4 replies to this topic

[B5Erik2]

This is a review I did of LTK on IMDB.com back in January, 2001:

Licence To Kill was a bold departure from the larger than life (read: cartoonish) adventures that had dominated the Bond series for the previous 22 years. In fact, it works both as a Bond film (re-watch From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only and you'll see how it fits in) AND as a straight action/adventure thriller. With the plot ripped straight out of newspaper headlines Licence To Kill will seem less dated in 20 years than Goldeneye or Tomorrow Never Dies (both of which I love). Why? There are very few (if any) references to current events, and it is much less "tech" driven, so neither the political geography nor the technology in the film will be outdated in 20 years.

Timothy Dalton gives one of the most inspired performances as Bond to date as well. Some have criticized his performance as cold and humorless, but the truth is he plays the part perfectly for the story. Remember, Bond's wife Tracy was murdered on their wedding day by Bond's nemesis (at the time), Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Seeing his best friend Felix Leiter maimed, AND his Felix' new wife raped and murdered under orders of HIS nemesis hits too close to home for 007. He becomes obsessed with revenge, which is a realistic reaction. Any other response would be fake, and would detract from the film.

Dalton gives the movie the tough, realistic edge that the Bond series had been lacking since 1969. His interpretation of Bond is straight out of the Ian Fleming novels (which he re-read before The Living Daylights). Read "Casino Royale," if you're not convinced. The direction of John Glen on LTK is fantastic, and the supporting cast (including Robert Davi, Anthony Zerbe, and David Hedison) is among the best in the series. The dialog is excellent, and the characters well rounded. There may not be a threat to national security or world peace in LTK, but that doesn't matter. You can't keep replaying the same type of movie for 40 years. Thankfully neither The Living Daylights nor Licence To Kill followed the "Roger Moore Bond Formula." It was time to update Bond, and Licence To Kill worked flawlessly in that regard.

That review pretty well sums up my feelings about LTK.


Here are some more comments about LTK from Lee Pfeiffer & Philip Lisa in their book, The Incredible World Of 007:

"Simply stated, Licence To Kill is the best James Bond movie since The Spy Who Loved Me and, arguably, since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Aficionados of the early films were thrilled by Timothy Dalton's debut in The Living Daylights, which seemed to confirm that the era of slapstick in 007 films had officially ended. However, even die hard purists doubted they would be able to revel in a Fleming-type thriller again.

The premiere of Licence To Kill proved that not only was Bond still a viable entity for the 1990s, but that ther was always danger in underestimating the surprises that agent 007 was capable of springing. More gratifying is the fact that the movie succeeds not only because it emulates the earlier films, but because it dares to be highly original. Twenty-seven years after his debut in Dr. No, James Bond proves there is more life in him than most of the new generation screen heroes put together."

They go on to point out that Licence To Kill gave us a film that, "Brought the series back to the spirit of Fleming's original creation where 007 relied mostly on his wits, as opposed to a hi-tech arsenal, to extricate himself from deadly situations."



My take on it? Just because it is more realistic doesn't make it any less escapist or entertaining - unless you're a cop or a DEA agent or something....

[Loomis]

Thanks for the review, B5Erik2. I particularly agree with your assertion that:

Originally posted by B5Erik2
it works both as a Bond film (re-watch From Russia With Love and For Your Eyes Only and you'll see how it fits in) AND as a straight action/adventure thriller. With the plot ripped straight out of newspaper headlines Licence To Kill will seem less dated in 20 years than Goldeneye or Tomorrow Never Dies (both of which I love). Why? There are very few (if any) references to current events, and it is much less "tech" driven, so neither the political geography nor the technology in the film will be outdated in 20 years.  

I'd never been conscious of it before, but there is indeed something timeless about LICENCE TO KILL, for the reasons you give. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS seems very dated by comparison.

[jeff319]

True, License To Kill does have that timeless quality. None of the clothes are overly 80s, and the music isn't that 'discomania' stuff that For Your Eyes Only had.

As for my thoughts on LTK, it's in my top 10 Bond films ever, at no. 6.

[General Koskov]

Right on! LTK would be my second favourite after OHMSS.

[Felix's lighter]

Well, it's still pretty '80s, but that was the intention. Bond films are the most overtly commercially-driven film franchies in movie history. They're not artistic statements - they're designed to make money. LTK is no exception. Given the right conditions, LTK could have at least equalled TLD's take at the box office (around $50 million). However, it seems like MGM was wrestling EON for artistic control of the series and LTK was the pawn - hence the poor promotion and release timing. The gamble appears to have paid off - MGM now has more artistic control over the series than ever before. Audiences appear to agree that this is a good thing.