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
Tarantino loves the rear projection technique. He's used it quite a few times in his films.
As for Ray Harryhausen, I think some of his stuff looks better than a lot of the CGI around today!
The film is perfect as far as I'm concerned. I can't really think of anything that should be changed.
If I was to change this film I would remove the above action scenes altogether (Dr No has very little action so in 1963 there was no precedent that required it). Instead I would of extended the scenes set in Venice using a location shoot in the city to bookend the train scenes with Istanbul, maybe introduce Mathis (or an Italian counterpart maybe more appropriate) and yes I would even want to keep the novel's end and have a poisoned Bond collapse to the floor (surely less distressing to audiences than seeing Connery do that stupid wave to the sinking film spool).
One thing I will say story wise is that I don't understand why they blow up the Russian consulate to nab the Lektor - it seems like a far too easy and disruptive thing to do - especially seeing as it's a British agent doing it. The year after the Cuban Missile Crisis and the height of the cold war - executing that plan is almost an act of war. And if that kind of visible, violent espionage is considered ok in order to get the lektor - why haven't they done it before?
It will be interesting to see how some of the films will ask for more changes than others.
With Dr No seems like the only real complaint was the car chase where Bond was driving to Miss Taro's home and many wanted more time at Dr No's lair.
Here it seems like the only change could be the waving at the end, which i thought it was a nice touch.
These are just some minor tweaks, otherwise it stands as is!
The main thing I'd change about the 80's is the direction and cinematography. And the tone of the films should be more consistent (thank goodness they didn't do the flying carpet)
Well the opening post doesn't say anything other than not being able to change the lead actor. I am after all only stating MY opinion. Is that not one of the things people see differently on a discussion forum.
It's never too late matey. No need for us to start off on the wrong foot. I mean you no ill feeling.
-Remove the Bond theme when it inappropriately plays during the part in Bond's hotel room. (I don't know if this is controversial)
And... that's it honestly. People have raised issue with the last scene, but to me (awful back projection aside) it was fine, satisfying even to end the film on a light note. The part where Bond brutally interrogates Tatiana and slaps her is difficult to watch nowadays (modern audiences would wonder why it is Tatiana who must atone as opposed to Bond during the confrontation with Klebb). But I don't think I would change it, given it that it is rather defining of Bond's character in the 60s. Klebb's exit I sometimes find anticlimactic, but it's functional, and there is no real problem with it.
Good points.
I saw nothing wrong with the production quality of "LICENSE TO KILL". The problem was that the plot seemed straight out of a two-part episode of "MIAMI VICE". Heck, they even had a Key West cop who looked like Don Johnson.
If there is one scene from "FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE" I really had a problem with, it was the final confrontation between Bond and Donovan Grant. From a dramatic viewpoint, it proved a great moment for Sean Connery and Robert Shaw to exercise their acting chops. From a storytelling viewpoint, it made no sense to me. It just did not make any sense to me that Grant would take his sweet time preparing to kill Bond, once he got the drop on the British agent. While Grant was busy searching through the unconscious Bond’s jacket and putting on his gloves, I found myself screaming at my TV screen – "What in the hell are you waiting for? Kill him!" I see now that it was an excuse for Grant to reveal SPECTRE's plans to Bond. I really wish this could have been done in another way.
Plus it makes SPECTRE look good in the eyes of the Soviets,for favours etc...