CR makes LTK look poor

words

Do you remember when LTK came out and some of us thought it was marvellous because it was a grittier more Fleminesque Bond?

Well I rewatched it the other night and compared to CR it all seems a bit half hearted compared to the full blown reboot of CR.

Its like they didnt have the courage of their convictions and ended up with something that doesnt convince as a gritty action thriller or a Bond film.

Its also quite boring and lacking in interesting locales, and Bond has a complete disregard for his job and superiors unlike Craigs Bond who holds a grudging respect despite his rogueish nature.

But I dont intend this as a discussion of the merits of LTK, just whether its impact has diminished now we have CR, and it looks a worse film than it did before. Its certainly tumbled down my list...

Barbel

Good point. CR definitely takes that one step further than LTK, making the latter appear "a bit half hearted"- though as you correctly say only in comparison. I wonder if Wilson had wanted to take LTK further down that road but Cubby nixed the idea, and now that Wilson's The Man he had a freer hand...?

emtiem

Definitely- it shows that LTK didn't know what it was doing. There are no real characters in LTK whereas CR managed it, and importantly the directors seemed to think that a more serious tone meant you can't have any jokes, which CR disproves rather nicely.
And CR's version of Bond is much more believable; his arrogance and cockiness isn't there in LTK and it's an important aspect of the man. Tim just ends up feeling like an actor playing Bond, whereas Daniel just is Bond.

Jimmy Bond

I completely disagree. LTK still remains the best Bond since OHMSS, and thats largely because of LTK's casting. CR lost with Craig. IMO always, but he seemed quite wooden and stiff to me. I'm sure a lot will disagree with me, but thats how I feel.

So no, CR hasn't changed my mind about LTK. In fact, it makes me appreciate it more. What a great Bond film...

Steed

I think Craig could appear wooden because his performance style was a lot less flamboyant (certainly less than Moore and Brosnan) than many of the ones that went before him. I think he's probably the first one since Connery that you could believe as a hard edged killer, and he's more stoic as a result. I personally couldn't have faulted Craig at all throughout it.

I watched LTK the other day. I would easily have said CR was the better of the two, myself. CR doesn't have any dull spots- the long casino scenes in CR are pure class (the whole film was the classiest Bond for years) and very tense. By contrast, I've always found most of the very long casino scene in LTK to be extremely dull and the low point of that film. Apart from that, I think LTK worked very well and was well paced. But that long scene is a big flaw of that film.

However, with Casino Royale, whilst it's a reboot like LTK was, there is some link to the typical Bond film, even if it's a 'start afresh' perspective. Bond is 'in the line of duty' in CR, whilst in LTK he was very much the rogue agent- a controversial issue for many people even now. The producers on CR were very shrewd in avoiding that issue and keeping many traditional Bond elements in place, whilst also making it the most violent Bond film ever.

Also, LTK now looks rather dated. It has that Scarface/Miami Vice look to it which hasn't aged well. At the time it doubtless appeared cutting edge, but now it isn't.

Thomas Crown

Licence To Kill is not as "Fleming" like as one thinks. It certainly does have the spirit of Ian Fleming in many of its scenes, and some its dialouge ("It Disagreed with something that are him", for example), but grittyness and darkness is not always mutally exclusive to Ian Fleming.

For as enjoyable as the film is (and I rank it highly), it's not without some rather un-Fleming elements in my view. Licence To Kill is rather bland and colorless, especially when considering its tropical location. The film plays like a Miami Vice episode rather than a Bond film. There's nothing wrong with dectective-style moments, but a film like Dr.No is far more classy in evoking that than this one is. This would not have held muster with Fleming in my view. For as much as he did create a dark and intense world for 007 to operate in, his surroundings were always elegant and the epitome of class.

