155 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I don't think that it really matters if Licence to Kill was less violent than Clear and Present Danger. They are two entirely different stories and told in an entirely different format from each other. Licence to Kill was far more violent than most, if not all, of the Bond films up to that point. That, at least to me, is what gives it its edge, not how it compares to other films or novels of its kind outside of the franchise.

[I never miss]

I think that LTK is not so much hated but just treated with a general lack of enthusiasm. It tried to go off in the Miami Vice / Lethal Weapon direction but failed because it wasn't willing (rightly) to lose the Bond formula and supporting characters completely. It it were a person it would be diagnosed as bi-polar; one minute Bond is snarling and swearing, the next he is swimming past a winking fish. it wants so hard to be an 80s 18 certificate action movie, but it is stuck with the family-friendly Bond luggage. It needs to grow a pair, I think the expression is. Thus we get Bond telling people to 'pXXX off' when we all know what he would really say in this situation. We had the same thing in QoS with the very same expression - it's Bond, we can't drop f-bombs so why even try and replicate them with weaker words that nobody really uses?

As has been mentioned, LTK also looks cheap. Very cheap. At times it looks like it was shot on tv quality film (16mm? I know it wasn't used here but the framing is SOOO tv which adds to the general movie of the week feel).

I rank it in the bottom 3 or 4. No Bond movie is without its merits, and I love them all, but this is one that I return to less frequently. I would imagine that I watch Thunderball 6-8 times more regulalrly than this one.

[007RogerMoore]

LTK is a good movie, but the problem for me is that it does´nt feel like Bond, apart from Q and the gadgets. Dalton does a pretty good job, I mean acting wise he does a great job but I prefer the more sophisticated Bond aka Moore or Brosnan.
I´ve never noticed that LTK looks cheap. It might be compared to other EON Bond films, but the only ones I feel look cheap are NSNA (especially) and DN.

While TLD was a departure from the standard Bond film and emerged as a agent-based novel more than a Bond film,
it still contained the great Car and a few other Bondian things, but as a whole TLD isn´t really Bondian. LTK however is unlike TLD and reminds me of Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, but with more violence.

I don´t really like the scene where Felix loses his leg, or any of the violence in this movie, but the action scenes are good and there are some bright spots. Most of the Isthmus part I like, such as Bond´s first meeting with Sanchez and his attempt to kill kill him thereafter.

[Syndicate]

A few of you or some of you say LTK looks cheap and it looks like it was shot on tv quality film. I wouldn't go that far, I would say maybe at times like a B movie say Hard Justice, Crash Dive, U.S. Seals 2, Quicksand and Vice. IF NOT a B move then a movie that got lucky and made it into theaters.

Edited by Syndicate, 07 March 2012 - 02:46 AM.

[glidrose]

All this talk about LTK looking cheap. Yes, compared to many other Bond films it does - though not nearly as much as TMWTGG.

On the other hand, I watched Lethal Weapon on video some time ago and, my god, talk about a cheap looking film. In fact a number of blockbusters from that era look and feel cheap.

[Syndicate]

I don´t really like the scene where Felix loses his leg.

Lets not forget that Ian Fleming already did that to Felix of loosing a body part in the novel Live and Let Die. It just was not use in the movie version, till LTK.

Edited by Syndicate, 07 March 2012 - 04:21 AM.

[007RogerMoore]

I don´t really like the scene where Felix loses his leg.

Lets not forget that Ian Fleming already did that to Felix of loosing a body part in the novel Live and Let Die. It just was not use in the movie version, till LTK.

Yes, I know, but I don´t think that sort of thing belongs in a Bond film, even though it pure Fleming. For me, the books and the films are completely different and should not be too alike. But I still enjoy the ones that are rendtitions of the novels.

[SteveBolton]

LTK happens to be one of my favorite Bond movies. To me it doesn't feel that far different from the previous Bond formula. You still have all the ingredients and the climatic Tanker scenes are some of the best the series has had. I would of liked to have seen which direction they would of taken if Dalton had carried on and there wasn't a hiatus. I remember the headlines in the paper when the movie was about to have its world premier, "Dalton's Rambo touch will shake Di", showing a bloodied picture of Bond at the end of the film. The scene in question only lasted two minutes but managed to get more press coverage than the entire Moore era. I feel a lot of the press had a hand in making the box office performance lower than previous Bonds, due to a two minute scene. If LTK was released now nobody would batter an eye lid.

