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
While LTK may not be as immediately identifiable as a ‘Bond film’ - the sheer audacity of the risk to be quite so experimental must be commended. When the story does concede and allow some of the classic Bond elements in - it brings Desmond Llewellyn into the fold, who real chews up the dialogue.
Q's introduction isn't a retreat to formula. He's part of the 'brand.' You need these elements:
You have to have those elements.
for me the biggest drawback of the film is some of John Glen's pedestrian and uninspiring direction. His staging of dramatic scenes is just dull. He has a terrific eye for action but clearly was uninterested in the much else. I think the cinematography is also pretty flat....I had a quick look through some screencaps but the film is just drab (like much of the 1980's Bond films).....though I do like these shots:
But he is in small doses. A couple of hotel scenes, chauffeuring Bond in a limo, the harbor pilot and the very short scene with the radio rake.
The Scooby Gang criticism comes in that they are injected into the climactic scenes like something out of an MI film as part of the action, making a lot of Bond's part less significant when we should be focusing on what he's doing instead of intercutting to them.
I'm not in any way criticising the inclusion of Q or the occasional retreat to formula in LTK, just to be clear. As you write @Pierce2Daniel, you do need those elements to some extent – although CR/QOS didn't need the inclusion of Q or Monepenny for example (but that's different, being a reboot and all). I do think however, that some of those scenes (like the one with Q wearing a fake moustache) were a bit over the top, and not – to me at least – otherwise in line with the tone of the film. There's a balance there that I feel they didn't quite manage.
That being said, it doesn't keep me from loving the film. Some of the comedy aside, I do like what they did with LTK; the plot is intriguing, and you have one of the best villains of the series in Sanchez.
He's so much more complex than just a drug dealer, as is the perception of some general fans or moviegoers when it comes to LTK. Also more than just a billionaire who wants to destroy the world. Sanchez is a rare type of Bond villain.
Indeed....a very rare Breed. A Villian with a Code. Sanchez is the most Honourable Bond Villain Yet. Grant wants Bond's Property for Killing Bond. Sanchez won't even accept a Blank Cheque.
I give the "edge" to QoS as well.
If LTK had been moved back to the fall/holiday season it would have had a wide-open market as the only real action film during the season was Tango and Cash. Everything else was comedies like Christmas Vacation and prestige pics like Glory, Born on the Fourth of July and Driving Miss Daisy.
Then if the underwhelming marketing campaign fizzled you could've had more solid places to place the blame if it still did as poorly at the U.S. box office as it did in the summer.
And Brosnan missing out on the role was a big factor in the US.
This is the first time I've re-watched a Bond film and not thought 'Well, it's a bit silly but I enjoyed myself.' Yes, I did still enjoy myself immensely but this film actually tried to do something interesting. Now, was it wholly successful? Not entirely. Nevertheless, the attempt to make something a little more edgy and thoughtful cannot be overlooked. For this reason, it gets ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐/5. If the intention was to reinvent the character, then Glen’s final entry succeeds marvellously.
Firstly, I have to say I really enjoyed the fact that Bond had some agency in the plot. He isn't merely given a mission by M. He's central towards driving the story forward, Bond's desire for revenge is the plot. Dalton always plays the reality of it, the self-parodying witticisms are out. In fact, the scenes where Bond goes renegade are not just atypical for the franchise but inspired overall (gone is the heroic sheen). You get the sense that Bond has become the villain (which harkens back to Fleming's CR novel). There's a steely menace to Dalton that is so threatening. For the first time in the series' history, you're actually afraid of Bond. He's dangerous, ruthless and damn sexy. Dalton's eyes sparkle....Though, he can look a little scruffy at times (sartorial elegance isn't at the forefront of this film). Also, Tim isn't above some dodgy line deliveries (Namely, (i) 'DELLLLLLLLLAAA!'; and (ii) '...Things were going to get nasssssttttyyyy.') and he's no good at the one-liners. Dalton works best when he says little, though I should say that LTK actually has a surprisingly good script for a 1980's Bond film(!). Dalton is perfectly at home as an angry Bond, and as a romantic lead and as an action hero.
There is no globetrotting or plot for world domination. Instead, you essentially have a film where Bond infiltrates the villain's circle and - in many ways - becomes his henchman. Which I really think is a compelling idea and the execution is not botched at all. To make this all work, you need a great villain, this is something that LTK has in Sanchez. The conceit of this politically untouchable man who operates with complete impunity (with politicians, the army and oodles of money at his disposal) is so good! It makes the mission seem insurmountable for Bond. Davi nails this performance and, whilst Dalton carries LTK, he steals the show. Probably, the best Bond villain (who even comes complete with a poetic final death scene courtesy of Felix's lighter).
As Bond instalments go, LTK radically breaks from the formula, while maintaining many of the essentials. There is even a more gritty interpretation on the classic 007 scenes such as 'feeding someone to the sharks' and 'Do you expect me to talk?'. But it's handled in a much more gritty and serious vein. Never failing to not show the grizzly bits. I really enjoyed that. However, for such a solemn film it does have some tonally odd moments (the tacky '80's wedding, the electric eel, the swordfish bar-fight, the random ninjas, Q's appearance, the godawful Wayne Newton cameo, the flippant final scene, etc). That stuff doesn't work with the more ambitious attempt to actually do something new with the film.