Further, I think Dalton in this film is too determined and too dark. 007 is a killer, and he is ruthless. But where Dalton fails in this film (and yet succeded masterfully in his debut outing) is creating the "armor" of suaveness and dry humor to hide the predator beneath. Dalton comes off as such a hard a ss throughout the film it's hard to believe Sanchez didn't know he was up to no good from the start.

To be fair Licence To Kill should be appluaded for how hard it worked to firm up the edge Dalton wanted to bring back to Bond. The similarities between Sanchez and 007 are very Fleming in my view, as Fleming always seemed to make some aspect of his villians a mirror image of Bond. And the action in the film is excellent, along with a great score, and solid cast. I rank the film highly, but Casino Royale represents the most faithful view of Ian Fleming's created world, characters, plot, and 007. See my review "The Return of the Classic" for more if you're interested.

Loeffelholz

LTK, whatever its good elements---and there were many---also had the wheelie-popping big rig, Bond being attacked in the Barrel Head bar with a mounted marlin, the fish statue winking at the end, Wayne Newton's 'Bless your heart,' etc.

I really think CR has righteously stolen the 'darkest, grittiest Bond' mantle from LTK...and this even despite the many well-executed moments of humour in CR---it's just that these moments are more understated, and genuinely witty, rather than absurd on their face.

Overall, Craigger was blessed with a far superior, more focused script...CR knows exactly what it's about; I'm not sure LTK (and TLD) did. Only my MRO, at any rate.

cdsdss

I think even beyond being darker and grittier than LTK, CR benefits from a far better creative team. The locales are more glamorous and luxurious, the supporting actors are of much better caliber, and the script is in a whole different universe. ("We have laws in the country!" "Do you have a law against what they did to Leiter?" WHAT?)

And that's all before we get to how much better Craig is than Dalton ever was...

blueman

Whatever good intentions were present, LTK has always looked to me as if it were made by a high school drama club. But that's my general take on all the 80s Bonds...:( Both FYEO and LTK get points for trying I guess, but I just find it hard to take them (or the films inbetween) seriously as Bond films.

Funny, with all the talk about CR being an alternate reality Bond film, I kinda feel like that's what the 80s (and a lot of the 70s) were, and a pretty inferior one at that. Different strokes.

Klaus Hergescheimer

Thomas Crown wrote:

Licence To Kill is not as "Fleming" like as one thinks. It certainly does have the spirit of Ian Fleming in many of its scenes, and some its dialouge ("It Disagreed with something that are him", for example), but grittyness and darkness is not always mutally exclusive to Ian Fleming.

For as enjoyable as the film is (and I rank it highly), it's not without some rather un-Fleming elements in my view. Licence To Kill is rather bland and colorless, especially when considering its tropical location. The film plays like a Miami Vice episode rather than a Bond film. There's nothing wrong with dectective-style moments, but a film like Dr.No is far more classy in evoking that than this one is. This would not have held muster with Fleming in my view. For as much as he did create a dark and intense world for 007 to operate in, his surroundings were always elegant and the epitome of class.

Further, I think Dalton in this film is too determined and too dark. 007 is a killer, and he is ruthless. But where Dalton fails in this film (and yet succeded masterfully in his debut outing) is creating the "armor" of suaveness and dry humor to hide the predator beneath. Dalton comes off as such a hard a ss throughout the film it's hard to believe Sanchez didn't know he was up to no good from the start.

To be fair Licence To Kill should be appluaded for how hard it worked to firm up the edge Dalton wanted to bring back to Bond. The similarities between Sanchez and 007 are very Fleming in my view, as Fleming always seemed to make some aspect of his villians a mirror image of Bond. And the action in the film is excellent, along with a great score, and solid cast. I rank the film highly, but Casino Royale represents the most faithful view of Ian Fleming's created world, characters, plot, and 007. See my review "The Return of the Classic" for more if you're interested.

