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
That's why it's not edgy. It pulls it's punches. This film demanded an unhappy ending and yet we have jokes and a man jumping into a pool to smile and laugh with the girl? No this film fails to deliver an edge.
Well, that would be part of why it's edgy, along with its unprecedented levels of violence and realism.
I'm not a fan of that bit, but slow-mo running shots were fashionable well into the 1990s. And Glen's direction is far more lively in LTK than in AVTAK, which is probably why he considered LTK his best Bond film.
I think everyone agrees that the tone of the last conversation with Felix should have been more sombre, because it doesn't jive with the rest of the film.
But for Bond this is and should be a relatively happy ending: he's completely defeated the villain, liberated an entire country, avenged Felix and Della, and has two women panting after him. So the ending can't be that of OHMSS or CR (the book rather than the film, which arguably "pulled its punches" by ending with Bond triumphant over a bad guy). We probably should have seen a bit more Felix of mourning Della and less of his desire to go fishing (ouch!), but he must have been happy to know that his friend avenged him so well.
Obviously LTK is still a divisive title in Bond fandom, and it has its share of faults, but even if one dislikes the film it's still possible to grant that it was edgier than its predecessors and paved the way for the Craig era.
LTK is neither of those things. It pushes no cinematic envelope and it certainly isn't over the top in terms of content. The direction is un-inspired. The producers wasted away the chance to do something interesting with the whole Felix affair. I think the film pulls it punch at the end. I think the script is dark and then we have this happy ending! Bond frolicking in a pool with Pam. Felix thinking of fishing? Nope this deserved Bond visiting Felix in the hospital sharing a moment of tears and sombre feelings.
This movie is trying to be dark and then it stops short and gives us a happy ending. Doesn't fit the tone.
But some here think edgy is one movie that doesn't have a typical M or Moneypenny scene. Then explain why Q of all people comes out to help Bond with the gadgets no less. Why not send out someone else? Money penny thinks Q is going to be able to help Bond get the bad guy? Yes that's really edgy. LOL!
I have to admit that is not what comes to my mind when I think of "edgy." And if that was my definition, then no Bond film would qualify as edgy, because the series has never pushed the envelope of cinema.
But if we were to view edginess only in the context of the Bond series, than the Bond films that push the envelope are those that push against the usual Bond formula. In that sense, OHMSS, LTK, and CR are all "edgy."
That is more like the definition I had in mind. Edginess does necessarily equal artistic quality. LTK is not one of the edgiest films in the history of cinema, but its violence and storyline were more hard-edged and realistic than those of the preceding Bond films.
A pulled punch does not equal a wasted opportunity. The fact that a dark film lightens a bit too much at its very end doesn't invalidate darkness of the rest of the film. The film is not about Felix--his tragedy exists to get the plot rolling and give Bond motivation against Sanchez.
No, the film just deserved a less jaunty phone call, with a few more lines of sentiment, and perhaps a shot of Felix looking wistfully at Della's portrait as he speaks. A teary hospital-side visit would have been overkill. Fleming did not see the need for it in LALD.
Well, isn't that what Q did? Q's appearance in LTK is not a typical Q scene by any means. He appears onscreen longer than before and he does more to help Bond in any other Bond film--he's not just there to explain a gadget. And it's free of the usual Bond-Q teasing/bickering. Q tells Bond to his face that without Q Branch he'd have been dead long ago. All this is not "edgy" in itself. But it is a genuine departure from the usual formula.
It was also the first time we would see Bond bloodied and battered, and we wouldn't see this again until CR and then QoS.
All 3 of these films are the edgiest in the franchise. No others come even close.
You think TB is edgier than LTK. And not just edgier, but `way edgier'? You think it is more violent? Really?
The harpoon in the head is cartoon violence, played out for a laugh, especially with Bond's one liner. This feels more like it belongs to a 70's Roger Moore film.
The violence in LTK was so much that the censors had to get their scissors out, and had to push the film to a 15 certificate (the first time ever for a Bond film). We also get Bond harpooning a villain in LTK too, but a whole lot more besides - heads explode, women get whipped, men's hearts get ripped out, Felix gets half eaten by a shark, Sanchez gets set on fire, Dario gets stone crushed to death, blood pours from any injury.
