Why are there so many mixed reviews about License To Kill?
Q and M
IrelandPosts: 171MI6 Agent
out of all the bond films, i think i have watched license to kill the most, it is probably my no1 bond film. great plot, scary villian who you would not want to mess with, and bond in top form, doing all he can in order to insure justice is done.
Why are there so many negative critics?
Why are there so many negative critics?
Comments
My problems with the film were the dragging tired & bored underwater scenes in the first half, the hideous soundtrack where John Barry was BADLY missed here, the film was too dark and strayed away from the Bond formula, the locations didn't seem very memorable at all - nor nice looking, BOTH Bond girls to me are among the worst in the franchise due to bad looks, terrible personalities and lack of interest, the acting was pretty poor in some areas, not enough of the British Secret Service seen (one scene with Moneypenny and no General Gogol or Frederick Gray), a terrible ending, Timothy Dalton's hair during the casino scenes looked disgusting - and I bet John Glen was to blame (perhaps), and overall this film just seems tired and well, one too many for Glen to direct, because comparing this to my personal favorite film he directed (For Your Eyes Only), this is nothing even close.
Like I said, Timothy Dalton deserved better than this, and damn right too, he was and is still my favorite Bond actor to date for making a serious and Ian Fleming Bond approach. The Living Daylights was a very great 007 film, but this outing signaled two things:
1. John Glen should have given up the director's seat after The Living Daylights, because on this it seems like either he was over directing the Bond films which he helmed throughout the 80's, or he pursued a different approach with Licence To Kill which worked against the audience as a result.
2. This film made me wish (even more so) for at least two more Bond films starring Timothy Dalton in the early 90's.
So with all the negative aspects, what are some of the things I enjoyed about LTK?
- The title song & sequence. Awesome 80's style
- The pre credits sequence, which was quite exciting
- Sanchez as the Bond villain - awesome. One of my favorites
- The tanker chase
- Q's extended role on the film
- Dario, Krest and Killifer were all memorable characters
- The best thing about this film was Timothy Dalton's performance as Bond, that I could enjoy a lot
Of the Glen films, I loved FYEO, AVTAK and TLD.
OP was good, though not nearly as impressive as the three above.
LTK was tired and disappointing in many aspects.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
Unfortunately LTK has always been controversial. There are other threads on LTK by the way, but will share my views anyway. For one it is a non-Bond kind of plot. The plot is setup to be a personal revenge mission for 007 -rather than representing the Secret Service. It also makes him into a rogue agent in order to give him the freedom to carry out his actions. But it is a daring change which i like & Dalton and the cast pull it off brilliantly. It is a grim storyline in many ways (but there's nothing woring with a serious film) and being Bond it all ends well - so i don't get the negativity. It's a much better film than QOS which has a similar approach in Craig's 2nd film. I think the audience back then just didn't appreciate the new tougher Bond & direction on the series. I love it though & have always been a big Dalton fan. He made such an impact in his 2 films-it's a shame he didn't do more. Bearing in mind The Living Daylights was a success & followed on from OP & AVTAK with a tougher, but generic Bond storyline, i think it sets up LTK perfectly as we've seen Dalton in 1 film & see his style/persona. So LTK simply gets tougher & more violent, but suits Dalton perfectly. Dalton stamps his mark in the series with a terrific performance. But the film has so many other qualities, not least 2 very good Bond girls. Pam Bouvier one of the best. A dangerous villain Sanchez & so many other villains and twists in the story. It has suspense, danger, action & tension. But also fits in some humerous moments with Q (who features more here than any other Bond film). Also some cameos from Wayne Newton. The film also benefits from a good musical score (despite other reviews). It may not be as polished & charming as many other Bond films, but this is meant to be a gritty action-adventure Bond (outside the usual formula in the series). It was never a hit in USA- so that meant the film struggled. It had to compete with Summer '89 films (like Batman & Indiana Jones). But it is a very well done film. The film didn't have a large budget & filming in Mexico was seen as the most feasible option. The film also includes scenes & ideas from the Fleming novels. Also the film changed it's title from Licence Revoked to LTK (due to American reasons!) which affected advertising. People may dislike the film for whatever reason, but these are facts which did affect it.