While I agree that CR is a superior film, I disagree on some points that LTK is TOO dark. I think Dalton showed an underestimated amount of balance in the movie, as he definitely showed a Flemingesque softer side in many points throughout the film: rewatch the reception scenes with Della, the stranded boat scene with Pam Bouvier, the introduction to Sanchez (he's as cool as a cucumber in a very sinister way; this is Fleming's Bond, through and through, in full cover mode), and the final scene with the pool dive. (Which I think was very Flemingesque) The story itself is sometihng I would imagine Fleming writing as the conclusion to the Bond story (with the exception of Leiter being maimed, which happened already in LALD; although you could insert any other rare friend of Bond's here), with Bond avenging the wrongs brought about on his friend and with him falling for an American agent like him who understands his life and his ways, and therefore can provide him with the peace he had never had. All the while, this relationship serves as a foil to the doomed marriage of his friends, which reminds him of the doomed marriage to Tracy that similiarly ended in her death.

As for the locale, I think they did a good job. Sanchez's mansion was well utilized and definitely gave a unique aura.

ATPrescott

Isn't it pretty far fetched to compare a film (haven't seen it yet, though) in which Bond is just becoming a great agent to an excellent film which showed what happens when Bond finally got fed up with the Intelligence and went into his private mission of revenge.

darenhat

I was commenting to myself that I haven't really enjoyed a Bond film since LTK. Why is that? Did I change or did the films change? To this day, I really don't have an answer to that question. But I do rank LTK higher than CR. Sure, it has those dorky moments that Loef alluded to, but that never poisoned the film for me. The locales? I think they're interesting. The novels were never incredibly glamorous to begin with...sheesh, Doctor No ended in a guano factory, for pete's sake. The thing that heightened LTK for me was Dalton's believability as a three dimensional character. Craig is good in CR, but I think the story suffers from scenes that really fail to tap his potential. At the end of LTK, Bond is beaten, burned, filthy, and exhausted. His life energy was spent on a burning rage and desire for revenge. Once that was fulfilled, we see Dalton as a shell of an individual. He was empty from the loss of a friend, the loss of career, and now the loss of a nemesis. More than any other scene in a Bond film, I had have a stronger appreciation for Bond's inner demons. At the end of CR, what did we have? Bond sitting on the deck of a boat sailing in Venice, his cold and fitting delivery of Fleming's line, cheapened by M's cringe-worthy motherly response of "Well, now you know." At that point, CR lost me and never regained my confidence. I did not see Bond in that film as a man who lost anything, as a man transformed, as a man driven by personal demons. The final scenes in CR had an opportunity to show some really conflicted moments for Bond and the life he chose, but it didn't do that, while I think LTK did (if not perfectly, but at least better).

cdsdss

darenhat wrote:

. At the end of LTK, Bond is beaten, burned, filthy, and exhausted. His life energy was spent on a burning rage and desire for revenge. Once that was fulfilled, we see Dalton as a shell of an individual. He was empty from the loss of a friend, the loss of career, and now the loss of a nemesis.

Actually it ends with Bond frolicking in a pool with Pam. After he warmly wished Lupe Lamora best of luck on her future with El Presidente. After he and Felix finish yukking it up over the phone and make a fishing date (Felix's disfigurement and the rape and murder of his wife apparently not really bothering these guys as witnessed by Felix's slaphappy grin).

LTK ends on the most facile and artificial note in the entire franchise. CR's conclusion doesn't compromise Bond's inherent coldness at all, IMHO. Actually, the final scene is all the more chilling for Bond's nonchalance.

Loeffelholz

I must confess I never cared for Felix's phone conversation at the end; his apparent disregard for the fact that he's lost a bit of himself (literally! ) and just been widowed---another example, IMRO, of a fundamental imbalance in the script.

Barry Nelson

I like both movies, CR is probably a better scripted movie with a more even feel throughout the movie. CR is also a bigger budgeted movie and it shows on the screen. LTK had a better female lead in Lowell and a made a little better use of humor, which I think all Bond movies need. For anyone to say LTK had no real characters or was made by a high school drama club, must not have seen the same movie I did. Robert Davi as Sanchez and Bernicio Del Toro as Davi gave great performances. I also have always thought Lowell was the only actress of the new breed of "I am Bond's equal" actresses to find just the right mix of sexiness and spunk.

