Thoughts on Licence to Kill?

15791011

Comments

  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Personally, after NTTD, I have no strong desire to discuss any Bond film, or read opinions about them.
    Understandable.

    I know you're being cheeky (which is fine), but to word it more clearly, I meant to say that NTTD, being a new film, got me interested in discussing it and analyzing it, and now that I've done that (to whatever extent), I don't have much interest in reading or talking about it. And I've felt the same way about the other movies for a while.

    I read about the discrepancy of ninjas working for HK agents in LTK, or the technological plausibility of the nanobots in NTTD, or whether Connery was bored in YOLT or DAF, or which film was more faithful to Fleming, or which one was better directed, and all I can think is "who cares". How much analysis can a film resist? I'm better off watching the movies than reading about those things. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have become an anti-intellectual Bond fan.

    Or maybe I always was.

    4eace8b0510567b64ffdf42a5b941627.jpg

    But as I said, that's where I am at the moment. Everyone's situation is different.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,582
    @mattjoes I'm with you on that, especially such analysis or debate that goes on for ten pages straight. I like the questions thread and easter eggs thread, because there's usually some new discovery to ponder and digest.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Since62 wrote: »
    Dalton was so very poorly served by tepid and uninspired scripts, wan direction, etc.

    What?? I can accept some will dislike his scripts, but to call them "uninspired"? Makes no sense!

    The Dalton films are two of the most unique films in the series story wise. They are anything but "uninspired".
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 1,078
    jobo wrote: »
    The Dalton films are two of the most unique films in the series story wise. They are anything but "uninspired".

    Because NTTD didn't turn out the way I wanted, in the past couple of months I've been revisiting the Dalton and Brosnan films, and although I've always rated the TD films, I was quite surprised how well Licence to Kill stands up. It's aged better than the Brosnan films I think. LTK was quite a departure at the time, with Bond 'going rogue' for the first time.
    One aspect of the Dalton era that was closer to Fleming than the early Connery Bonds is the way Bond isn't so predatory with the ladies. Fleming's Bond was always a success with women of course, but he never came across a randy bugger like Connery did.
    I also think Dalton looked closest to Fleming's Bond of all the actors. Handsome but rather cruel. I love Brozza too, but he was really pretty.

    edit -

    By the way, when I was watching the extras I spotted a deleted scene that isn't in the 'deleted scenes' section, if that makes sense. It's in one of the featurettes. I think this scene is Bond and Pam arriving at the casino right after the iguana "you know I can't stand that thing" scene. Check out these screen caps. You see Pam's leg and it pans up to Bond in his tux helping her out the car....

    vlcsnap-2021-12-26-12h14m07s040.png

    vlcsnap-2021-12-26-12h14m20s545.png

    LTK is the one Bond film I'd like to see a 'directors cut' of. Glen said they actually hired a one legged man to wear a false leg so they could get a more graphic scene when Leiter's log got chomped, but it fell to the censors scissors. I'd love to see the film with these scenes back in, especially the Bond hotel room scene with Felix's lighter.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 16,413
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Dalton doesnt need much direction, he's a strong actor with natural screen presence and charismatic! I think Glens direction is solid, without being flashy, he had a good story and a good cast, and of course, knows action better then the majority of Bond directors!

    Every actor needs direction, the director is the one who decides how to interpret the script.
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I don’t think Glen directs it particularly well. With Kamen along the ride it’s hard not to compare it with the work of other directors he was working with at the time like Richard Donner or John McTiernan, and LTK feels pretty flat against their work
    To me, Bond has never been about directorial flashiness, it's been about the wild situations and the charisma of the actor playing Bond. Glen's direction served Bond I thought; McTiernan direction might have turned the movie in to an event-driven affair wherein Bond is just the hero running through the waves of incredible camerawork & explosions.... if that makes any sense....

    You mean... he might have made it exciting? :P

    I think if you think I'm talking about 'flashy' direction you're mistaken, I'm talking about strong direction.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    jobo wrote: »
    The Dalton films are two of the most unique films in the series story wise. They are anything but "uninspired".