[Miles Miservy]

A few of you or some of you say LTK looks cheap and it looks like it was shot on tv quality film. I wouldn't go that far, I would say maybe at times like a B movie say Hard Justice, Crash Dive, U.S. Seals 2, Quicksand and Vice. IF NOT a B move then a movie that got lucky and made it into theaters.

Interstingly......... I have not heard of a single film title you'd just mentioned.

I don't think that it really matters if Licence to Kill was less violent than Clear and Present Danger. They are two entirely different stories and told in an entirely different format from each other. Licence to Kill was far more violent than most, if not all, of the Bond films up to that point. That, at least to me, is what gives it its edge, not how it compares to other films or novels of its kind outside of the franchise.

What a lot of people don't know was that LTK & Lethal Weapon 2 were both tied for being the most violent films of 1989 by Blockbuster Video;

The former for the way Sanchez disposes of Krest & the latter for the villain getting decapatated with a surfboard.

[Miles Miservy]

After reading some of the postes, let not forget towards the end of the mid 80s and the whole late 80s it was about the war on durgs in spy novels, and even in police stories with street gangs here at home. The best one was Tom Clancy's fifth novel Clear And Present Danger. I would say in that novel had more violence then Licence To Kill. In chapter 13 That Bloody Weekend, with the killing of FBI Director Jacbos and his security team in Columbia, well FBI Special Agent Dan Murry is over at Jack Rayn's house having a beer with Ryan. In another chapter there is the use of laser target designator to drop a smart bomb. At the end there that, where CIA Operation Officer In Special Activity Division John Clark had a tape recording of Special Assistant National Security Advisor James Cutter talking to Cartel leader or his Intelligence informant from Cuba. Which is to force Cutter to leave his job or be used on him. In the end Cutter just get himself killed by being hit by a big 18 wheeler.

So compare to the novel Clear And Present Danger, Licence To Kill is not as violence. There are more stuff, but those are some of the stuff in the novel Clear And Present Danger. You have to wonder what if Sanchez was not just in the business of selling and making drugs. what IF he also sold all kinds arms like C4s, RPGs, Uzis, AK47s, M60, AUG, P90, M203, claymores and so on, have the power to infuence a small contury or a small island's leader and so on. Would that have been better or made any difference.

Can't really compare the two. LTK was written for the screen, with certain elements of LALD (the book) added into it; not based on it.The screenplay, based on Clancy's book, was stripped away of a lot of key elements & characters. This was necessary to accomodate time, It was unfortunate too. A lot of cool stuff was omitted.

There was a scene in the book where the Coast Guard Captain executes the druggies right there on the spot (fakes it, anyway) under the authority of a hundred year-old Maritime law book he had. Jack Ryan was no where near Columbia when the FBI detail was ambushed. In fact, I don't even think the main character was brought into the plot until several hundred pages into the novel. Also in the book, Clark & Chavez take out a bad guy's plane by shining a 10,000 candle power spotlight into the cockpit as it's taking off. As I read this, I thought, "That'd be really cool to see."

But then, it's always like that. Don't EVEN get me started on how horrific a job they did at butchering The Sum of All Fears (Quite possibly Clancy's best Jack Ryan story). Despite the fact that Tom Clancy has a producer credit on that film, I cannot even watch it. I can remember walking out of the theater, discernably angry.

Oh & I think it was a city bus that killed Cutter (Now I have to go back & reread it).

Edited by Miles Miservy, 07 March 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

LTK happens to be one of my favorite Bond movies. To me it doesn't feel that far different from the previous Bond formula. You still have all the ingredients and the climatic Tanker scenes are some of the best the series has had. I would of liked to have seen which direction they would of taken if Dalton had carried on and there wasn't a hiatus. I remember the headlines in the paper when the movie was about to have its world premier, "Dalton's Rambo touch will shake Di", showing a bloodied picture of Bond at the end of the film. The scene in question only lasted two minutes but managed to get more press coverage than the entire Moore era. I feel a lot of the press had a hand in making the box office performance lower than previous Bonds, due to a two minute scene. If LTK was released now nobody would batter an eye lid.