Loeffs is right that LTK did add a little goofiness when it wasn't needed, but I personally have never had a problem with the wheelie popping big rig. Also loved Bond jumping into the pool at the end. I for one enjoy both movies.

TonyDP

Loeffelholz wrote:

I must confess I never cared for Felix's phone conversation at the end; his apparent disregard for the fact that he's lost a bit of himself (literally! ) and just been widowed---another example, IMRO, of a fundamental imbalance in the script.

I remember a very poignant conversation between Bond and Leiter near the end of the novelization to the movie; Bond basically tells Felix that the hurt of his wife's death never goes away but in time you learn to deal with it. Sadly, that was never touched on in the actual film.

As for LTK, its been a long time since I popped it in the DVD player; last time I watched it I can't say that I enjoyed it much; but since I was able to derive satisfaction from CR, I'm going to give it another try.

Klaus Hergescheimer

Barry Nelson wrote:

I like both movies, CR is probably a better scripted movie with a more even feel throughout the movie. CR is also a bigger budgeted movie and it shows on the screen. LTK had a better female lead in Lowell and a made a little better use of humor, which I think all Bond movies need. For anyone to say LTK had no real characters or was made by a high school drama club, must not have seen the same movie I did. Robert Davi as Sanchez and Bernicio Del Toro as Davi gave great performances. I also have always thought Lowell was the only actress of the new breed of "I am Bond's equal" actresses to find just the right mix of sexiness and spunk.

Loeffs is right that LTK did add a little goofiness when it wasn't needed, but I personally have never had a problem with the wheelie popping big rig. Also loved Bond jumping into the pool at the end. I for one enjoy both movies.

The great Barry Nelson has spoken once again.

words

One thing that really bugged me watching LTK again, was the way Bond kept telling Q or Pam or both of them to go home and they just didnt do it. It wasn't like it was done in a humourous way, the same bit of dialogue popped up time and again.

Sorry I realise thats probably nit picking but it does show up fundamental flaws in the script.

cdsdss

Much of the dialogue in LTK was nonsensical. It seemed like cliches just stuck in there to pass time between action scenes.

"Why don't you wait until your asked?" (HUH? When has Bond ever had to ask a woman to kiss him?)

"Do you have a law against what they did to Leiter?" (Yes, but the bad guy fled our jurisdiction to nonextradition land)

"What a terrible waste...of money!" (Yeah, I'm just taking comfort in the fact your character gets killed a couple scenes later, Sharkey)

markdown

i don't think it does. CR is undoubtedly a better film but i don't think that diminishes LTK in anyway.it was of it's time and is inevetably going to look a little dated after nearly 20 years.by comparison CR is fresh and new and has gone that one step further in giving us an edgier more realistic bond. i fervently believe that LTK was intended and for the most part succeeded in portraying the type of bond we have just seen in CR. imho LTK was the last great bond film before we were subjected to pierce brosnan ( or as i like to call it, the wilderness years) and CR and DC's performance are an extension of the good work started on LTK.

cdsdss

They gave the new, darker direction a shot in LTK, but were hobbled by a lower budget, abysmal script, and an awful director.

CR just showed how it should have been done.

Mekuria_007

emtiem wrote:

And CR's version of Bond is much more believable; his arrogance and cockiness isn't there in LTK and it's an important aspect of the man. Tim just ends up feeling like an actor playing Bond, whereas Daniel just is Bond.

I agree with you on that emtiem, In CR Craig wasn't just acting as bond he was being bond, and when i saw LTK Timothy even looked like he was acting the part.

words

Mekuria_007 wrote:

emtiem wrote:

And CR's version of Bond is much more believable; his arrogance and cockiness isn't there in LTK and it's an important aspect of the man. Tim just ends up feeling like an actor playing Bond, whereas Daniel just is Bond.