    Because NTTD didn't turn out the way I wanted, in the past couple of months I've been revisiting the Dalton and Brosnan films, and although I've always rated the TD films, I was quite surprised how well Licence to Kill stands up. It's aged better than the Brosnan films I think. LTK was quite a departure at the time, with Bond 'going rogue' for the first time.
    One aspect of the Dalton era that was closer to Fleming than the early Connery Bonds is the way Bond isn't so predatory with the ladies. Fleming's Bond was always a success with women of course, but he never came across a randy bugger like Connery did.
    I also think Dalton looked closest to Fleming's Bond of all the actors. Handsome but rather cruel. I love Brozza too, but he was really pretty.

    edit -

    By the way, when I was watching the extras I spotted a deleted scene that isn't in the 'deleted scenes' section, if that makes sense. It's in one of the featurettes. I think this scene is Bond and Pam arriving at the casino right after the iguana "you know I can't stand that thing" scene. Check out these screen caps. You see Pam's leg and it pans up to Bond in his tux helping her out the car....

    vlcsnap-2021-12-26-12h14m07s040.png

    vlcsnap-2021-12-26-12h14m20s545.png

    LTK is the one Bond film I'd like to see a 'directors cut' of. Glen said they actually hired a one legged man to wear a false leg so they could get a more graphic scene when Leiter's log got chomped, but it fell to the censors scissors. I'd love to see the film with these scenes back in, especially the Bond hotel room scene with Felix's lighter.

    I love the quick deleted scene where he's watching local TV & removing his Walther from its hiding place. Yeah, I'd like to see a version with all the cut scenes back in as well.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    QBranch wrote: »
    @mattjoes I'm with you on that, especially such analysis or debate that goes on for ten pages straight. I like the questions thread and easter eggs thread, because there's usually some new discovery to ponder and digest.

    @QBranch Following such debates seems more and more to me like a waste of time. They're sometimes about inconsequential things, and when they're not, they're just repetitive. Nowadays, I rarely find they contribute to my appreciation of the films. Things can really be overthought to death. And it can be easy for people to get too invested in debating details that are frankly of little importance. It's the nature of a fan community, I suppose. Being with like-minded people invites one to discuss the object of appreciation in greater depth.

    I'm partial to the comments while you watch thread, because obviously, it's the thread that's the most like actually watching a film. For the most part, it's about sharing immediate reactions and getting on with it, rather than participating in profound discussions. @ToTheRight's enthusiasm is contagious.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    How's this for enthusiasm- Dalton's two were the diamonds amidst the moissanites.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,551
    mattjoes wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Personally, after NTTD, I have no strong desire to discuss any Bond film, or read opinions about them.
    Understandable.

    I know you're being cheeky (which is fine), but to word it more clearly, I meant to say that NTTD, being a new film, got me interested in discussing it and analyzing it, and now that I've done that (to whatever extent), I don't have much interest in reading or talking about it. And I've felt the same way about the other movies for a while.

    I read about the discrepancy of ninjas working for HK agents in LTK, or the technological plausibility of the nanobots in NTTD, or whether Connery was bored in YOLT or DAF, or which film was more faithful to Fleming, or which one was better directed, and all I can think is "who cares". How much analysis can a film resist? I'm better off watching the movies than reading about those things. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have become an anti-intellectual Bond fan.

    Or maybe I always was.

    4eace8b0510567b64ffdf42a5b941627.jpg

    But as I said, that's where I am at the moment. Everyone's situation is different.

    That's exactly the thinking behind my recent detachment from this community. To get back to what being a Bond fan is all about; watching the films and reading the novels. Not pulling every film apart analyzing and finding fault in every little detail. I think Silva's sentiment here mirrors my own:
    raoul-silva.gif
    mattjoes wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    @mattjoes I'm with you on that, especially such analysis or debate that goes on for ten pages straight. I like the questions thread and easter eggs thread, because there's usually some new discovery to ponder and digest.

    @QBranch Following such debates seems more and more to me like a waste of time. They're sometimes about inconsequential things, and when they're not, they're just repetitive. Nowadays, I rarely find they contribute to my appreciation of the films. Things can really be overthought to death. And it can be easy for people to get too invested in debating details that are frankly of little importance. It's the nature of a fan community, I suppose. Being with like-minded people invites one to discuss the object of appreciation in greater depth.

