Licence to Kill
mrbain007
Posts: 393MI6 Agent
This is one of those Bond films that seems to split the fans AND the critics. Having recently discussed it on another thread with the ever opinionated Mr Ricardo 
I thought I would set up a separate one on here.
Personally I've had a problem calling LTK "close to Fleming" as I think the idea of Bond going rogue throughout the majority of a film was not something he would not have wanted (one thing that is clear in the books is the characters sense of duty).
Having said that I still think its an excellent action film and benifits hugely from one of the best villains in the series. Most of the action scenes are pretty exciting and well staged, and the story-line is pretty gripping stuff.
I think this film is stronger than TLD largely due to its far more menacing antagonist.True it may not feel "Bondian" enough but its certainly one I enjoy re-visiting every once and a while.
I thought I would set up a separate one on here.Personally I've had a problem calling LTK "close to Fleming" as I think the idea of Bond going rogue throughout the majority of a film was not something he would not have wanted (one thing that is clear in the books is the characters sense of duty).
Having said that I still think its an excellent action film and benifits hugely from one of the best villains in the series. Most of the action scenes are pretty exciting and well staged, and the story-line is pretty gripping stuff.
I think this film is stronger than TLD largely due to its far more menacing antagonist.True it may not feel "Bondian" enough but its certainly one I enjoy re-visiting every once and a while.
Comments
I enjoy both of Dalton's two films and find them very strong. I do prefer The Living Daylights over Licence to Kill. But LTK is still a great Bond film. Both of Dalton's women were perfect for him. You can't say that about some of Brosnan's women or the forgettable women in Quantum of Solace.
I think Sanchez main trait that an audience can latch on to is his need to kill his enemies in horrible ways. Yes, others have tried the shark thing but no one actually did it (except Largo but that wasn't to Bond or his friends). Also, I have a feeling he did the conveyor belt thing to someone else before. Also, the compression chamber trick and what happens to Lupe's guy in the opening.
Yes those were gruesome deaths,and a near miss for Bond. But what I mean is what drives the character. Those deaths were just acts of revenge. True he did get a kick out of Leiter being maimed by a shark but it his character didn't seem to permit a deeper fascination on the level of Doctor No or Colonel Sun. Also look Goldfinger for example of mania. He was the center of this universe of gold and he wanted it because what it brought him, being surrounded by beautiful woman and having immense power. I didn't see Sanchez having a real passion for anything. I put him in the same cateogory as Telly Savalas' Blofeld; Fearful leaders but lacking a psychological edge.
It did without the naff aspects of Bond mostly, but threw Bond out with the bathwater having nothing special or outlandish about it either. It could have had a luxurious aspect to it. Funny thing is, Dalton played a villainous type in Lynda La Plante's Framed, he was quite similar to Sanchez in that but was much more effective than he was as Bond, imo.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I actually think he was more complex than either of those two (as great as they were). Sanchez was pretty much the only villain in the series who put loyalty above wealth. He is one of the few who is willing to part with millions if it means keeping his word. As he said "loyalty is more important to me than money". I think this makes him a more interesting figure.
Many villains in the series would gladly kill if it meant not having to give out money (Goldfinger killed the gangsters and Stromberg blew up the two men in the helicopter). Sanchez was the exception. Ultimately Bond exploits his sense of paranoia in order to bring him down.
The point is, Davi is a great villian, Bond is on a vendetta mission and has bolted from MI6 control - played excellently by Dalton and the film is a great actioner. It feels fresher and gave the franchise a change. I like LTK very much.
http://apbateman.com
I agree with you. I first watched LTK on TV fairly early on in my Bond "career" and I remember liking it.
The whole loyalty code wasn't that interesting to me. I much prefer villians who would kill you in an instant only to serve their interests, they seem much more unstable and less predictable. Goldfinger murdering his own men at that point did make sense he was caught red handed breaking into Fort Knox. His ruthlessness knew no bounds and that's what made him more interesting.