I guess you and I are perfect illustrations of the point of this thread, Wadsy - the reviews of License To Kill are wildly mixed!
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
Roger Moore 1927-2017
However, I am not convinced by the arguement that it is "the most Fleming like of all the films" (Kim Newman, Empire), despite having a few direct references to the books.
The link between Bond and England, a factor which is prominant in the novels, is broken as Bond becomes - in effect - a loan gunman who risks jepordising his country all for the sake of "getting even".
One thing that stuck out - at least for me - when reading the books was that Bond waited for the chance for revenge to COME TO HIM. He put his duty first and foremost. The first couple of chapters of YOLT are a classic example of this.
In regard to whether Dalton deserved more films - yes he certainly did. However I don't believe he would have made GE any better, which IMO was virtually perfect with PB in the role. Dalton needed to make another (and maybe final) film between 1990 and 1995.
Funny, things fans hate on QOS/CR for - aping Bourne with the character and editing are the biggest criticisms - LTK did far more blatantly and, yes, badly. From slo-mo shots of people running (
I can't count LTK as a Bond film, it's too poorly conceived and realized. I'd rather they had made a straight film version of TSWLM if they wanted to try something different with Dalton, anything but what they came up with. 2 cents.
The Living Daylights I feel befits Dalton. It must have been at the time at least refreshing from the OTT humour and that suited it fine- and I think it does have humour, just because the humour is not laugh-a-minute like with the Moore era doesn't mean its not there (the book Martini Girls and Guns makes this fair point).
But was pushing it to even greater extremes in gritteness and realism in LTK a good thing? I don't know.
LTK was amongst the first Bonds I ever saw, but as years have gone on and I have watched more of them, including those made previous to LTK, and I get a better idea of the cinematic Bond that has been continually popular over the decades. LTK was never a strong favourite of mine.
Although maybe it's just the confusion in the spelling of the title that gets people
The fact it is like an 80s cop show is just one of the many reasons I love it so much. And Dalton is incredible as Bond too.
1. People who hate things.
2. Irony.
3. Lists.
Perhaps, but at least those shots convey meaning- that's not anywhere near as bad as all those artsy fartsy shots we have got in recent films and TV shows that don't serve any purpose except for posturing and an attempt at 'slickness'.
The other problem with the screenplay is the need to keep the humor from the older films. This is evident in many scenes (I always loved Q's scenes in the films, but the idea of him equipping 007 "in the field" never seemed right to me - especially when I know that it was just an excuse to give him more screen time. The misplaced humor is also evident in the bar fight. The visual gags (such as the swordfish) would work with Moore in this scene, but with Dalton trying to be a serious Bond, it's just jarring and stupid.
I liked the scenes between Davi and Dalton (of course you have too solid actors here). I liked the scenes on and under the water and the subplot involving the Hong Kong agents. I like the end showing Dalton killing Dali with the lighter (almost a Fleming touch). They should have thrown out the whole Leiter wedding idea and instead had him as the undercovering agent instead of Bouvier. That way it would have been Bond and Leiter together as in the novels. They could keep Lupe in the film (though a real actress would have been nice). It's easy to see that with just a few changes to the plot the film could have been much superior entry in the series.
Dalton's still my favorite Bond (Connery and Craig, for different reasons, duke it out for a very close 2nd), and I count myself as a LTK fan who still prefers TLD. That said, I do think LTK is an anomaly, but at least an interesting anomaly that at least delivered in having some strong and compelling lead characters and a more cynical and politically contemporary story. The relationship b/w Sanchez and Bond is one of the most interesting in how Bond insituates and sets himself up as an ally. Though yes, the Leiter wedding was cheesy, the revenge storyline personally worked for me given that this was Dalton's more world weary Bond who's grown tired of the betrayals he's witnessed throughout his career - I could never imagine Connery's Bond pulling this off. Yes, I wish that there was a different score (there are a few tracks that I like, but they read as Miami Vice with instruments replacing the synth), a rewritten final ending, and the removal of Lupe Lamora. The Wayne Newton cameo worked for me given that he was meant to play a cheesy, slightly slimy televangelist - I thought it was convincing.
Anyway, this movie would have worked better in retrospect with a third Dalton movie to put it in context, it would just seem better then.
Roger Moore 1927-2017