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
Honestly, no. I actually don't know why but there was not such a hype about TND at the time and I wasn't a die-hard Bond fan in 1997. On the contrary, Goldeneye was the first Bond film I watched in the cinema. I really enjoyed it very much back in 1995, but actually prefered some of the older Bond films that I had already seen on TV.
But good that you watched Leon in the cinema in 1994. It is a great film like most of the other Besson films. So I guess you were born in 1977?
A Regan baby, you say?
Roger Moore's second outing as Agent 007 puts him against the evil trick shot artist/assassin, Scaramanga (Christopher Lee). Hailed by many Connery fans as the film that marked the downfall of the 007 franchise, 'The Man With The Golden Gun' turns out to be one of the most pleasant surprises of the entire series and one of the 'better' Roger Moore films due to his more Fleming Bond performance.
The cast is great, one of the better ones of the entire series. There are two leading ladies in this film, the wonderful Maud Adams and the attractive yet terrible Britt Ekland who just acts so dumb and hopeless that it is unviable for her to be employed by MI6. The villain Scaramanga is top notch as well as his comical, yet silently evil assistant, Nick Nack, played by French painter Herve Villechaize. The locales are exotic (which is always an extremely important part of a bond film), and the film is only let down by too much camp humour.
Don't forget Barry's eccentric score, which is also different, quirky and yet quite memorable.
Licence To Kill is one of the most underrated Bond movies since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Slipping easily back into 007's shoes with style after his previous role as Bond, Timothy Dalton embodies the character. With a break away from the comic-book villains and fantastical locations, the filmmakers decide to focus instead on a very adult and contemporary story about drug smuggling and revenge. Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum's story is engaging and exciting, with a steadfast confidence in their leading man. This is a Bond movie that took risks -- it was the first 15-rated Bond film in the UK -- and surely deserves kudos for doing so. Make no mistake; this is not a family Bond picture. Its themes require a more mature perspective than its predecessors, and the violence is certainly stronger than anything that had come before. Unfortunately, these factors seem to be what critics of Licence To Kill call 'faults'.
The characters in Licence To Kill are one of it's major plus points. James Bond was the most human we have seen him in nearly 30 years, as Dalton brings a real sense emotional depth to the character; a tortured man full of hurt and pain and vengeance, his determined and stony face almost cracking with the burning hatred that is barely contained inside of him.
We also get a strong female lead with Carey Lowell, whose portrayal of Pam Bouvier is at once intelligent, sexy, and funny. On the flip side of the coin, we have a genuinely terrifying villain in the shape of Robert Davi, playing his role deadly straight with not a hint of camp. It's a rare scenario where you feel Bond has met someone of equal competence. The Sanchez character is a frightening presence, and an early role from Benicio Del Toro is just as effective; his chilling grin a fear-inducing sight.
Talisa Soto is just beautiful too. Period.
Technically speaking, John Glen's direction is taught and assured, with the pace never really letting up for the 130+ minutes running time. The brilliant Michael Kamen also supplies us with an elegant, sensual and brooding score that is a vital player unto itself, complimenting the visuals excellently.
With a striking leading man in Bond's shoes, Licence To Kill deserves a lot more credit than it gets. This is the film that broke the mould, opening the doors to a more adult, violent Bond world that continued briefly with some of the Brosnan films and certainly with Daniel Craig's portrayal of the character. In Timothy Dalton we have a brilliant actor in the starring role who brought us a more human and believable Bond, yet it is Daniel Craig who is currently getting the credit for these exact traits. Don't get me wrong, his characterisation is superb. But Dalton is the one who started it off, and it is a shame that he only made the two films.
John Glen says that from all of the Bond movies that he directed, Licence To Kill is the one he is most proud of. And rightly so. Not only do we get a more fleshed-out character in Bond than previous outings, we get a more believable and mature storyline, with great characters and competent direction. Definitely one of the most underrated Bond movies, this engaging film is a great piece of entertainment, and one that I hope will gather further praise with time.
I've gone off Carey Lowell of late too. A lightweight mediocre actress playing a stereotypical "tough yank" character who is reduced to a teary bimbo in the final scene (her response to Lupe after her infamous declaration of love to James kills any credibility she had for me).
I'd actually say that the women in this film are the main weak link.
I'd also argue watching LTK back-to-back with OHMSS makes it look weaker rather than stronger as I did this a few years back. Previously it had been in my top 5.
Btw, if you read James Bond Unmasked, Dalton himself criticises the film for being "too dour".
Busy day?
Sometimes, F and S bombs slip through our fingers. We can't literally monitor the entire forum, though we try. Flags help a lot. Now please, don't turn this into a joke. I'll humour you by retracing as many of the profanities you have high-lighted and delete them. Also, @RC7 ought to know better than to drop them left and right. Our rules are clear and they apply to everyone. Can we please quit arguing about this now?
Thank you.
It's the Tourette's, Dimi. You know it gets the better of me sometimes. I just hope Mendes can sleep soundly tonight. It's been a long day for him learning how to double quote, on top of the endless historical profanity. #prayformendes
I like the Dalton Bond films, but agree with a lot written above. The direction of the films of this era for the most part are pretty straightforward, to put it mildly, especially since the Indiana Jones films, Lethal Weapon, Die hard, etc, were pushing action dirction to a hole new level, these films and the latter Moore films seem like TV films at times. There's good stuff there, especially with LTK and TLD, they do feel like big films at times, but boy they sure are shot in a very straightforward, almost uninventive manner as well.
Sounds about right.
Hmm, interesting.
Yes that's true. But you could kind of argue the same thing about GE. That was basically a Bond meets True Lies.
There are times in the film when Bond feels like a secondary player. Not least of all the PTS, when Leiter literally tells him he's just an observer.
I agree, really enjoy the whole thing.
But GE is very Bond centrist. Even the villain has a personal grudge against him for crying it out loud. Actually Bond even has a history with Zhukovsky. And MI6 is directly involved, London is the target of the villain's scheme, it does not feel like foreign territory the way LTK does.
Yes quite right.
GE is average, mediocre, safe, uninspired territory. I like it as its Bond. But its mediocre in the cannon.