Even though I liked Dalton, LTK is probably my least favorite Bond movie. While I agree it is very faithful to the spirit of Fleming I don't find it a particularly enjoyable movie to watch.
First and foremost is the almost complete absence of humor. Dalton is at his melancholy worst in this, constantly trying to push everybody away and generally looking glum. That attitude might work in print, it didn't work on film for me.
Pam, while drop-dead gorgeous, could very well have been the prototype for Wai-Lin and Jinx; she goes out of her way to show she's Bond's equal to the point of distraction. And while Talisa Soto is striking to look at, I really don't know what she brought to the movie (other than being the reason Sanchez is captured at the beginning). Take her scenes out of the picture and you'll find it doesn't change what happens all that much.
The villains are just a bunch of thugs with no identity or personality. That's very surprising considering you have great actors like Anthony Zerbe and Benicio Del Toro. None of them have any charisma or defining qualities to them. Davi is a complete non-entity who tries to look suave as he spews his inane one liners. Not a Goldfinger or Oddjob to be found anywhere.
The way the subplots are introduced and discarded is also jarring. Fallon's appearance and demise occur in the same scene; same goes for the realization that Quang and his associates are narcotics agents. And the whole subplot about Heller and the stingers is embarrassingly brought up thru Pam's screetching monologue on the bed. When I watched that I went "huh?"
A lot of the supporting characters like M and Moneypenney are really wasted and their scenes are very out of character (M seems like he can't wait to revoke Bond's license to kill and only calls off the snipers because there are witnesses). Moneypenny in particular looks especially pathetic (too bad as I always liked Caroline Bliss). Q brings a small measure of comedy relief to the proceedings but can hardly save the picture for me.
I also found some of the deaths to be too disturbing. The intimation that Della was raped before being murdered really doesn't belong in a Bond movie IMHO. And while Leiter's maiming with the sharks is right out of the LALD novel I found what it suggested to be too grisly.
Over time, the Bond series has evolved into a much more stylized reality and as such I found the harsh grittiness of LTK very out of place based on what came before. I strongly believe that was what doomed LTK and I fear the same fate could befall CR if it follows the same tone.
The actors and producers clearly put a lot of work and effort into the film. It's all very well made (as one would expect from a Bond movie) but too dour and glum for my tastes. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Over time, the Bond series has evolved into a much more stylized reality and as such I found the harsh grittiness of LTK very out of place based on what came before. I strongly believe that was what doomed LTK and I fear the same fate could befall CR if it follows the same tone.
I think you could be right about LTK. I have always maintained that Dalton and LTK were ahead of their time. It was also very ambitious bearing in mind the style of films following the Moore era. They were still very much in peoples mind. TLD was far more generic and a lot more what people expected. LTK was very 'real'.
However, the movies have, as you say, 'evolved' ( courtesy of LTK ) and I think people now expect their Bond to be a lot more emotional and real. That is why I think CR will do just fine. It is not such a departure and I think the audience will except it far more readily than they did LTK. The audience wasn't ready for LTK. I believe if it was released today ( with a few updates), it would probably be more successful.
LTK was a very important film for the franchise. Whilst it didn't set the box office on fire, it certainly turned the franchise on it head and brought Bond back to a recognisable place.
I think you could be right about LTK. I have always maintained that Dalton and LTK were ahead of their time. It was also very ambitious bearing in mind the style of films following the Moore era. They were still very much in peoples mind. TLD was far more generic and a lot more what people expected. LTK was very 'real'.
A very good point, Lady Rose, one that I have always considered. I think, and I hope, that CR has come at the right time - perhaps audiences weren't ready for the radical overhaul that was LTK, and perhaps the franchise wasn't even ready for it. But I think cinema has matured a lot over the last 15 years, and that audiences are ready for something new, something to grab them, something slightly controversial. People complain how CR seems too different, and how it seems to stray too far from the 'forumla'. Well the formula aint gonna live forever - its already dying. The formula was so definitive that it lasted almost 40 years. It is getting tired. Perhaps the phrase "the formula is getting tired" is overused by Bond fans and critics alike but I think thats because it has a lot of truth to it. If CR is a fresh, gritty, modern approach then we're in for a treat.
I think that the same approach can easily be taken with LTK. Sure, its slightly too dull, but take it out of context and apply it to now, and I think that LTK is a great film that surfaced at the wrong time.
A lot of people seem to think that if LTK were to be released today it might be a hit. The rationale often given is that our world is a darker, more ambigouous place today and that these films should reflect our times.
But if that is the benchmark by which people are hoping that these darker grittier Bond movies are to prosper then I think it's important to keep in mind that the world of today isn't as different from the world of the 1960s and 1970s as one might think. Back when Connery was Bond, we had just gotten thru the Korean War and the Cuban Missle Crisis. The Cold War was in full swing, JFK would be assasinated, it often looked like the finger was on the proverbial button and Vietnam was waiting. As you go into the late 1960s and 1970s, you have the Vietnam war, the anti-war movement and the Watergate scandal and subsequent impeachment and resignation of a president. The world was just as dark a place back then and maybe even more troubled than it is today. Bond didn't succeed by aping all these fears and issues and reflecting them in the movies. Bond succeeded by providing an escape from them and acted very much as a safety valve. Bond provided reassurance that no matter how bad things got, there was always one man who could avoid disaster, get the girl, save the world and not mess his hair up too much. Was it realistic? Of course not. Was it true to Fleming? Not really. But it was very entertaining and, equally important, fun.