I generally agree.
I've said this before but I think LTK has more the feel of a Bond movie than some of the later Brosnan films. The tanker chase is top drawer action and has a major impact on its first viewing. The British press certainly made a lot of the violence, but then it's a Bond film and the British press always make a lot of a Bond film in one respect or another. If anyone had a hand in lowering the box office of LTK I'd nominate the BBFC who, from the account given in a recent 007 magazine, seem to have had it in for the film from the moment it was submitted for classification.


I also don't get some comments here that the film looks TV - the Blu-ray transfer of the film looks terrific and very cinematic to my eyes.

[SteveBolton]

LTK happens to be one of my favorite Bond movies. To me it doesn't feel that far different from the previous Bond formula. You still have all the ingredients and the climatic Tanker scenes are some of the best the series has had. I would of liked to have seen which direction they would of taken if Dalton had carried on and there wasn't a hiatus. I remember the headlines in the paper when the movie was about to have its world premier, "Dalton's Rambo touch will shake Di", showing a bloodied picture of Bond at the end of the film. The scene in question only lasted two minutes but managed to get more press coverage than the entire Moore era. I feel a lot of the press had a hand in making the box office performance lower than previous Bonds, due to a two minute scene. If LTK was released now nobody would batter an eye lid.

I generally agree.
I've said this before but I think LTK has more the feel of a Bond movie than some of the later Brosnan films. The tanker chase is top drawer action and has a major impact on its first viewing. The British press certainly made a lot of the violence, but then it's a Bond film and the British press always make a lot of a Bond film in one respect or another. If anyone had a hand in lowering the box office of LTK I'd nominate the BBFC who, from the account given in a recent 007 magazine, seem to have had it in for the film from the moment it was submitted for classification.


I also don't get some comments here that the film looks TV - the Blu-ray transfer of the film looks terrific and very cinematic to my eyes.

Have to agree with you there, LTK is beautifully shot, and looks great on DVD, haven't yet seen it on Blu-ray, but will be one of the first to watch when the collection comes out in October.

[Panavision]

From the beginning, LTK's plot is one of the best of the entire Bond series. I don't think there's any doubt during the film when the audience doesn't know what's going on. As much as I love Roger Moore as Bond, his 80s outings are complicated. It's like they had two stories in one. TLD feels like two movies at times too. Bond's goal is simple and how he acheives it is brilliant. This film has an attitude and Bond is dangerous. Sanchez is extremely deadly, a formidable foe for Bond. The best villain since From Russia With Love and Goldfinger.

[Syndicate]

A few of you or some of you say LTK looks cheap and it looks like it was shot on tv quality film. I wouldn't go that far, I would say maybe at times like a B movie say Hard Justice, Crash Dive, U.S. Seals 2, Quicksand and Vice. IF NOT a B move then a movie that got lucky and made it into theaters.

Interstingly......... I have not heard of a single film title you'd just mentioned.

Both Crash Dive and Quicksand are Michael Dudikoff stright to home video movies. Hard Justice is John Woo wannbe type movie, which kind of copy some of his Hard Boiled stuff. Vice is a Michael Madsen and Daryl Hannah cop movie, that trys to be like Street King and Brooklyn's Finest. The movie does not even say what city cop they are like LAPD, NYPD, Miami Dae PD, LVPD or NOPD. Also you can not even tell what big or small city it was filmed in. It sure does not even look like the cheap side of Los Angeles, New York or Florida. It might or might not be the cheap side of Canada that it was filmed in. U.S. Seals 2 is just a action movie wannabe, with no reseach done or help from the Navy Seals like Tears Of The Sun and Act Of Valor.

[glidrose]

A few of you or some of you say LTK looks cheap and it looks like it was shot on tv quality film. I wouldn't go that far, I would say maybe at times like a B movie say Hard Justice, Crash Dive, U.S. Seals 2, Quicksand and Vice. IF NOT a B move then a movie that got lucky and made it into theaters.