No that was just stupid. There was no reason to kill his men because he wasn't caught and Bond and Stacey could have easily been captured.
Btw in the documentary on LTK – John Glenn states that he think LTK is the best Bond movie he made…
www.007jamesbond.dk
http://thedangermen.com/
LTK really didn't deal with the drug issue anymore than any other 80's action film and drug barons and drug dealers became a tired cliche by then. Regardless, I do agree that it's Sanchez that holds the film together .
Actually Zorin had to kill the men because someone would probably talk after the explosion and flooding. However, we don't know if all the men were in the mine. They probably weren't...
Bob Conley said those men were loyal to him and this was from the guy who murdered his own mine workers in the past. Also I doubt anyone managed to escape. Logically someone should have but logic was not A View To A Kill's strong point.
Any hope for Quantum of Solace? Not even if you keep watching it?
http://apbateman.com
LTK works as an action movie, but it forgets all the classic Flemingesque elements of Bond. It lacks subtlty, and is effectively trapped in the US in the feel of the movie. No offense to my American friends! - If there was a Bond film trapped the confines of the UK or Egypt for example, I'd say the exact same thing.
Bond himself is out of character. This is a man who has no family very few friends outside of work and everyone gets killed sooner or later. As a result, his reactions here seem extreme. He also does not revel in the trappings of luxury - wines, food, clothes even the women in this film feel like plot points of a painfully structured film. Bond jumps form one task / aspect of what he is doing to another like a computer game script. There is no "living the moment" aspect as there normally is. - An error that QOS repeats in mirror image fashion. Its weird, because Mr Dalton's performance is actually very good. - Perhaps this was the inspiration fo the Rogue Goldeneye character in the comp game? (I have never played it by the way).
I agree that Robert Davi is fantastic. Charismatic, calculating and with a convincing vindictive streak. Great casting. - The problem is that unlike say Largo (either version) Renard or Le'Chiffre, Sanchez he is not a major cog in a larger overall wheel, and he is not Blofeld, Drax or General Orlov. - His plan to create a drugs network across the globe is a weak idea. Drugs networks are afluent across the globe anyway, and we saw this before with Dr Kananga. The use of petrol as a cover is clever, but its obvious that everything is going to go up in one giant petrol bomb, which (predictably) it does. Ok we love our big bangs in Bond, but the tankers have a DANGER - PLOT DEVICE written all over their gleaming white tanks, echoing Zorin's Blimp!
Something else that does not help is the fact that Lupi and Krest are weak supporting characters, Heller is forgettable though he should tie in a CIA sub plot, and Trueman Lodge is a painful 80's "Loads-a-money" stereotype. Professor Joe and Dario feel like characters created for the purpose of showing off the actors playing them. Again it weakens the main themes of the film by creating frippery around the edges of Bond's story.
The scale of the story is very insular, this comes from the fact M is only interested in getting Bond home - there is no scale of Sanchez being a threat to the wider world, and Like Heller's sub plot, the Hong Kong narcotics team are only in two brief scenes. - A trip to Hong Kong would have expanded the films scope considerably, shrinking the scale from what we are used to. - Goldfinger spends a massive amount of time in one place, but it still hops continents for its scale.
The film does have two major plus points. - First is Carey Lowell as Pam B. She is tough, resourceful and a great match for Bond. - In fact its a shame Ms Lowell didn't join Maud Adams in making return appearances in later films. The second, is we get to see Q in the field, and thankfully though this brings humour, its not played for daft jokes. Desmond Llewellyn clearly has fun on location and gets into the spirit of the thing from start to finish. The actor said he loved being on location and it shows in all his outdoor scenes. Bond's "You'd make a hell of a field agent" says it all too.
(Sighs) Diamonds, Moonraker, LTK, DAD and QOS are a colection within Bond. - The films which overloaded with excess, or tried too hard to do something a bit different, and failed. The antithesis of Goldfinger, TSWLM, TLD, GLDEYE and CR.
Still, as a stand alone film, its tons better than AVTAK. (Shudders).