Maybe audiences are ready for a darker, more serious Bond. But the argument that the formula has run its course and Bond must now reflect our troubled times to be a success strikes me as being somewhat narrow-minded and contrary to the evidence at hand: DAD's box office take should have definitively proved that the formula was alive and well and the "formulaic" Bond movies of the 60's, 70's and 80's prospered in the face of an uncertain and ambiguous world that often seemed to teeter on the brink of disaster.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I've always felt that the big problem with LTK was that Dalton emotionally never went anywhere. He started angry, got a bit angrier and it wasn't until the end that he loosened up a bit. Obviously he was out for revenge, but before Felix and his wife got attacked, it seemed to me that Bond was already intense and angry. It made Bond's desire to get vengance less real to me, and far less convincing than OHMSS, in which Lazenby (putting aside his dreadful performance ) actually underwent an emotional transformation. I often wonder what it would have been like if LTK had starred Brosnan or had been made in the late 60's with Connery. In fact (and I know that I'll be shot down for this ) I think Moore could have done a better job than Dalton.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Absolutely! Without a doubt. FYEO was wonderfull, too, but OP? Whats in OP to prefer over LTK? In fact, I prefer NSNA over it, if you haven't noticed...
LTK is the most emotionally involved Bond film since OHMSS. Its clealy the best film John Glen directed in the series (he admited it, himself).
A lot of people seem to think that if LTK were to be released today it might be a hit. The rationale often given is that our world is a darker, more ambigouous place today and that these films should reflect our times.
But if that is the benchmark by which people are hoping that these darker grittier Bond movies are to prosper then I think it's important to keep in mind that the world of today isn't as different from the world of the 1960s and 1970s as one might think.
I don't think the times have changed, but I do think movies have changed and particularly peoples expectations of a Bond film.
As I said, LTK followed in the wake of nearly 18 years of Bond getting more comical and surreal with each film, starting with DAF and ending in AVTAK . As Moore got older, they relied more on his persona and they played up to that. Everybody loved Moore and his version of Bond was firmly in peoples minds. LTK was a very radical film. However, since LTK and Brosnans films, people have got used to a more vulnerable and emotional character, which is why I don't think Craig's interpretation will be as shocking as Dalton's was.
I often wonder what it would have been like if LTK had starred Brosnan or had been made in the late 60's with Connery. In fact (and I know that I'll be shot down for this ) I think Moore could have done a better job than Dalton.
I'm not going to waste time in trying to put you on the path to righteousness Dan but I do think you are being very harsh.
I know you must get sick of this, but, if you had read any of the books I think you would have a greater understanding in what Dalton was trying to achieve when he took on the role of Bond and I personally think he achieved it very well.
Unfortunately for LTK and Dalton, 90% of the viewing public haven't read the books either, so it was rather unappreciated.
I like humor, Moore's one of my favorites und I grew up with the sly rascal. He's my idol when it come to putting down abusive bullies. But there also comes a time in a man's life when he begins to appreciate good old fashioned adventures cut from the cloth of maturity. Morality tales for adults. Something with substance that makes some kind of a point.
LTK and TLD are simply stated - rewatchable films, and as I grow even older, I find myself unable to re-review things like US. Space Marines and buffoon sherrifs. They're fun at certain times of the day, (like happy hour) but I'll be rewatching Dalton's two films for even more years to come. Like a good friend, they'll be there if I need them.
I'm not going to waste time in trying to put you on the path to righteousness Dan but I do think you are being very harsh.
I know you must get sick of this, but, if you had read any of the books I think you would have a greater understanding in what Dalton was trying to achieve when he took on the role of Bond and I personally think he achieved it very well.
Unfortunately for LTK and Dalton, 90% of the viewing public haven't read the books either, so it was rather unappreciated.
I can never get sick of being told anything from you.
I do not believe that my not having read the novels has that much to do with my disliking LTK. I say that for three reasons:
1)I absolutely adore the 60's films (such as FRWL and OHMSS) which are generally considered to be 'Fleming-like.' My negative feelings towards LTK therefore is not because I don't like 'Fleming-like' films (as I said, I loved FRWL) but because I just don't think that LTK is a particularly good film.
2)Part of the reason I don't like LTK is that I don't like Dalton. He is my second least favorite Bond. It may be that if I read the books I would get more of an understanding as to why he choose to play Bond the way he did, but until then, all I can say is that he was by far my least favorite of the multi-film Bonds.
3)I mentioned the lack of an emotional change. I do not need to have read the novels in this case as I have never liked any work (film, novel, TV show) in which the hero set out to get revenge and he was just as intense before seeking revenge as he was after it.
While it is possible (not probable but possible) that I may change my opinion of Dalton after having read the novels, it is extraordinarilly unlikely that I will change my view regarding the emotional transformation, for it is something that is vital to me in any medium (film, novel, TV show) that I happen to be utilising.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I am not anti-Dalton - far from it - but I just do not think that LTK is that great a Bond film. I love TLD and love Dalton's performance - there is more wit in the film than some may realise - and so found LTK to be quite a disappointment. Plain and simple - it's just not as good a film as TLD. Please shoot me down if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the majority of people on this site and the general public prefer TLD to LTK. I could be wrong - hey, I probably am! - but I think that opinion about LTK will never ever change in the way that it did over OHMSS.
No Bond film is without it's merits though, and I must admit that LTK has it's moments - I own it and am happy to watch it. It just could have been so much better, and I think it's a shame.
Part of the reason I don't like LTK is that I don't like Dalton. He is my second least favorite Bond. It may be that if I read the books I would get more of an understanding as to why he choose to play Bond the way he did, but until then, all I can say is that he was by far my least favorite of the multi-film Bonds.
Thats fair enough. If you dont like him, you dont like him. There are plenty of actors out there that leave me cold ie Tom Cruise, George Clooney , so I understand.
Thats fair enough. If you dont like him, you dont like him. There are plenty of actors out there that leave me cold ie Tom Cruise, George Clooney , so I understand.
I can understand Tom Cruise, but George Clooney?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Thats fair enough. If you dont like him, you dont like him. There are plenty of actors out there that leave me cold ie Tom Cruise, George Clooney , so I understand.
I can understand Tom Cruise, but George Clooney?
Fraid so ... Its all that doe eyed looking out the top of my head in a cute way thing I cant stand. Put me right off !!! I dont do cute
( in fairness though, unlike Cruise, Clooney always comes across a nice and fairly sincere chap when he's being interviewed. )
Thats fair enough. If you dont like him, you dont like him. There are plenty of actors out there that leave me cold ie Tom Cruise, George Clooney , so I understand.