Interstingly......... I have not heard of a single film title you'd just mentioned.

Both Crash Dive and Quicksand are Michael Dudikoff stright to home video movies. Hard Justice is John Woo wannbe type movie, which kind of copy some of his Hard Boiled stuff. Vice is a Michael Madsen and Daryl Hannah cop movie, that trys to be like Street King and Brooklyn's Finest. The movie does not even say what city cop they are like LAPD, NYPD, Miami Dae PD, LVPD or NOPD. Also you can not even tell what big or small city it was filmed in. It sure does not even look like the cheap side of Los Angeles, New York or Florida. It might or might not be the cheap side of Canada that it was filmed in. U.S. Seals 2 is just a action movie wannabe, with no reseach done or help from the Navy Seals like Tears Of The Sun and Act Of Valor.

IMDB says it was shot in Los Angeles and Vancouver Canada.

[Golddragon71]

I defended LTK from the start when I first saw it because the story made sense to me. Yes it was a departure from the "Classic" bond film because of the subject matter.
In my view I think the major Flaw was the hard fast transition Dalton was making in character direction.
Roger Moore, who had succeeded Connery made a much more gradual transition from hard edged killer Bond who'd slap a woman to get information from her. to his more relaxed style of "Bed Her till she's so in love with you she'd sell out her own grandmother to get another ride."
Dalton, on the other hand went straight to the Hard edged Bond the minute he had a chance.
TLD by comparison is viewed far more favorably because it was closer to the style and feel of the more Classic Bond Films. I would have had Dalton do two more films between TLD and LTK with each upping the intensity level and cutting down on the Moore-ish qualities until the audience was properly conditioned towards Dalton's "Novel-Bond"

[Ren]

I agree. LTK was too much a departure from Moore-era movies.

I think though one film between TLD and LTK would have been enough to accustom the movie public.

[Major Tallon]

I defended LTK from the start when I first saw it because the story made sense to me. Yes it was a departure from the "Classic" bond film because of the subject matter.
In my view I think the major Flaw was the hard fast transition Dalton was making in character direction.
Roger Moore, who had succeeded Connery made a much more gradual transition from hard edged killer Bond who'd slap a woman to get information from her. to his more relaxed style of "Bed Her till she's so in love with you she'd sell out her own grandmother to get another ride."
Dalton, on the other hand went straight to the Hard edged Bond the minute he had a chance.
TLD by comparison is viewed far more favorably because it was closer to the style and feel of the more Classic Bond Films. I would have had Dalton do two more films between TLD and LTK with each upping the intensity level and cutting down on the Moore-ish qualities until the audience was properly conditioned towards Dalton's "Novel-Bond"

I agree with this analysis. Parts of LTK make uncomfortable viewing for fans of the traditional Bond movies, with a much more explicit level of violence. I'm a big fan of Dalton's portrayal, but they could have done a serious "back to Fleming" production without these elements.

[Double-0-Seven]

I defended LTK from the start when I first saw it because the story made sense to me. Yes it was a departure from the "Classic" bond film because of the subject matter.
In my view I think the major Flaw was the hard fast transition Dalton was making in character direction.
Roger Moore, who had succeeded Connery made a much more gradual transition from hard edged killer Bond who'd slap a woman to get information from her. to his more relaxed style of "Bed Her till she's so in love with you she'd sell out her own grandmother to get another ride."
Dalton, on the other hand went straight to the Hard edged Bond the minute he had a chance.
TLD by comparison is viewed far more favorably because it was closer to the style and feel of the more Classic Bond Films. I would have had Dalton do two more films between TLD and LTK with each upping the intensity level and cutting down on the Moore-ish qualities until the audience was properly conditioned towards Dalton's "Novel-Bond"

I agree with this analysis. Parts of LTK make uncomfortable viewing for fans of the traditional Bond movies, with a much more explicit level of violence. I'm a big fan of Dalton's portrayal, but they could have done a serious "back to Fleming" production without these elements.

Good analysis, and I agree with both of you.