    I'm partial to the comments while you watch thread, because obviously, it's the thread that's the most like actually watching a film. For the most part, it's about sharing immediate reactions and getting on with it, rather than participating in profound discussions. @ToTheRight's enthusiasm is contagious.

    It's as if we're one mind. I've always wanted to do a "comment while you watch" and I think I've started one once or twice, but always get too caught up in the "watching" rather than the "commenting". ;) But it has been cool to see @ToTheRight's frequent commentaries.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 16,413
    It’s perfectly fine if you don’t want to analyse them, everyone enjoys stuff in different ways. Other people get enjoyment by talking about the films: there’s no right or wrong way to do it.
  • edited December 2021 Posts: 16,167
    mattjoes wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    @mattjoes I'm with you on that, especially such analysis or debate that goes on for ten pages straight. I like the questions thread and easter eggs thread, because there's usually some new discovery to ponder and digest.

    @QBranch Following such debates seems more and more to me like a waste of time. They're sometimes about inconsequential things, and when they're not, they're just repetitive. Nowadays, I rarely find they contribute to my appreciation of the films. Things can really be overthought to death. And it can be easy for people to get too invested in debating details that are frankly of little importance. It's the nature of a fan community, I suppose. Being with like-minded people invites one to discuss the object of appreciation in greater depth.

    I'm partial to the comments while you watch thread, because obviously, it's the thread that's the most like actually watching a film. For the most part, it's about sharing immediate reactions and getting on with it, rather than participating in profound discussions. @ToTheRight's enthusiasm is contagious.

    Thanks!
  • Posts: 16,167
    mattjoes wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    mattjoes wrote: »
    Personally, after NTTD, I have no strong desire to discuss any Bond film, or read opinions about them.
    Understandable.

    I know you're being cheeky (which is fine), but to word it more clearly, I meant to say that NTTD, being a new film, got me interested in discussing it and analyzing it, and now that I've done that (to whatever extent), I don't have much interest in reading or talking about it. And I've felt the same way about the other movies for a while.

    I read about the discrepancy of ninjas working for HK agents in LTK, or the technological plausibility of the nanobots in NTTD, or whether Connery was bored in YOLT or DAF, or which film was more faithful to Fleming, or which one was better directed, and all I can think is "who cares". How much analysis can a film resist? I'm better off watching the movies than reading about those things. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have become an anti-intellectual Bond fan.

    Or maybe I always was.

    4eace8b0510567b64ffdf42a5b941627.jpg

    But as I said, that's where I am at the moment. Everyone's situation is different.

    That's exactly the thinking behind my recent detachment from this community. To get back to what being a Bond fan is all about; watching the films and reading the novels. Not pulling every film apart analyzing and finding fault in every little detail. I think Silva's sentiment here mirrors my own:
    raoul-silva.gif
    mattjoes wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    @mattjoes I'm with you on that, especially such analysis or debate that goes on for ten pages straight. I like the questions thread and easter eggs thread, because there's usually some new discovery to ponder and digest.

    @QBranch Following such debates seems more and more to me like a waste of time. They're sometimes about inconsequential things, and when they're not, they're just repetitive. Nowadays, I rarely find they contribute to my appreciation of the films. Things can really be overthought to death. And it can be easy for people to get too invested in debating details that are frankly of little importance. It's the nature of a fan community, I suppose. Being with like-minded people invites one to discuss the object of appreciation in greater depth.

    I'm partial to the comments while you watch thread, because obviously, it's the thread that's the most like actually watching a film. For the most part, it's about sharing immediate reactions and getting on with it, rather than participating in profound discussions. @ToTheRight's enthusiasm is contagious.

    It's as if we're one mind. I've always wanted to do a "comment while you watch" and I think I've started one once or twice, but always get too caught up in the "watching" rather than the "commenting". ;) But it has been cool to see @ToTheRight's frequent commentaries.

    I appreciate it! That thread is a lot of fun. I got some Bonds for Christmas this year, so I'm sure I'll be doing more posting there soon.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    mattjoes wrote: »
    QBranch wrote: »
    @mattjoes I'm with you on that, especially such analysis or debate that goes on for ten pages straight. I like the questions thread and easter eggs thread, because there's usually some new discovery to ponder and digest.