I can understand Tom Cruise, but George Clooney?
Fraid so ... Its all that doe eyed looking out the top of my head in a cute way thing I cant stand. Put me right off !!! I dont do cute
( in fairness though, unlike Cruise, Clooney always comes across a nice and fairly sincere chap when he's being interviewed. )
Anyone who faithfully subscribes to the Scientology scam is immediately an outcast in Klaus's book of cool.
George is kind of a hot and cold actor for me. There are some roles in which I've liked him (Ocean's 11, Three Kings), and there are some in which I have really been annoyed with him (Batman, OBWAT)
I like this movie a lot. The problem with a lot of the Bond movies, especially the newer ones, is that there is so much formula. There's almost nothing that you haven't felt like you've seen before. This movie isn't. Plus, Dalton has an edge. If Roger Moore was puff, which I kind of think about him based on his worst Bond movies, Dalton was the opposite extreme. He was the first Bond since Connery that wasn't trying to be Bond.
Watched this film again last night in Hi-def and it remains one of my all time favorites. It has a simple, but compelling plot, Bond out to avenge Leiter. A very intiguing and dangerous villian in Sanchez, played very well by Robert Davi. IMO one of the all time great Bond girls Carey Lowell, beautiful and capable. Lowell has great chemistry with Dalton. Some great henchmen, Bernicio Del Toro and Anthony Zerbe. Say what you want about the tractor trailer chase down the mountain, but their was some great stunt work involved in that chase and I enjoyed it. The movie also has my favorite ending in all the Bond movies with Bond jumping into the pool for Pam Bouvier. Dalton plays an angry Bond well and Talisa Soto is great eye candy.
One other thought I had watching this movie was that Q cannot be replaced. Desmond Llewelyn is Q, no one else can assume that role. As soon as he appeared on screen I smiled. I remember being in the cinema when Q would come on screen and people would start to grin with anticipation. That can't be duplicated. EON should not even try.
Hello.
Just finished going through this. Dalton is my favorite Bond, and here he is wonderful. The story is compelling, and the villains and the girls are great.
But, yet, I am often shocked at how low the quality of some of the scenes is.
There are many parts where the filmmakers just dropped the ball in terms of quality. For example,
there are some scenes that are cringeworthy because of their lack of production value. Think of the scene in the hospital room, where the doctor is talking to Bond and Sharkey in the same room (!) as an injured and unconscious Leiter. Or the scene with the police detectives at the Leiter house ("They must have used a chainsaw"). Or the scene where Lupe visits Pam at the hotel ("I love James, SO MUCH."). The backgrounds look like they just shot on an empty GOLDEN GIRLS set or something. The exposition is poorly delivered, with the feel of a sub-par film school student thesis or something. It's a lot like the problematic scene in TMWTGG, where Bond goes to Beiruit, and all we see is the interior of a nightclub set and a belly dancer's dressing room. Just dreadful.
These scenes too are problematic in terms of their function as exposition scenes. They are necessary, I realize, for this purpose. However, you get the feeling that they were rushed during filming, like on a quick reshoot schedule or something. I am surprised that, given the screenplay talent of the Bond team at this time, like Richard Maibaum and Michael Wilson and John Glen, and the best they could come up with was Lupe visits Pam at the hotel??
But, what was most painful was that this amateurish qualtity to many of the scenes invaded, of all cherished places, M's office. M's office feels like a cardboard set here rather than a rich background we are so used to.
Now, I respect and agree with a lot of the praise given to this film by posters here. I love many parts of this film. I actually appreciate that this film is like a Miami Vice/Golan-Globus film with Bond. I actually like the Michael Kamen score. I love Q's role. I think the violence is a great touch. I love the story's Yojimbo structure. I love Dalton's interpretation. One of my favorite Bond scenes EVER is where Felix and Delia watch Bond leave, and Felix has that great line "He was married once. But that was a long time ago." I totally respect the John Glen/Michael Wilson/Richard Maibaum period. Click on my favorite bond film list and you will find AVTAK and TLD high up there.
But, a Bond film has always impressed me because it has always managed to do a lot with very little. Think back to Dr. No, the limited budget and they came up with a real winner. Or even AVTAK, where they made a BRILLIANT mine set despite the fact that the stage burnt down! Or, even TLD, and the air fight between Necros and Bond. Or the great use of foreground miniatures from John Richardson and his crew. etc. etc. The list is endless.
And then, LTK comes along.
I hate broccoli (the veggie). But, LTK is like broccoli to me. It's healthy and good for you, but it just tastes terrible. LTK has great Fleming qualities and I want so much to like it, but it still has a bad taste whenever I watch it.
Yea I completly agree that production values let down LTK, MGM trying to make as much money as possible. But this was a good bit of forsight as the film failed to gain a respectable box office take.
This is from Variety:
"Producer Michael G. Wilson (in the DVD commentary) says the production was difficult because of budget control consequent to the over-spending for Moonraker, that did not account for inflation. Moreover, changing the filming locations from China to Mexico and the five-month WGA strike, preventing screenwriter Richard Maibaum from completing the script, left the screenplay writing to him (producer Wilson)."
Which is pretty evident as to why the film isn't as great as it could be.
I really do like LTK because its different and I know a lot of effort from actors and crew went into the film. IMO the 6 year gap gave the series a much needed break and a chance to get priorties right.
Dalton was good but im glad he only did two, Lazenby is the one who should have done more.
I have heard that DVD commentary on LTK, but I had not come across that clip from Variety until you posted it. Thanks for quoting it.
I will say this, though: I think that Dalton was just effin' brilliant in this. No matter how bad his hairstyle may have been. It seems to me that the key to the success of his performance was to make the audience believe that his Bond was still emotionally affected by the death of Tracy. And, that he does so very well in this film.
