly to fool them. He needed to put on as convincing a show as possible; the kidnapping supports the idea of his defection, and the Blayden typist Necros holds captive until Koskov is gone provides a witness for the British.

Anyway, fixing TLD - I'd most likely chop out the hookers/Felix scene, the Rosika Miklos distraction scene, and tighten up the ending's pace. Also re-cast Whittaker (I don't think he was written poorly, Don Baker is just way too cheerful).

One thing I would've liked to see touched upon was the idea that Kara was living her 'second' life - as in Bond could've killed her, but chose not to. That whole psychological scar business from the short story.

[B. Brown]

Not much to fix.

John Terry's performance, perhaps. But, actually, now I'm starting to like it.

[Genuine Felix Leiter]

I would not change a thing with this film. It's perfect. Okay, maybe the 'gag' with the naked Russian soldiers having their showers taken away from them during the final battle feels out of place, but the movie is perfect. The opening half hour must rank as one of the most gripping openings to a Bond picture, what with the tremendous pre-title sequence and subsequent defection set piece, Dalton owns the role right away, he doesn't do the whole settling in thing that Connery, Moore and Brosnan did, right from the very first moment you believe that Timothy Dalton is James Bond (how ironic this would only be a two film affair) and Maryam D'Abo is one of the prettiest Bond girls I've ever laid eyes on. Fragile yet strong when she needs to be, I honestly believe in her and Bond's relationship in a way that puts it above the average Bondian relationship, it's right up there with Bond and Tracy from OHMSS and Bond and Vesper from Casino Royale. Man, just thinking about this film makes me want to watch it right now.

[Blonde Bond]

There's an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see any fault in TLD. It's one of those perfect Bond films.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

There's an old saying. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't see any fault in TLD. It's one of those perfect Bond films.

You are so right.

[Slightly Shaken]

Agreed. I wouldn't take anything out of TLD. Now on the other hand, if we could add some better villains.

[DR76]

I wouldn't change a thing, it's #1 on my list for a reason.

Actually, it's #3 on my list. I saw it eight times at the theater.

John Terry's performance, perhaps. But, actually, now I'm starting to like it.

I never had a problem with John Terry's performance. I never saw what was the big deal about it in the first place, other than he didn't have enough scenes.

[Judo chop]

Quite a bit of re-staffing, starting with John and continuing directly after with Joe. That drip of a Moneypenny goes the way of the Dodo as well. Desmond is still there, but the Q-scene is gone. A bit of rewriting in the action and reworking in the choreography to give Dalton some chances to shine physically; Bond would take more physical punishment, specifically during his Afghan imprisonment and during the final fight with Whitaker.

[Safari Suit]

I wouldn't change a thing, it's #1 on my list for a reason.

Actually, it's #3 on my list.

You showed him there!

[Agent Leiter]

Fix The Living Daylights?

Why risk marring cinematic perfection?

[Ambler]

I’ve always taken the stance that JDB was miscast. If only #2 is true, and Baker was only 'acting' under orders, then I stand corrected.

Baker is a very capable actor. Check out his performances in Charley Varrick and Edge of Darkness.

As for TLD, it's a fine film, but 30 minutes too long.

[Major D.Smythe]

I wouldn't change a thing, it's #1 on my list for a reason.

Actually, it's #3 on my list.

You showed him there!

I'm sorry, did someone ?

You really do censor this place? ? Oh, come on.

Edited by Major D.Smythe, 18 December 2009 - 09:50 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I'm sorry, did someone ?

You really do censor this place? ? Oh, come on.

What? If anything, it makes you sound even more hardcore...

[Major D.Smythe]

I'm sorry, did someone ?

You really do censor this place? ? Oh, come on.

What? If anything, it makes you sound even more hardcore...

Well I find the word more comical than swearing. And yet it's censored, I know there's going to be younger fans on here, but being censored, we'll it's hardly going to corrupt the youth. They'd say far worse.

[Bondesque]

The villians were very poorly written. Koskov and Whitaker were about as leathal as my grandmother. They needed to be much darker and deadly.

[ChristopherZ22]

The biggest problem with The Living Daylights is that it has weak villains. I like some of the good guys like Saunders, Kameron Shah, and Pushkin, but the villains are not memorable and do not seem like serious threats. I would take out Koscov, Whitaker, and Necros and create new villains that would do something more interesting than giving the Soviets arms and making money from opium. Maybe they could try and destroy the U.S. with nuclear bombs, and get all developed nations to believe that the Russians did it.

Edited by ChristopherZ22, 22 December 2009 - 06:49 PM.

[Judo chop]

I’ve always taken the stance that JDB was miscast. If only #2 is true, and Baker was only 'acting' under orders, then I stand corrected.

Baker is a very capable actor.

That was the point of the original post that you quoted. As Safari pointed out, he proves himself capable of appearing threatening and villain-worthy in FLETCH of all places! So why on earth does he show up in TLD looking as threatening as <pick any simile from the list below>?

a. Bill Cosby
b. Spring Rain
c. Pudding
d. Periwinkle blue