Also, did I mention how sexy this movie is?!?! Both women are as beautiful as the historical Bond standard, but more modern - more competent, intelligent and capable, and not simply sex objects. Though a little let down at times, especially Pam. Love the Lupe and Bond energy though 😍😍😍😍😍
One thing occurred to me in reading it. Given how many films over the last 32 years have taken the "This time it's personal" approach, especially those that are hero/superhero-driven, does it make LTK actually seem less unique, if we don't take into account it was one of the earliest such entries in a major continuing series such as this? Consider about every Bond film after has taken that approach to the point it seems mandatory.
In dramatic fiction a cliche is a concept grown stale through mechanical repetition and lack of feeling. In LTK what became cliched in later films is still fresh and deeply felt. The film not only expresses Bond's need for revenge but questions it. Bond's headlong obsession imperils not only himself but Pam and others. He interferes with the narcotic agents and helps get them killed. He finally has to admit that he can't go it alone and accepts the help of Pam and Q. How many other Bond films show Bond genuinely screwing up and being forced to change his ways? That's part of what keeps LTK fresh and interesting.
I feel for Bond fans who weren't around to experience how fresh and exciting the Dalton era was. I saw the teaser trailer for LTK before a showing of Rain Man in December of '88 and it made the nearly 7-month wait a long one.
I guess the comparison to Miami Vice comes from the cinematically bland sequences set in Florida. The film suffers greatly from its first act in my opinion, and would have benefited from taking place in another location, contrasting more visually with Isthmus, avoiding any comparison with Miami Vice, and allowing to further emphasize the closeness with Yojimbo.
It's a shame because, next to this rather dull first act, there are some of the most cinematographically pleasing moments (Bond confronting Lupe in the chiaroscuro of her cabin, the underwater fight, all the sequences at the casino, Bond's assassination attempt on Sanchez). I would say most time Glen does wonders, it is with nighttime scenes.
Great post.
I think the alleged "TV movie" quality of LTK is generally overstated, and as you say, restricted to the first act of the film. Glen is better visually than people give him credit for (I think FYEO and TLD are great-looking Bond movies), and I theorize that some of the relatively bland shots of the first third have to do with the subpar sets he was filming.
Felix's house, parts of Krest's warehouse, the hospital room, the interrogation cell...I'm not sure how amazingly these could have been shot. More interesting cinematography may have caused it to look actually worse than it does, if that makes sense. Once they move to mostly real locations in Mexico City, I think the film looks a lot better.
I mean, that hospital room...that's not even a good TV movie set.
I know what you mean in terms of the level of personal drama, but even then you've got films like OHMSS and even TMWTGG which are both pretty personal missions.
TMWTGG doesn't do anything with it, no, but it is a plot which starts entirely with Bond going off on his own (albeit with M's off-the-books nod) to solve a personal problem. Bond films which are about Bond films aren't a bad thing- FRWL even starts that way to a certain extent: and Spectre certainly hold a grudge against Bond in that film.
For sure, there are some quite striking visual moments in the second half of the film. This helipad being one:
I never had too much of a problem with the aquarium warehouse, but having thought about it a bit more here, it did look pretty dodgy during that daytime sequence where Bond first meets Krest. They get away with a lot more at night, with the illuminated fishtanks, but even then they could have likely made it a bit more visually appealing simply by having bigger tanks in the background.
The helipad was an in camera foreground miniature.
Yes, I know the real place doesn't have an actual helipad. My point was that it was a very visually striking moment and it looks good compared to some of the set work in the first half. :)
So they made it on the cheap with a reduced budget. They did a very good job of making it look both striking and real in my book.
For sure - it looks great. And Kamen's music is appropriately eerie as it opens.
[/quote]
So they made it on the cheap with a reduced budget. They did a very good job of making it look both striking and real in my book. [/quote]
Well the budget was over $30 million, so in 1989, that was hardly cheap. Foreground miniature's were frequently used in those one days. Why build a huge set for one shot when u can get an equally good result with an in camera F/G model? TSWLM also has F/G miniatures, I think MR too.
Well the budget was over $30 million, so in 1989, that was hardly cheap. Foreground miniature's were frequently used in those one days. Why build a huge set for one shot when u can get an equally good result with an in camera F/G model? TSWLM also has F/G miniatures, I think MR too.
[/quote]
Yes, of course it wasn't cheap. I just meant that the budget was cut somewhat compared to previous Bond films and they had to work with what they had and get the best possible results up on the big screen. [/quote]
Yes, there was a drop of about 6 - 8 million bucks from TLD, and so they attempted to make up the difference by shooting in Mexico instead of back at Pinewood Studios, where there was a safe and well established infrastructure. Unfortunately, they didn't (or couldn't) truly anticipate all the problems and hazards that a crime-ridden location would bring.