Also, while I agree that Dalton is not the best when it comes to delivering humorous dialogue, he is not as bad as some might claim. In fact, Dalton's funny lines/puns are most effective when he is agitated or angry (and this is true too in TLD). His "farewell to arms" line, or the "bon appetit" line when he feeds the guy to the worms, or his "compliments of Sharkey" line are really effective because Dalton gives those lines some palpable aggression. Incidentally I think back fondly to the lines in TLD, like "I've had a few optional extras installed" or "Yes, I got the message" that were really delivered well.
A third Dalton movie would have been welcome indeed. I always imagine it would have come in between LTK and Goldeneye. Pierce doing Goldeneye did wonders to the series in rejuveniating it and bringing in new fans, so I would stll have Pierce do Goldeneye as his first Bond film. But, had EON been able to produce one more bond film in between 1989 and 1995, it would have been great to see Timothy Dalton as James Bond in, say, "The Property of a Lady".
Yes TD is a brilliantly trained actor and I agree with all the points you made but I think he reached the limit with how he played the character and what fans wanted to see.
I dont really want to speculate on this but I think if they did a third TD one in say 1992 it would have jeapordised the change in the 90s.
The Living Daylights is my 5th fav bond movie, and I do like LTK, and its elements over a lot of Bond movies, like the ones you have mentioned, but it is missing something....
You mentioned TDs humour but missed out one of the funniest scenes in LTK and out of most Bonds, the bar fight! Its f-ing hilliarious! Its like a fight in a Steven Segal movie!!!!
?:)A fight like a Seagal movie, eh? {:)I admit I am not 100% sure, but I assume you are referring to the fight in the bar, complete with angry strippers and swinging fake marlin. Classic.
Oh, and about your speculation as to how a 3rd Dalton movie would have affected the future of the franchise post 1993, you may have me there, heartbrokenmrdrax.
As you posit, a 3rd Dalton movie would have definitely affected the trajectory. A 3rd Dalton movie would probably have been another hard-edged movie. Maybe not reaching the same rugged heights as an LTK, but hard-edged nonetheless. When I say "hard-edged", I suppose I mean "faithful to Fleming" or, in the case of LTK, "Flemingesque".
So, this leads me to thinking about EON's proven trackrecord. Immediately, three things come to mind:
(1) EON hasn't at any time made more than 2 hard-edged films in a row,
(2) With the exception of Roger Moore, all the Bond actors' first films have been more serious, hard-edged affairs. Connery-Dr. No; Lazenby-OHMSS; Dalton-TLD; Brosnan-Goldeneye; Craig-CR. With actors playing Bond more than twice, Connery and Brosnan, usually by their 2nd or 3rd film does the franchise become "fantastic". Connery-Goldfinger; Brosnan-TND, DAD.
(3) Hard-edged Bond films (i.e. Dr. No, FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK) are few, relative to the more "overthetop" or "fantastic" Bonds. After a hardedged film, EON produces a "fantastic" Bond. Goldfinger came after FRWL; Octopussy and AVTAK came after FYEO; DAF came after OHMSS.
So, had Dalton made a 3rd, and assuming it too would have been hard-edged, then it would have been a first for EON to have made 3 in a row. Also, most certainly, the film after that one would have certainly have been a "fantastic" film (maybe Pierce's first film would have been DAD or TND, much like Roger's first films were LALD and TMWTGG).
Alternatively, Dalton's 3rd Bond film could have been bigger, more fantastic, say something akin to Thunderball or YOLT. How that would have affected Dalton's Bond, as well as the future trajectory of the series and the fans' perception of Dalton's Bond, is anyone's guess.
So, with all that said, perhaps heartbrokenmrdrax, your argument is a good one that Dalton didn't make a 3rd. Had he done so, perhaps the Brosnan films would have been quite different indeed.
Finally, as I have not seen Quantum of Solace yet (it doesn't open here in Japan until January 2009 ), I can't comment on Craig as much. From my understanding of QoS, however, it is another hard-edged Bond. That would mean that EON has made 2 in a row (CR, QoS).
Craig's trajectory has been very much like Dalton's, if you think about it. Both Dalton's two films and Craig's two films are hard-edged. TLD, or at least the first 20 minutes of it, was very close to Fleming's short story; CR's main plot was very close to the novel. While LTK is not a direct sequel to TLD in the way that QoS is to CR, LTK is an example of a "hard edged" film that is not directly based on Fleming story material but rather cut almost entirely out of new cloth, deciding to borrow Fleming elements from time to time (i.e., Milton Crest, Felix's fate). Qos, from my understanding, is a "hard edged" film, but an original story, with elements from Fleming occasionally borrowed (i.e., the film's title, a SPECTRE-like organization).
So, perhaps the answer to the question "what would a 3rd Dalton film have been like" can be found in Craig's 3rd movie.
?:)A fight like a Seagal movie, eh? {:)I admit I am not 100% sure, but I assume you are referring to the fight in the bar, complete with angry strippers and swinging fake marlin. Classic.
As you posit, a 3rd Dalton movie would have definitely affected the trajectory. A 3rd Dalton movie would probably have been another hard-edged movie. Maybe not reaching the same rugged heights as an LTK, but hard-edged nonetheless. When I say "hard-edged", I suppose I mean "faithful to Fleming" or, in the case of LTK, "Flemingesque".
That being said the next Dalton installment, following the low box office earnings of LTK and the actual end of the cold war would have to have been quite similar to what was shown in LTK (in terms of plot). As GE feels like an age from LTK the gap between LTK and Daltons third may have made the series feel dated and stale, Dalton certainly would not have looked good in the 90s IMO. But again its hard to speculate.
So, this leads me to thinking about EON's proven trackrecord.
Yes they are predictable, and Its because people are so hard to impress! I think that hard edge Bonds will happen a few more times now, or emotive ones. Fantastic Bonds are sorta cliched and I feel that the producers are probably over the style of say DAD.
So, perhaps the answer to the question "what would a 3rd Dalton film have been like" can be found in Craig's 3rd movie.