I agree with you on that emtiem, In CR Craig wasn't just acting as bond he was being bond, and when i saw LTK Timothy even looked like he was acting the part.

I agree too. Tim was wearingly earnest in LTK. I think he got the balance right in TLD but in LTK he was just far too dour. Craig played the role hard, but still retained a certain charm.

I should reiterate that LTK WAS one of my favourite Bonds. I was just suprised on reviewing what a poor film it seems. I still think movies like FRWL are great btw.

Jimmy Bond

I still prefer it to CR. Mostly because of Dalton as Bond. He IS better than Craig, IMO.

darenhat

cdsdss wrote:

darenhat wrote:

. At the end of LTK, Bond is beaten, burned, filthy, and exhausted. His life energy was spent on a burning rage and desire for revenge. Once that was fulfilled, we see Dalton as a shell of an individual. He was empty from the loss of a friend, the loss of career, and now the loss of a nemesis.

Actually it ends with Bond frolicking in a pool with Pam. After he warmly wished Lupe Lamora best of luck on her future with El Presidente. After he and Felix finish yukking it up over the phone and make a fishing date (Felix's disfigurement and the rape and murder of his wife apparently not really bothering these guys as witnessed by Felix's slaphappy grin).

LTK ends on the most facile and artificial note in the entire franchise. CR's conclusion doesn't compromise Bond's inherent coldness at all, IMHO. Actually, the final scene is all the more chilling for Bond's nonchalance.

In all fairness, I didn't say that scene was the 'ending' of the movie. The scene I was referring to is part of the ending. I always felt the whole 'Party at Sanchez's' was lame and the film suffered for it. But my main point was that we had a moment to peer under the skin of 007. That's not something I feel I ever got a peek at in CR.

markdown

Fish1941 wrote:

Why compare CASINO ROYALE to LICENSE TO KILL? Hell, both movies made a good number of other Bond films look poor.

very good point i agree with you 100% on that one.

markdown

Fish1941 wrote:

Why compare CASINO ROYALE to LICENSE TO KILL? Hell, both movies made a good number of other Bond films look poor.

very good point i agree with you 100% on that one.

the headlight

Am I the only one who LIKES humour in my bond films!? I don't want Bond to be super-dark and gritty necessarily. I want it to entertain me and LTK entertained me much more than CR partly thanks to LTK's humour (for example - the x-ray camera was silly but funny! It didn't detract anything from the film just because it added some humour).

Double 0 Zero

I recently watched LTK for only the second time. I hadn't seen it on the theatrical release but rented the home video probably a year laster. I had not remembered LTK too fondly, thinking of it as a dull drug war story. But having seen it again after long last, I had to raise its ranking. I actually liked the "dark" aspects of the story - Bond out for revenge, Bond fostering paranoia within the cartel. Carey Lowell is my kind of Bond girl: smart and tough. And yet the film lacked the courage of its convictions in the end. There was too much humor for my taste: parachuting to the wedding; Q's comic relief; Wayne Newton! It seemed as though the filmmakers were afraid to take things too far from the "fun Bond" box offices hits like MR. FYEO had a little of that, too, but because there was less of it, I rate that one higher than LTK. But the humor level is a matter of personal taste, of course. I guess I can't blame EON for trying to reach as wide an audience as they could.

blueman

In response to the thread title, LTK makes LTK look poor...

Harry Palmer

Compared to CR LTK seems a little soft, but, as I've also tried to point out in a different thread, the comparison is unfair if it doesn't take into consideration the period in which the movies were made.

LTK was the grittiest Bond possible for its time. CR may seem grittier today: but one must bear in mind that cinematic conventions and techniques have evolved to a degree that they allow directors to push the envelope much further.

To make an irreverent analogy, it's a little like complaining that *Metropolis* today is a bad Sci-fi movie because its technology sucks.