    @QBranch Following such debates seems more and more to me like a waste of time. They're sometimes about inconsequential things, and when they're not, they're just repetitive. Nowadays, I rarely find they contribute to my appreciation of the films. Things can really be overthought to death. And it can be easy for people to get too invested in debating details that are frankly of little importance. It's the nature of a fan community, I suppose. Being with like-minded people invites one to discuss the object of appreciation in greater depth.

    I'm partial to the comments while you watch thread, because obviously, it's the thread that's the most like actually watching a film. For the most part, it's about sharing immediate reactions and getting on with it, rather than participating in profound discussions. @ToTheRight's enthusiasm is contagious.
    mtm wrote: »
    It’s perfectly fine if you don’t want to analyse them, everyone enjoys stuff in different ways. Other people get enjoyment by talking about the films: there’s no right or wrong way to do it.

    Too true. I’m finding more and more that this way is sucking all the fun out of it for me.
  • Posts: 1,917
    chrisisall wrote: »
    How's this for enthusiasm- Dalton's two were the diamonds amidst the moissanites.

    This is part of why I enjoy being part of these discussions, because I not only enjoy hearing other ideas and differing and similar opinions, but I can discover a new word like moissanite. I'll have to use that. I'm actually surprised nobody has used that in criticizing DAF.

    I can understand some members being jaded or a bit put off by some of the conversations, and some topics to do get a bit overanalyzed. But considering my other experiences with reading/torturing myself with Facebook groups or posts, this forum is like a refuge. I joined a Bond Facebook group last week, not sure why, but they clutter it with repetitive topics - can this guy be the next Bond, devoting pages to The Rock, Jason Statham and such, along with referring to Rami Malek as "That Freddie Mercury guy" and numerous cases of call NTTD "the worst movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

    By all means, take a break, refresh and recharge and maybe come back with fresh perspectives. But I'd much rather see topics like this "overanalyzed" than the shallow topics on places like that. I've found the poll questions done every week giving two choices have me thinking deeper about something I prefer and I love being able to do that.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,551
    Facebook certainly is bad. Hopefully there are other ways to engage with Bond as a fan that aren't "overanalyzing", or shallow Facebook discussions. What's exciting me more than all this talk is expressing myself creatively on Bond projects, and I have a few on the go so we'll see what eventually comes to fruition.
    It's too bad because there aren't too many people in my real life that are so passionate about Bond as this community ostensibly is, which I think is why I keep coming back, but I always regret it due to the overwhelming negativity.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,021
    It's as if we're one mind.
    We're two of a kind.

    We move as one.

    Also, now that I think about it, I was already two of a kind with @Some_Kind_Of_Hero. By transitive property, that means you are two of a kind with him as well.

    Uh, congratulations?

    What's exciting me more than all this talk is expressing myself creatively on Bond projects, and I have a few on the go so we'll see what eventually comes to fruition.
    I do the same.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    mattjoes wrote: »
    It's as if we're one mind.
    We're two of a kind.

    We move as one.

    Also, now that I think about it, I was already two of a kind with @Some_Kind_Of_Hero. By transitive property, that means you are two of a kind with him as well.

    Uh, congratulations?

    What's exciting me more than all this talk is expressing myself creatively on Bond projects, and I have a few on the go so we'll see what eventually comes to fruition.
    I do the same.

    And actually, he and I were chatting about some of those creative projects we both had on the go. We’re in great company.

    And, there are of course great things about this community as well as the bad, I should say. I think my bleak outlook currently has more to do with my own mental state than realities about this place. It’ll come back around.
  • mattjoes wrote: »
    It's as if we're one mind.
    We're two of a kind.

    We move as one.

    Also, now that I think about it, I was already two of a kind with @Some_Kind_Of_Hero. By transitive property, that means you are two of a kind with him as well.

    Uh, congratulations?

    What's exciting me more than all this talk is expressing myself creatively on Bond projects, and I have a few on the go so we'll see what eventually comes to fruition.
    I do the same.

    And actually, he and I were chatting about some of those creative projects we both had on the go. We’re in great company.