Maybe! Thing is though, Craig is far more popular, so they can kinda do what they want with him and not fear a poor box office take.
My favourite parts of LTK would be:
Everything with Sanchez, the two leading ladies are great, the final scenes, the Villa in the fictious Ithmus city and the bar fight.
Just watched it again, really enjoyed it, but thats including and after the bar fight scene. Sanchez is one of the best villians, brilliant acting. The film is full of humour too!
- Bar fight
- "Your not gonna believe who this guy is" "Ex british agent?" "Howd you know that?"
- "What about the money Patron?" "Launder it"
- "Field agents are expected to use any means necessary" "Bull****!"
- Krest is such a joke, esp when they blow his head up.
- Prof Joe "Bless your heart!"
Bad things:
- Poor production values
- Felix's acting, Sharkeys Acting, Black dudes acting that says 'No im not gonna forget about it'
- The first half is quite odd in comparison to the other half, just feels cheap.
- Sometimes TD is a bit too serious.
Good things:
- Both ladies are great, and Lupe is hot to trot.
- Sanchez, Truman Lodge (whos actor later plays Jimmy in Seinfeld), Benecio Del Toro.
- I kinda like the drug baron story line, but it sometimes reminds me of Scarface especially the use of green screen at the end.
- Kamen's soundtrack is great (for a newcomer) really uses the Bond theme well.
I have always loved the ending in the pool with the Patti LeBelle song coming in. Plus they use handheld camera just for the scene, looks great.
heartbroken mr drax, you made some more great observations, inspiring me to revisit the film as well when I next get the chance.
Truman Lodge. What exactly was he? Was he an accountant or something?
The music! I admit that I find myself going back and forth on this one. But, now, I love the score. Sure, it ain't no John Barry. But, it really gives the sense of drive and rage in Bond, especially that opening gunbarrel. It's like the James Bond theme, "p!ssed off" style.
heartbroken mr drax, you made some more great observations, inspiring me to revisit the film as well when I next get the chance.
Truman Lodge. What exactly was he? Was he an accountant or something?
The music! I admit that I find myself going back and forth on this one. But, now, I love the score. Sure, it ain't no John Barry. But, it really gives the sense of drive and rage in Bond, especially that opening gunbarrel. It's like the James Bond theme, "p!ssed off" style.
Yea Truman Lodge is a comic relief accountant. Bit of a shame that the film didnt do to well, but I can see why.
I must admit that the film is beginning to grow on me.
You know, on youtube.com, there are these really interesting, PBS public access-type shows called Cinefiles. One of the shows was Bond, and one of the criticisms made of the BROSNAN years was that they had great concepts but were poor in executing and realizing those concepts.
I find that criticism apt when describing LTK: great concept, just poor execution.
However, maybe it's because I grew up, pre-internet days, as a kid loving horror movies and reading Fangoria Magazine, but I love it when Milton Krest explodes.
Also, may I go out on a limb here by suggesting that LTK may be the best shark movie from the 1980s!!?? Its competition would be films like Jaws 3-D and Jaws: The Revenge. LTK just blows these out of the water.
Also, may I go out on a limb here by suggesting that LTK may be the best shark movie from the 1980s!!?? Its competition would be films like Jaws 3-D and Jaws: The Revenge. LTK just blows these out of the water.
Yea you certainly are, its pretty low on the shark stuff isn't it? lol
LTK seems to just have ENOUGH shark stuff to be a shark movie. 8-)
I suppose that in my mind, a shark movie is a movie that employs the use of a shark to such a degree that production calls for a fake shark to be produced and utilized.
I hope this does not now mean that I must watch Jaws the Revenge for comparison.
Comments
First and foremost is the almost complete absence of humor. Dalton is at his melancholy worst in this, constantly trying to push everybody away and generally looking glum. That attitude might work in print, it didn't work on film for me.
Pam, while drop-dead gorgeous, could very well have been the prototype for Wai-Lin and Jinx; she goes out of her way to show she's Bond's equal to the point of distraction. And while Talisa Soto is striking to look at, I really don't know what she brought to the movie (other than being the reason Sanchez is captured at the beginning). Take her scenes out of the picture and you'll find it doesn't change what happens all that much.
The villains are just a bunch of thugs with no identity or personality. That's very surprising considering you have great actors like Anthony Zerbe and Benicio Del Toro. None of them have any charisma or defining qualities to them. Davi is a complete non-entity who tries to look suave as he spews his inane one liners. Not a Goldfinger or Oddjob to be found anywhere.
The way the subplots are introduced and discarded is also jarring. Fallon's appearance and demise occur in the same scene; same goes for the realization that Quang and his associates are narcotics agents. And the whole subplot about Heller and the stingers is embarrassingly brought up thru Pam's screetching monologue on the bed. When I watched that I went "huh?"
A lot of the supporting characters like M and Moneypenney are really wasted and their scenes are very out of character (M seems like he can't wait to revoke Bond's license to kill and only calls off the snipers because there are witnesses). Moneypenny in particular looks especially pathetic (too bad as I always liked Caroline Bliss). Q brings a small measure of comedy relief to the proceedings but can hardly save the picture for me.
I also found some of the deaths to be too disturbing. The intimation that Della was raped before being murdered really doesn't belong in a Bond movie IMHO. And while Leiter's maiming with the sharks is right out of the LALD novel I found what it suggested to be too grisly.
Over time, the Bond series has evolved into a much more stylized reality and as such I found the harsh grittiness of LTK very out of place based on what came before. I strongly believe that was what doomed LTK and I fear the same fate could befall CR if it follows the same tone.
The actors and producers clearly put a lot of work and effort into the film. It's all very well made (as one would expect from a Bond movie) but too dour and glum for my tastes. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I think you could be right about LTK. I have always maintained that Dalton and LTK were ahead of their time. It was also very ambitious bearing in mind the style of films following the Moore era. They were still very much in peoples mind. TLD was far more generic and a lot more what people expected. LTK was very 'real'.