In retrospect, I do believe that the film has aged fairly well in comparison with other action films from around the same time. It was one of the first Bond films I ever saw so I've always enjoyed it as it is for the action and violence even if it does stray a bit far from the traditional Bond formula. That being said, I can see why many don't like it or don't think that kind of violence suits a Bond film. I agree to an extent, but since I'm a big fan of other action movies with a focus on violence I enjoy Licence to Kill for what it is. It's a different Bond, but still Bond.

[5thstreet]

My favorite Bond film. Mr Dalton is perfect.

[glidrose]

In retrospect, I do believe that the film has aged fairly well in comparison with other action films from around the same time. It was one of the first Bond films I ever saw so I've always enjoyed it as it is for the action and violence even if it does stray a bit far from the traditional Bond formula. That being said, I can see why many don't like it or don't think that kind of violence suits a Bond film. I agree to an extent, but since I'm a big fan of other action movies with a focus on violence I enjoy Licence to Kill for what it is. It's a different Bond, but still Bond.

Absolutely. This film improves with each passing year. It's easily in my top eight Bond films whereas I originally thought it was one of the worst.

One other reason people may find it jarring: most Bond films have mystery plots. Bond plays detective following either the clues or the MacGuffin. Not the case here at all. Perhaps the story may have been easier to take if Bond hadn't resigned from the service and was on a mission. I think it was Raymond Benson who also said that people may have enjoyed the film more if John Barry had done the score.

Edited by glidrose, 31 May 2012 - 09:42 PM.

[Robinson]

TLD by comparison is viewed far more favorably because it was closer to the style and feel of the more Classic Bond Films. I would have had Dalton do two more films between TLD and LTK with each upping the intensity level and cutting down on the Moore-ish qualities until the audience was properly conditioned towards Dalton's "Novel-Bond"

Great observation. I saw LTK about three times in the theater, back in '89 (those repeat viewings would've been spent on "Star Trek V" but- well, it was "Star Trek V"). Anyway, I loved the film when it came out and enjoyed it more than TLD, which I thought was probably one of the more "romantic" Bond films since OHMSS. I still enjoy the PTS, especially Sanchez's entrance and I dare say Gladys Knight's "Licence to Kill" song tops many of the Bond theme songs of the post-Dalton era.

That's not to say the film isn't flawless. The casting isn't as exotic as previous films. Hedison, Zerbe, Priscilla Barnes, Frank McRae, Grand Bush and Robert Davi were already familiar to American audiences (I think Everett McGill, would have been a great Leiter for the Brosnan Era, now that his hair is totally gray). Having to abandon Hong Kong for Mexico and constricted by budget and logistics, we lose some of the exoticness, we came to expect from the series. For all the criticism and comparisons to "Miami Vice," I found myself thinking that "Miami Vice" certainly looked more cinematic and stylish than what was on screen in LTK.

The writer's strike affected the script, which could've used more dialogue- especially when M confronts 007. I thought the subtext of this film was Bond re-living/avenging his wife's death again, while avenging Leiter. After Bond says "and his wife" to M, you half expect the head of MI6 to respond, "after all this time, we're back to a bullet through the windscreen on your wedding day?"

Looking at the film now, some of the action seems, not bad- but routine, if not pedestrian. Also, the tone is a bit off, as if the producers can't decide to go all out and forget the Bond formula or bring in all those familiar elements. Is Q used too much? I can't say, in some respects, he does lighten the mood and prevents the flick from being a truly solemn exercise.

All-in-all, I don't hate this film and don't rank it as low as others do. I just think that given the tone and direction of the script, the producers and director should have raised their game and created something truly unique for the franchise.

BTW, someone mentioned, this was the last Bond film to be released in the summer. Many wonder if Bond films should go back to summer releases. I say "no" emphatically. The summer of '89 has been repeated every summer since, with sequels, re-boots and now, adaptations of comic books. I'm afraid that type of environment taints the Bond franchise and November seems to be the perfect place to release these films.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What about the two most frequently cited - OHMSS and FRWL? They've always struck me as much more compelling, soulful Bond films, especially the former.

I think LTK is the best Bond film made in the years between FYEO and Casino Royale.

I disagree, I think that place is deserved for TLD.