The word `bastard' gets thrown around frequently too, along with other curse words. I don't recall any bad language in a Bond film until LTK.
TB didn't require any censoring or certificate grade measures, and I don't recall one drop of blood being shown throughout the entire film. TB is many things - stylish 60's cool, Connery at his peak, dull lengthy underwater scenes that drag, silly speeded up editing, but being violent or edgy is definitely not one of them.
You certainly need to be on them to watch it!!!
:))
=))
Also, Talisa Soto....
I do hate her whole 'I love James, so much' line. It's so corny. She was such an convincing character before that point.
It's not really about the character though is it...
I can't recall Seeing or Hearing Bond this Angry....so there's definitely an Edginess & Intensity there. True, in terms of it's Cinematography, it's not the most Visually Striking Bond film.....but I can live with that, maybe it was done on purpose to fit it's more intimate Narrative. I know it Sounds Minor, but I still believe a John Barry Score would have taken the film a Notch Higher.
That was the point. It's why it's made fun of about ten seconds later.
She's a shallow character, trying to convince Q of her sincerity.
Look at the underwater battle at the end and tell me it's cartoonish.
I have a different view of what edgy is and LTK does not meet the criteria. If you think it's edgy that's fine, that is what makes the world go around.
Just my two cents on it.
-Seeing the teaser trailer to LTK in December of '88 before Rain Man did give the vibe that this wasn't the action comedy Bonds of the Moore era. It intrigued with the maiming of Felix and a shaken Bond first and THEN the requisite action and romance scenes. That was enough to say this Bond was different and more edgy than anything that had come before it.
-TB does have some rather graphic and unsettling violence. The authors of the book Kiss Kiss Bang Bang mention it in their review along the lines of this is not comic strip Bond fun, this is nasty stuff. LTK takes it to a more consistent level and a grimmer tone.
-I may be the only one to be fine with Felix smiling at the end. Revelator had some good suggestions with what could've made it more palatable, but given the hell the man went through is he not entitled to have a smile or laugh, probably not expecting it and coming as a welcome distraction from what his life has become?
-I would argue that the Bond series did push the envelope in cinema back in '62, setting a new standard for action; inspiring a whole new genre everybody scrambled to imitate; a hero who had a license to kill, an new breed of anti-hero; it also brought about a new type of editing, inspiring some cinema highbrow type to claim this was someday how all movies would be made.
Well you need something to take the edge off, that's for sure! ;)
No, definitely not cartoonish. Dull as dishwater maybe, slow as watching paint dry, yes. Probably the dullest `action' scenes ever seen in a Bond film, but certainly not cartoonish. There is nothing funny about those painful scenes.
Fair enough mate. One mans meat is another mans poison and all that.
Peace.
B-)
I think 'edgy' means breaking the rules. Being provocative and iconoclastic, whilst being cool. I think LTK fits that category. It's obviously not a Gaspar Noe film, but it's a little more bolder and braver than other entries for want of toying with the ingredients.....of course, this is all in the benefit of hindsight and viewing the Bond oeuvre as a whole. At the time, the film was made to placate American audiences. But I feel it has grown in stature since and narratively aged very well.
Whatever do you mean....😅😅😅
It's a film that has one foot in the very dark side of Bond, and one in the other.
The Q scene at least isn't just a pointless cameo like the Monepenny one. And like so many other Q appearances, he's not just there in the field to give Bond a gadget and demonstrate it and disappear. They make him a part of the action and he's not just the butt of jokes, there's a nice display of mutual respect.
I can think of other examples of films in the series where the intention was to go one way and gave in in a much more glaring way than LTK.
Desmond is better in small doses. The character shouldn't be out helping Bond in the field. It makes no sense. I find it funny that SP gets slogged for having the "Mi6 gang" help out and in this movie it's "the finest hour", it's needed to take the edge off.
I guess one defends the sins when one likes the film.