It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
The problem is there are too many excellent films above it. The quality on Bond has been superb.
Sanchez is a top five villain though.
Robert Davi is amazing as Sanchez and I genuinely believe he is the best thing in the film.
("Not a word")
I always love reading about the passion for an individual Bond movie. I particularly enjoy reading about the genuine love certain people have for the more neglected films like TMWTGG, AVTAK, DAF, TWINE, DAD and QoS. I may not always agree with the comments, but I enjoy them nonetheless.
I wish I could join in the Licence To Kill love. I really wish I could. But it just leaves me cold. In my eyes, it is FAR from 'the best Bond film ever'. It isn't even the best Bond film of that decade, or of the Timothy Dalton era.
Good point - there are so many excellent Bond films that the ones which are "middling" are still great.
But I did find that the direction was a bit lacklustre which didn't help. A good director can make a lower budget film look better through stylish direction and more innovative camera moves. LTK is pretty by-the-numbers so the film looks a little "meh". It still uses some camera moves (slight zoom-in when panning up to reveal a character, for example) that I had noticed when I had finally watched TMWTGG for the first time a few days before rewatching LTK (that's another story on its own!). It gives a consistency to the visual style of the Bond films but looks dated. Look at how much great cinematography can improve a film and make it look fresh when you look at how CR was shot, for example.
I find that LTK gets some things so right like the casting - especially of Davi, Zerbe, and Del Toro - but then gets a few things wrong. I know that a lot of people really like Pam but to me Lowell didn't bring a lot of personality to the character. She was a little bland and never convincing as a former Army pilot. I have no problem with the short hair (it was in style at the time and looked really good) which for some reason seems to be a common complaint. I thought that Soto was a great find in terms of looks and "hotness" but I almost wish that her character had been shown to be a bit better at manipulating men with her sex appeal. I can understand why Sanchez would keep her around but making her character a little more...worldly wouldn't have hurt.
I think another pass at the script would have helped, especially with the character development. A casual viewer would never understand the deep friendship between Felix and Bond which is essential to understanding why Bond would risk everything to avenge Felix and Della. The film-makers should never assume that people will "read in" character traits or motivations based on past films or (!) the books. A couple of simple lines from Felix where he drops his guard and tells Bond that he treasures their friendship, that he never thought that they would get to the point where they are now, or even joking about some past adventures - it wouldn't have taken more than a few seconds and I don't think it would have "weakened" the characters or seemed sappy. As it is Felix comes across as "a guy" which weakens the revenge story a bit IMHO.
Still, a really good Bond film - but like some the potential was there to make it even better...
We all have our own tastes, but context makes a huge difference as well. As I mentioned in a different thread here:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/3204/new-perspective-on-ltk-after-first-viewing-in-15-years#Item_25
...there were quite a few elements that made me really like the film on first viewing. I'm pretty sure that if I saw the film for the first time now I would still appreciate many elements of it on an intellectual level but I likely wouldn't have as much affection for it.
Yes, it does look a bit cheap. It does look like a made for tv movie in places. Although there is a nice handheld camera shot of Bond entering Felix’s house after he learns that Sanchez escaped.
One thing that really struck me this time around was how easily Sanchez let Bond put doubts in his mind about his people. I thought "Sanchez has been working with these people for years, how come he's letting Bond influence him so much.' But then I realised the answer was right in front of me. Early on in the movie Sanchez says "loyalty is more important to me than money." I had always just taken that to be a cool line and an interesting departure for a Bond villain who normally feeds underlings to piranhas, etc. But then I realised that this is actually a big flaw in Sanchez's character. His code of loyalty is so strong that the slightest doubt created in his mind equals betrayal.
Another thing that came across was just how badly Bond screws up in this movie. He makes many mistakes that gets people killed. He gets Sharky to take him out to the Wavekrest on the off chance that Sanchez is there. Poor Sharky gets killed. Later he gets captured by his own side and that gets the Hong Kong narcotics people killed. They had spent years infiltrating Sanchez's operation and Bond blunders in and gets them all killed in one evening. It's probably Bond's biggest screw-up in the first 16 movies.
But I love how dumb luck plays a part. His capture by his own side is the thing that makes Sanchez trust him.
Another interesting element is how crime is portrayed as a business. Sanchez is wining and dining his investors and Truman-Lodge is handing them demographic breakdowns.
I think Pam is possibly the best Bond girl before Vesper, and I don't say that lightly. Carely Lowell is a very fine actress and a case in point is her scene with Bond when he thinks she’s betrayed him and he pushes her onto the bed and points a gun at her. In that moment Bond is taking on Sanchez's obsession with loyalty I suppose. She is constantly resourceful and she has to be because (slightly annoyingly) Bond keeps telling her and Q to leave, but the fact is he couldn't fight Sanchez alone. I love her efforts to meet Professor Joe. There's a gorgeous shot of her after she's run down stairs crying, just before Bond leaps over the balcony. One of the moments when the movie breaks out if it’s “TV movie” look.