However, the movies have, as you say, 'evolved' ( courtesy of LTK ) and I think people now expect their Bond to be a lot more emotional and real. That is why I think CR will do just fine. It is not such a departure and I think the audience will except it far more readily than they did LTK. The audience wasn't ready for LTK. I believe if it was released today ( with a few updates), it would probably be more successful.
LTK was a very important film for the franchise. Whilst it didn't set the box office on fire, it certainly turned the franchise on it head and brought Bond back to a recognisable place.
A very good point, Lady Rose, one that I have always considered. I think, and I hope, that CR has come at the right time - perhaps audiences weren't ready for the radical overhaul that was LTK, and perhaps the franchise wasn't even ready for it. But I think cinema has matured a lot over the last 15 years, and that audiences are ready for something new, something to grab them, something slightly controversial. People complain how CR seems too different, and how it seems to stray too far from the 'forumla'. Well the formula aint gonna live forever - its already dying. The formula was so definitive that it lasted almost 40 years. It is getting tired. Perhaps the phrase "the formula is getting tired" is overused by Bond fans and critics alike but I think thats because it has a lot of truth to it. If CR is a fresh, gritty, modern approach then we're in for a treat.
I think that the same approach can easily be taken with LTK. Sure, its slightly too dull, but take it out of context and apply it to now, and I think that LTK is a great film that surfaced at the wrong time.
But if that is the benchmark by which people are hoping that these darker grittier Bond movies are to prosper then I think it's important to keep in mind that the world of today isn't as different from the world of the 1960s and 1970s as one might think. Back when Connery was Bond, we had just gotten thru the Korean War and the Cuban Missle Crisis. The Cold War was in full swing, JFK would be assasinated, it often looked like the finger was on the proverbial button and Vietnam was waiting. As you go into the late 1960s and 1970s, you have the Vietnam war, the anti-war movement and the Watergate scandal and subsequent impeachment and resignation of a president. The world was just as dark a place back then and maybe even more troubled than it is today. Bond didn't succeed by aping all these fears and issues and reflecting them in the movies. Bond succeeded by providing an escape from them and acted very much as a safety valve. Bond provided reassurance that no matter how bad things got, there was always one man who could avoid disaster, get the girl, save the world and not mess his hair up too much. Was it realistic? Of course not. Was it true to Fleming? Not really. But it was very entertaining and, equally important, fun.
Maybe audiences are ready for a darker, more serious Bond. But the argument that the formula has run its course and Bond must now reflect our troubled times to be a success strikes me as being somewhat narrow-minded and contrary to the evidence at hand: DAD's box office take should have definitively proved that the formula was alive and well and the "formulaic" Bond movies of the 60's, 70's and 80's prospered in the face of an uncertain and ambiguous world that often seemed to teeter on the brink of disaster.
LTK is the most emotionally involved Bond film since OHMSS. Its clealy the best film John Glen directed in the series (he admited it, himself).
I don't think the times have changed, but I do think movies have changed and particularly peoples expectations of a Bond film.
As I said, LTK followed in the wake of nearly 18 years of Bond getting more comical and surreal with each film, starting with DAF and ending in AVTAK . As Moore got older, they relied more on his persona and they played up to that. Everybody loved Moore and his version of Bond was firmly in peoples minds. LTK was a very radical film. However, since LTK and Brosnans films, people have got used to a more vulnerable and emotional character, which is why I don't think Craig's interpretation will be as shocking as Dalton's was.
I'm not going to waste time in trying to put you on the path to righteousness Dan but I do think you are being very harsh.
I know you must get sick of this, but, if you had read any of the books I think you would have a greater understanding in what Dalton was trying to achieve when he took on the role of Bond and I personally think he achieved it very well.
Unfortunately for LTK and Dalton, 90% of the viewing public haven't read the books either, so it was rather unappreciated.
LTK and TLD are simply stated - rewatchable films, and as I grow even older, I find myself unable to re-review things like US. Space Marines and buffoon sherrifs. They're fun at certain times of the day, (like happy hour) but I'll be rewatching Dalton's two films for even more years to come. Like a good friend, they'll be there if I need them.
I do not believe that my not having read the novels has that much to do with my disliking LTK. I say that for three reasons:
1)I absolutely adore the 60's films (such as FRWL and OHMSS) which are generally considered to be 'Fleming-like.' My negative feelings towards LTK therefore is not because I don't like 'Fleming-like' films (as I said, I loved FRWL) but because I just don't think that LTK is a particularly good film.
2)Part of the reason I don't like LTK is that I don't like Dalton. He is my second least favorite Bond. It may be that if I read the books I would get more of an understanding as to why he choose to play Bond the way he did, but until then, all I can say is that he was by far my least favorite of the multi-film Bonds.
3)I mentioned the lack of an emotional change. I do not need to have read the novels in this case as I have never liked any work (film, novel, TV show) in which the hero set out to get revenge and he was just as intense before seeking revenge as he was after it.
While it is possible (not probable but possible) that I may change my opinion of Dalton after having read the novels, it is extraordinarilly unlikely that I will change my view regarding the emotional transformation, for it is something that is vital to me in any medium (film, novel, TV show) that I happen to be utilising.
No Bond film is without it's merits though, and I must admit that LTK has it's moments - I own it and am happy to watch it. It just could have been so much better, and I think it's a shame.
Thats fair enough. If you dont like him, you dont like him. There are plenty of actors out there that leave me cold ie Tom Cruise, George Clooney , so I understand.
Fraid so ... Its all that doe eyed looking out the top of my head in a cute way thing I cant stand. Put me right off !!! I dont do cute
( in fairness though, unlike Cruise, Clooney always comes across a nice and fairly sincere chap when he's being interviewed. )
Anyone who faithfully subscribes to the Scientology scam is immediately an outcast in Klaus's book of cool.