[B5Erik]

I loved LTK from the first time that I saw it back in '89.

I had grown up with Roger Moore as Bond, and I really liked him in the role. When TLD came out I didn't know what to make of Dalton. I thought the movie was OK, but I couldn't quite get used to Dalton. Until LTK came out and I, "Got it." This was the original Bond as on the written page. Bond wasn't a wisecracking, smarter than everyone else agent. Bond was smart, and he had a sly sense of humor, but he was tough and resourseful. He was a professional.

LTK remains one of my two favorite Bond movies (along with Dr. No). I have no problem with the production budget or anything else. I think for the more personal story of revenge it works perfectly. Robert Davi's Sanchez remains my favorite Bond villain. He's a mirror image of Bond in many ways. He's smart, resourceful, and has a sense of ethics (if you're 100% loyal to him he's 100% loyal to you - if you're not, you're dead).

I have no problem, either with Bond going after a drug lord. That doesn't make it a Miami Vice ripoff or anything like that. Sanchez could have been a corrupt political leader or an industrial CEO as far as the story goes and it wouldn't have made much difference. The story is about revenge, not drugs. The drug world just happens to be the setting for much of the story of revenge.

I love the serious, realistic tone of LTK. Bond started that way (Dr. No & From Russia). The more realistic the movie the more I like it. Bond shouldn't be a cartoon.

[SecretAgentFan]

Removed from all expectations in the late 80´s, LTK proves to be a fantastic Bond film. It just wasn´t what the zeitgeist wanted from Bond at that particular time. But that was also the problem of OHMSS. And AVTAK.

[AMC Hornet]

When do you imagine AVTAK would have been better received?

[00Twelve]

I happen to like LTK overall. Really enjoy Dalton and Hedison's interactions and dynamic as old friends.

As much flack as QOS seems to (still) get about trying too hard to be a Jason Bourne film, it's really got nothing on LTK in terms of following trends.

The action movie industry had heated up to a fever pitch in the late 80s with movies like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, and the Caribbean drug scene was a popular setting from Scarface and Miami Vice. EON rightly wanted to stay relevant while the action movie landscape was evolving, so they looked to these influences and leaned on them hard. Casting Robert Davi and Grand L. Bush (both in Die Hard, the latter in Lethal Weapon 2), hiring Michael Kamen to compose the score (he composed the scores to the Die Hard and Lethal Weapon series), and inventing a villain who is a clear lovechild of Tony Montana and Hans Gruber all blatantly illustrate the tone and trend LTK was meant to follow. And I say again in its defense, this is a pretty logical move to make in '89, and one they would have risked more by not making.

The problem wasn't the attempt to make the new Bond film fit in with contemporary action. The problem was that the series was so reliant on the established formula and content allowance, it never had a chance of being a true peer with those other films. Donner and McTiernan's movies were filled with adult language, gushing squibs and took chances by making the cop hero an antihero in both cases (a crazy man and an everyman). Bond, on the other hand, would never in a hundred years be approved to be an R-rated film, which therefore neutered their clear desire to ramp up the violence and language, and Bond was such an established hero at the time that they felt they had to throw him off into an AWOL personal vendetta to try to escape the smooth spy image and place him closer to John McClane and Martin Riggs. They even gave him a plucky African-American sidekick for a short while in the personage of Sharkey, who is somewhere directly between Roger Murtaugh and Al Powell. Not to mention the sassy, no-nonsense love interest that echoes Holly Gennaro. I believe that, overall, the film suffered for its attempt to join the new trend while being restrained by the status quo. It appears to be schitzophrenic, not knowing whether it wants to be hard-edged or tongue-in-cheek, and it tends to jar at least some of the audience.

Hindsight's 20/20, of course.

[00Twelve]

Edited: Double post.

[SecretAgentFan]

When do you imagine AVTAK would have been better received?

These days.

[Syndicate]

When do you imagine AVTAK would have been better received?

Maybe today or near the start of the dot com boom. Since it about computer chips and Silicon Valley, and they could added in what would happen if social media was destroy or taken over by Zorin along with world wide web, run by Zorin. There other stuff that can be part of it that from the high tech world.