Q is brilliant. Licence to Kill is probably Desmond Llewellyn's finest moment in the Bond series. I love his downcast expression when bond tells him to leave and then a few minutes later his glee when bond tells him to bring the car. "Yes, Sir!"
I could write a lot more but I will end for now by saying that I for one love the winking fish. I love that Sanchez would insist on having a winking fish by his swimming pool. What's a millionaire drug-lord to do if he can’t have a winking fish?
It didn't save it as a draft? That is the site's best feature. A real shame if it doesn't work for everyone.
It "said" it saved the draft but when the computer stopped hanging it had gone. Grrr. I've rewritten most of my comments and edited them into the post above.
@OHMSS69, I fully agree with almost everything you say here. These are exactly the reasons why I feel LTK is one of the best of the series. I think you described it to a T. And to that I will add that the tanker truck chase is simply spectacular.
However...
@BAIN123, I also agree with what you say here. CR, though also with a different take, does have the charm, wit and panache the LTK lacks. And for that reason I rate CR just above it. I competely understand why some people say that LTK doesn't feel or look very Bond-like. I get it. But beyond the obvious, I still think it does a lot of things right, at least the ones that matter.
Overall though, my strong support of LTK stems from the fact that I always felt like it was one of the most Fleming-like of all the stories. It is really grounded in the world that Fleming constantly wrote about, and his style is very apparent throughout IMO. It feels authentic.
Currently it is my #4 of the series, surpassed only by OHMSS, FRWL and CR.
There's a bit more to it than that, I would say. LTK, while being a much different script to the ones that preceeded it, is still a pretty good script for a film of its type, whereas many people believe the script is the biggest problem with the Brosnan flicks.
I think a lot of people just dislike the tone of LTK, rather than the script itself. The locations, the serious acting, the level of graphic violence, etc. I know these things are relative to the script, but the tone of the film doesn't just come from the script itself, so that's where Dalton and Brozza differ in terms of scripts.
Indeed. I think Dalton would have found his magnum opus in GE. I get a smile seeing him in that tank, tearing through St. Petersburg. What a shame...
I love Dalton and I'd have liked 3 or 4 more films from him, but I feel bad taking GE away from Brosnan. It was his best film, and I liked his Bond.
I think LTK's tone is ok, but I'd preferred if it were less dark and serious. What I like the least however is the scipt. Revenge tales are not my cup of tea and I don't like to see Leiter suffer (a character I care about). But without it I guess we wouldn't have seen Jack Wade, and that would be a pity!
Now, I understand why Bond gets pissed. But seeing these violent themes isn't something I crave. I wish it never happened.
All in all a good film still, and I'm glad that some of you other Bond fans who like darker movies got some enjoyment with it.
blackknight
Modernize? Have you noticed how outdated DAD is at this point? That's what you get with crappy CGI, you see. You're stuck in that phase of trying to make things look as photorealistic as you can, but you don't fully succeed. Ten years later, CGI has been improved so much, it makes DAD look like a Commodore 64 in a modern computerstore today. LTK, relying on old-school filmmaking techniques, feels far more timeless. Also, in terms of story, it would seem that revenge plots are very hot today. The cartoon maniac, like Graves, just isn't what audiences want today.
by the same token, TLD is also very much dated, with the whole Mujahaddin plot and the friendly Kamran Shah - very cringe-worthy when we know what has taken place since 9/11.......
I don't believe that the inclusion of the Mujahaddin means that TLD is dated - it's just "of a time". The same as the Cold War elements of the early films, for example. To me "of a time" means things that were present in that era in terms of news and politics, or even technology. Note that I'm speaking of story elements, not film-making techniques.
When someone mentions DAD trying to "modernize" a Moore film I think the meaning is to make a film in the style of a Moore entry and make it fit into modern times. To me that is very different than a film being dated.
When I think of a film being dated I'm thinking of the techniques. To me, the "stuttering" shot of the Aston Martin in DAD would be an example, or the bad CGI in the parasailing scene. The over-edited action scenes in QoS would be another example. When something is a well done as it can be I don't think it looks dated; when something is in favour for a very short time (like that "stuttering shot") then it's dated and not "classic".
One thing that I never think about in terms of being dated are fashions. Everything comes and goes out of fashion so I can't think of the late 80s outfits as being dated - the only reason that someone would think that they are dated but the clothes from the early films are "classic" or "retro" is the period of time that has elapsed.
I think that the vast majority of the Bond films and elements within them are "of their time". One of the great things about the Bond films is how little about them are "dated".
Thanks, thelordflasheart. This is exactly what I meant.
You bring up excellent points @thelordflasheart