    And, there are of course great things about this community as well as the bad, I should say. I think my bleak outlook currently has more to do with my own mental state than realities about this place. It’ll come back around.

    Wouldn't that make us three of a kind? Or is this more of an Invasion of the Body Snatchers/Stepford Wives/borg kind of situation? In which case, there's room for everybody! Join us... >-)

    On a no less serious note, I agree, @mattjoes, the micro-analyzing and hair-splitting and attempts to rank Moonraker against From Russia With Love against No Time to Die can be exhausting and draining to the point that all fun is eventually sapped from the fandom and we lose sight of what brought us here in the first place: the enjoyment and celebration of all things 007. I'm guilty of this myself. There have been times when I've thought, wouldn't I be happier if I dispensed with all the ranking and comparing and just enjoyed the Bond films as they are—or better yet, attempted to go into watching each one with no preconceived notions about how much I was or wasn't going to enjoy a certain entry in the series. It's hard not to get swept up in the details or locked into particular mindsets at times. Fandom is so much more enjoyable when we focus on the positive and speak in moderation about the negative and even then in the most understanding and respectful ways. Die Another Day, after all, is someone's favorite Bond film out there. Now if you'll excuse me, there are people who are wrong—plain wrong I tell you!—in multiple NTTD threads.
  • Posts: 1,630
    Indeed ! No Time to Kvetch
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    LTK rules. Anyone who doesn't agree is not a true Bond fan. They are also stupid & evil & deserve life in prison. There. I have remained positive here, while being objective & thoughtful. :)>-
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited December 2021 Posts: 6,304
    If I were stranded on a desert island and could take only two Bond films with me...TLD and LTK would not be a bad pick.

    Alternate titles for TLD and LTK could have been A Whisper of Love and A Whisper of Hate.
  • Posts: 7,507
    chrisisall wrote: »
    LTK rules. Anyone who doesn't agree is not a true Bond fan. They are also stupid & evil & deserve life in prison. There. I have remained positive here, while being objective & thoughtful. :)>-

    Good one ;))
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,551
    echo wrote: »
    If I were stranded on a desert island and could take only two Bond films with me...TLD and LTK would not be a bad pick.

    Alternate titles for TLD and LTK could have been A Whisper of Love and A Whisper of Hate.

    To even suggest LTK is not perfect by suggesting a possible alternate title means I must ask you only one question…

    Death? Or exile?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2021 Posts: 16,413
    echo wrote: »
    If I were stranded on a desert island and could take only two Bond films with me...TLD and LTK would not be a bad pick.

    Alternate titles for TLD and LTK could have been A Whisper of Love and A Whisper of Hate.

    To even suggest LTK is not perfect by suggesting a possible alternate title means I must ask you only one question…

    Death? Or exile?

    :))

    I must admit, even as a kid I was pretty underwhelmed by the title when it was revealed, and although it does have a lovely 'shape' to the words if you know what I mean (Long word, shortest, short :) ) it doesn't really improve with age.
  • Posts: 16,167
    LTK is a masterpiece. I'm proud to have seen the film 11 times in the cinema during that wonderful summer of '89.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    LTK is a masterpiece. I'm proud to have seen the film 11 times in the cinema during that wonderful summer of '89.

    ELEVEN???? I salute you sir!!!
  • Posts: 7,507
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    LTK is a masterpiece. I'm proud to have seen the film 11 times in the cinema during that wonderful summer of '89.


    Impressive
  • Posts: 1,078
    I think I saw it five times, but I was jobless with nowhere else to go.

    It's a classic to me. I sometimes think of Sanchez as another Scaramanga. A kind of suave, evil opposite to Bond.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,280
    I think I saw it five times, but I was jobless with nowhere else to go.

    It's a classic to me. I sometimes think of Sanchez as another Scaramanga. A kind of suave, evil opposite to Bond.

    Yes, and they both shared the same initials: FS. Fans also point to the fact that LTK is a loose adaptation of the TMWTGG novel with an undercover Bond bringing down a criminal cartel from the inside.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    I do like the way that occasionally Sanchez does actually seem like a guy who does right by people; it's a nice idea to make him actually quite charming occasionally.
Sign In or Register to comment.