George is kind of a hot and cold actor for me. There are some roles in which I've liked him (Ocean's 11, Three Kings), and there are some in which I have really been annoyed with him (Batman, OBWAT)
One other thought I had watching this movie was that Q cannot be replaced. Desmond Llewelyn is Q, no one else can assume that role. As soon as he appeared on screen I smiled. I remember being in the cinema when Q would come on screen and people would start to grin with anticipation. That can't be duplicated. EON should not even try.
LTK remains in my top 5 of all time.
Just finished going through this. Dalton is my favorite Bond, and here he is wonderful. The story is compelling, and the villains and the girls are great.
But, yet, I am often shocked at how low the quality of some of the scenes is.
There are many parts where the filmmakers just dropped the ball in terms of quality. For example,
there are some scenes that are cringeworthy because of their lack of production value. Think of the scene in the hospital room, where the doctor is talking to Bond and Sharkey in the same room (!) as an injured and unconscious Leiter. Or the scene with the police detectives at the Leiter house ("They must have used a chainsaw"). Or the scene where Lupe visits Pam at the hotel ("I love James, SO MUCH."). The backgrounds look like they just shot on an empty GOLDEN GIRLS set or something. The exposition is poorly delivered, with the feel of a sub-par film school student thesis or something. It's a lot like the problematic scene in TMWTGG, where Bond goes to Beiruit, and all we see is the interior of a nightclub set and a belly dancer's dressing room. Just dreadful.
These scenes too are problematic in terms of their function as exposition scenes. They are necessary, I realize, for this purpose. However, you get the feeling that they were rushed during filming, like on a quick reshoot schedule or something. I am surprised that, given the screenplay talent of the Bond team at this time, like Richard Maibaum and Michael Wilson and John Glen, and the best they could come up with was Lupe visits Pam at the hotel??
But, what was most painful was that this amateurish qualtity to many of the scenes invaded, of all cherished places, M's office. M's office feels like a cardboard set here rather than a rich background we are so used to.
Now, I respect and agree with a lot of the praise given to this film by posters here. I love many parts of this film. I actually appreciate that this film is like a Miami Vice/Golan-Globus film with Bond. I actually like the Michael Kamen score. I love Q's role. I think the violence is a great touch. I love the story's Yojimbo structure. I love Dalton's interpretation. One of my favorite Bond scenes EVER is where Felix and Delia watch Bond leave, and Felix has that great line "He was married once. But that was a long time ago." I totally respect the John Glen/Michael Wilson/Richard Maibaum period. Click on my favorite bond film list and you will find AVTAK and TLD high up there.
But, a Bond film has always impressed me because it has always managed to do a lot with very little. Think back to Dr. No, the limited budget and they came up with a real winner. Or even AVTAK, where they made a BRILLIANT mine set despite the fact that the stage burnt down! Or, even TLD, and the air fight between Necros and Bond. Or the great use of foreground miniatures from John Richardson and his crew. etc. etc. The list is endless.
And then, LTK comes along.
I hate broccoli (the veggie). But, LTK is like broccoli to me. It's healthy and good for you, but it just tastes terrible. LTK has great Fleming qualities and I want so much to like it, but it still has a bad taste whenever I watch it.
This is from Variety:
"Producer Michael G. Wilson (in the DVD commentary) says the production was difficult because of budget control consequent to the over-spending for Moonraker, that did not account for inflation. Moreover, changing the filming locations from China to Mexico and the five-month WGA strike, preventing screenwriter Richard Maibaum from completing the script, left the screenplay writing to him (producer Wilson)."
Which is pretty evident as to why the film isn't as great as it could be.
I really do like LTK because its different and I know a lot of effort from actors and crew went into the film. IMO the 6 year gap gave the series a much needed break and a chance to get priorties right.
Dalton was good but im glad he only did two, Lazenby is the one who should have done more.
"Better make that two."
I have heard that DVD commentary on LTK, but I had not come across that clip from Variety until you posted it. Thanks for quoting it.
I will say this, though: I think that Dalton was just effin' brilliant in this. No matter how bad his hairstyle may have been. It seems to me that the key to the success of his performance was to make the audience believe that his Bond was still emotionally affected by the death of Tracy. And, that he does so very well in this film.
Also, while I agree that Dalton is not the best when it comes to delivering humorous dialogue, he is not as bad as some might claim. In fact, Dalton's funny lines/puns are most effective when he is agitated or angry (and this is true too in TLD). His "farewell to arms" line, or the "bon appetit" line when he feeds the guy to the worms, or his "compliments of Sharkey" line are really effective because Dalton gives those lines some palpable aggression. Incidentally I think back fondly to the lines in TLD, like "I've had a few optional extras installed" or "Yes, I got the message" that were really delivered well.
A third Dalton movie would have been welcome indeed. I always imagine it would have come in between LTK and Goldeneye. Pierce doing Goldeneye did wonders to the series in rejuveniating it and bringing in new fans, so I would stll have Pierce do Goldeneye as his first Bond film. But, had EON been able to produce one more bond film in between 1989 and 1995, it would have been great to see Timothy Dalton as James Bond in, say, "The Property of a Lady".
I dont really want to speculate on this but I think if they did a third TD one in say 1992 it would have jeapordised the change in the 90s.
The Living Daylights is my 5th fav bond movie, and I do like LTK, and its elements over a lot of Bond movies, like the ones you have mentioned, but it is missing something....
You mentioned TDs humour but missed out one of the funniest scenes in LTK and out of most Bonds, the bar fight! Its f-ing hilliarious! Its like a fight in a Steven Segal movie!!!!
"Better make that two."
Oh, and about your speculation as to how a 3rd Dalton movie would have affected the future of the franchise post 1993, you may have me there, heartbrokenmrdrax.
As you posit, a 3rd Dalton movie would have definitely affected the trajectory. A 3rd Dalton movie would probably have been another hard-edged movie. Maybe not reaching the same rugged heights as an LTK, but hard-edged nonetheless. When I say "hard-edged", I suppose I mean "faithful to Fleming" or, in the case of LTK, "Flemingesque".