TheSecretAgent - QOS has no hope for me, because I literally can't watch it - that abysmal editing! Its not entertainment if you know you will have to use the slow mo function on your DVD to get through the action scenes. I bet the stunt guys were fuming - their brave work wasted, cause it doesn't make visual sense.
Whilst I do enjoy LTK I think your point is spot-on and I can certainly understand why the film divides fans. LTK may be an exciting, gripping action film but it doesn't quite have enough of that Bond-esque feel.
In many ways LTK can be compared to QoS as it followed on from a critically sucessful film and aimed for a "realistic" approach. However, unlike QoS the plot and characters are engaging, the pace is sufficient enough for you to take in what is going on and the action is not hampered by overly-frantic editing. Also, unlike QoS, LTK has genuine moments of tension (e.g. when Felix is fed to the shark, when Bond is about to shoot Sanchez from outside his office, when Krest is killed in the pressure chamber and the final encounter between Bond and Sanchez).
I also think the Mexican-sounding score really makes the mood of certain scenes a lot more sinister.
Maybe I'm being a little over-praising of LTK. The winey Truman Lodge was rather cliche (he looked weirdly like Michael J Fox aswell) and the overall tone is more that of a thriller to that of Bond, despite the presence of Q. Nonetheless it is still an action film that entertaines and excites. As you say the plot is coherent (if rather un-Bond-like) and Davi's performance is terrific.
Thats really the issue surrounding the "gritty" James Bond. Although Fleming's Bond was certainly serious, the books allowed him to have a little bit of fun. They let him enjoy his women, ride in the fast cars and taste and appreciate the fine wines. Not enough of that is present in either LTK or QoS. In fact thats what I think hampered the Dalton era and what seems to be effecting the Craig era now.
However, I do think LTK entertains and grips in a way QoS does not.
I think a Bond film trapped in the UK would actually be quite interesting. Don't forget the Moonraker novel was only set in England.
Well, there were people outside the mine. Of course, when Zorin escapes in the blimp, all the people are gone. I doubt everyone was working inside the mine. Conley's change of heart was funny too after all the stuff he was involved in.
Not for me. I watched it three or four times thinking that this movie can't be the follow up to Casino Royale. I just couldn't believe it.
Yep. A View To a Kill sure is stupid, isn't it ?
He reminds me of that oily Campbell character in Mad Men. Though LTK would have done well to echo that style. One nation is okay for Bond, YOLT does it with Japan, it just needs lots of different set pieces to make it vary visually.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I always thought Anthony Zerbe deserved a shot as a main villain in the Bond franchise.
He is a notable actor and believe it or not I think he could of played a great Stromberg.
In books and in interviews on Bond it has been stated that Dalton was pleased that LTK was more violent than its predecessors- I don't think it's as black-and-white as him disliking Moore but he wanted to change the character quite a bit in the post-AVTAK era.
On its release LTK did get some praise, whereas other reviews disliked the tone- saying it 'was another Rambo- a mean-spirited violent flick lacking in the elegance of the earlier Bonds', or words similar to that.
LTK has not had a happy legacy in terms of box office- it failed to reach the American market effectively (being released against Batman, Indy 3 etc. and backed by a weak ad campaign) and quickly drew in less and less cinemagoers when it came out in the UK- but it did perform better in some international markets, so it was not a total failure- but there were many unfortunate factors that played into this perception that it was a disappointment.
- Les static and traditional framing of the shots and cutting.
- A different title song and artist. The early 80's was a strong period for U2. I think something along the lines of "With or without you" would be better.
- A scene or two set outside Latin America. Perhaps England or Hong Kong. I think the bar scene where Bond rescues Pam (or was it the other way round?:)) was weak and has dated badly. Perhaps that's the scene that should have been set in another country?
-I was never completely happy with the casting of Carey Lowell. We haven't seen any of her since, have we? Perhaps Cathrine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Connelly or Nicole Kidman. I'm dreaming ...