So, this leads me to thinking about EON's proven trackrecord. Immediately, three things come to mind:
(1) EON hasn't at any time made more than 2 hard-edged films in a row,
(2) With the exception of Roger Moore, all the Bond actors' first films have been more serious, hard-edged affairs. Connery-Dr. No; Lazenby-OHMSS; Dalton-TLD; Brosnan-Goldeneye; Craig-CR. With actors playing Bond more than twice, Connery and Brosnan, usually by their 2nd or 3rd film does the franchise become "fantastic". Connery-Goldfinger; Brosnan-TND, DAD.
(3) Hard-edged Bond films (i.e. Dr. No, FRWL, OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, LTK) are few, relative to the more "overthetop" or "fantastic" Bonds. After a hardedged film, EON produces a "fantastic" Bond. Goldfinger came after FRWL; Octopussy and AVTAK came after FYEO; DAF came after OHMSS.
So, had Dalton made a 3rd, and assuming it too would have been hard-edged, then it would have been a first for EON to have made 3 in a row. Also, most certainly, the film after that one would have certainly have been a "fantastic" film (maybe Pierce's first film would have been DAD or TND, much like Roger's first films were LALD and TMWTGG).
Alternatively, Dalton's 3rd Bond film could have been bigger, more fantastic, say something akin to Thunderball or YOLT. How that would have affected Dalton's Bond, as well as the future trajectory of the series and the fans' perception of Dalton's Bond, is anyone's guess.
So, with all that said, perhaps heartbrokenmrdrax, your argument is a good one that Dalton didn't make a 3rd. Had he done so, perhaps the Brosnan films would have been quite different indeed.
Finally, as I have not seen Quantum of Solace yet (it doesn't open here in Japan until January 2009
Craig's trajectory has been very much like Dalton's, if you think about it. Both Dalton's two films and Craig's two films are hard-edged. TLD, or at least the first 20 minutes of it, was very close to Fleming's short story; CR's main plot was very close to the novel. While LTK is not a direct sequel to TLD in the way that QoS is to CR, LTK is an example of a "hard edged" film that is not directly based on Fleming story material but rather cut almost entirely out of new cloth, deciding to borrow Fleming elements from time to time (i.e., Milton Crest, Felix's fate). Qos, from my understanding, is a "hard edged" film, but an original story, with elements from Fleming occasionally borrowed (i.e., the film's title, a SPECTRE-like organization).
So, perhaps the answer to the question "what would a 3rd Dalton film have been like" can be found in Craig's 3rd movie.
desolatedmrbond....:D
Yep thats it, very very funny!
That being said the next Dalton installment, following the low box office earnings of LTK and the actual end of the cold war would have to have been quite similar to what was shown in LTK (in terms of plot). As GE feels like an age from LTK the gap between LTK and Daltons third may have made the series feel dated and stale, Dalton certainly would not have looked good in the 90s IMO. But again its hard to speculate.
Yes they are predictable, and Its because people are so hard to impress! I think that hard edge Bonds will happen a few more times now, or emotive ones. Fantastic Bonds are sorta cliched and I feel that the producers are probably over the style of say DAD.
Maybe! Thing is though, Craig is far more popular, so they can kinda do what they want with him and not fear a poor box office take.
My favourite parts of LTK would be:
Everything with Sanchez, the two leading ladies are great, the final scenes, the Villa in the fictious Ithmus city and the bar fight.
Nice quote! Dont get me wrong, I think TLD and LTK are great films, but TD is not my cup of tea.
"Better make that two."
- Bar fight
- "Your not gonna believe who this guy is" "Ex british agent?" "Howd you know that?"
- "What about the money Patron?" "Launder it"
- "Field agents are expected to use any means necessary" "Bull****!"
- Krest is such a joke, esp when they blow his head up.
- Prof Joe "Bless your heart!"
Bad things:
- Poor production values
- Felix's acting, Sharkeys Acting, Black dudes acting that says 'No im not gonna forget about it'
- The first half is quite odd in comparison to the other half, just feels cheap.
- Sometimes TD is a bit too serious.
Good things:
- Both ladies are great, and Lupe is hot to trot.
- Sanchez, Truman Lodge (whos actor later plays Jimmy in Seinfeld), Benecio Del Toro.
- I kinda like the drug baron story line, but it sometimes reminds me of Scarface especially the use of green screen at the end.
- Kamen's soundtrack is great (for a newcomer) really uses the Bond theme well.
I have always loved the ending in the pool with the Patti LeBelle song coming in. Plus they use handheld camera just for the scene, looks great.
3/5
"Better make that two."
Truman Lodge. What exactly was he? Was he an accountant or something?
The music! I admit that I find myself going back and forth on this one. But, now, I love the score. Sure, it ain't no John Barry. But, it really gives the sense of drive and rage in Bond, especially that opening gunbarrel. It's like the James Bond theme, "p!ssed off" style.
Yea Truman Lodge is a comic relief accountant. Bit of a shame that the film didnt do to well, but I can see why.
"Better make that two."
I must admit that the film is beginning to grow on me.
You know, on youtube.com, there are these really interesting, PBS public access-type shows called Cinefiles. One of the shows was Bond, and one of the criticisms made of the BROSNAN years was that they had great concepts but were poor in executing and realizing those concepts.
I find that criticism apt when describing LTK: great concept, just poor execution.
However, maybe it's because I grew up, pre-internet days, as a kid loving horror movies and reading Fangoria Magazine, but I love it when Milton Krest explodes.
Also, may I go out on a limb here by suggesting that LTK may be the best shark movie from the 1980s!!?? Its competition would be films like Jaws 3-D and Jaws: The Revenge. LTK just blows these out of the water.
Yea you certainly are, its pretty low on the shark stuff isn't it? lol
"Better make that two."
I suppose that in my mind, a shark movie is a movie that employs the use of a shark to such a degree that production calls for a fake shark to be produced and utilized.
I hope this does not now mean that I must watch Jaws the Revenge for comparison.