LICENSE TO KILL is growing on me

lordofthejimmy

When I was a kid, I didn't like LICENSE TO KILL. I liked LIVING DAYLIGHTS slightly better, but only the first half of it (the part they actually used from Fleming's novel). I didn't like LICENSE TO KILL because it was violent, took itself too seriously, and just didn't feel like a Bond film. "A rogue agent is out to seek revenge on a drug dealer for the murder of his best friends’ wife." Does this premise sound anything like a James Bond movie?

Fast forward years later, I found myself watching the film again and genuinely enjoying it. Still I stuck to my guns that it's not really a Bond film, and still not a Timothy Dalton fan. I came to the conclusion that it was a solid 80s action film and nothing more.

Then I watched it again... it got better.

A week ago, I watched the film again with some friends and this time, I was totally blown away! I finally got into Timothy Dalton's performance, as well as Robert Davi's cool villain. I laughed at the sillier moments in good humor, and was glued to the screen for the climatic tanker chase.

I have to say, this film is now in company with my 10 top Bond films. It may even be in contention for the top 5. Certainly, it's one of the most underrated Bond films of all time. This film deserves much more recognition than it actually gets!

Thunderpussy

When I first saw it I didn't like it much, but it's now one of my top five Bonds.
I think it's very Fleming.

ZorinIndustries

It's got some of the strongest characters IMO and I think the brutality gives us a different side of John Glen that shows he's not a one-trick pony. I enjoy it a lot

hehadlotsofguts

I watched it last night. The film really tests Dalton's mettle, Robert Davi is a great villain with Benicio Del Toro as his evil sadistic sidekick Dario. some fantastic stunts, the tanker on 9 wheels is a favourite of mine, some humourous moments including when Bond steals Sanchez's drug money. Micheal Kamen has a good score for the film, it has that South American feel which i like but i often wonder what John Barry would've done.

MooseWithFleas

Didn't like LTK the first time I saw it. Now it's in my top 10. Such a solid movie. Great villains, good bond girl, Dalton's performance is excellent, love the supporting cast with Sharkey and Leiter. Gritty before gritty was cool!

Jamesbondjr

I think time will show Licence To Kill to be one of the most loved Bond films. Much like OHMSS, which also wasn't particularly well received at the time of it's release, Licence To Kill seems to be growing in popularity as the years go on. I love it, it's definitely in my top 5.

L Jones

I don't know if LICENSE TO KILL is growing in popularity. But I've always liked it a lot. I saw it more than once when it first hit the movie theaters.

Barbel

It's an acquired taste. For someone expecting a Christmas Day 007 flick (eg MR, TSWLM, YOLT, AVTAK) it would be disappointing; for long-term fans it's a breath of fresh air; for Fleming die-hards it's a pleasure. IMHO it's compromised: it has fantastic parts but doesn't add up to a satisfying whole. There are too many scenes that are "ordinary" and could be in any action film, though they're well-handled enough, and not enough Bondian moments- you know, the sort of stuff that is unique to the James Bond films- though when they arrive they're fine (the underwater-to-air sequence, for example). Dalton is fine in the role, of course, and most of the supporting cast are at least adequate (bar maybe Talisa Soto) though the score is a severe disappointment.

It's wonderful to see genuine Fleming material used to good effect; the shark attack on Leiter, Bond's subsequent visit to Krest's warehouse, Milton Krest himself- though not quite as Fleming had written-, "he disagreed with something that ate him"; and used as the basis for a solid plot.

I'd say perhaps the most telling thing about the film as a whole is how it brightens up and becomes more enjoyable when Q arrives on the scene. It's more or less from this point that it starts to feel like it should: many of the 80s Bond films start well and have weak endings, while LTK improves towards the end. Now I'm not saying that it's just Q's presence that improves it- just that it doesn't feel like a Bond film until that point, since the whole "my best friend got killed/mutilated and I'm seeking revenge on the gangsters" plot is hardly unique.

It's my opinion that with this film Michael G. Wilson wanted to push the barriers of the series but was held back by Cubby Broccoli, and that QoS was him achieving that goal- though with different drawbacks.

Charmed & Dangerous

Excellent post, Barbel - you've put into (much better) words exactly how I feel about LTK.

though I feel that Taliso Soto's performance is no worse than many other Bond leading ladies in th 70s and 80s, and Pam Bouvier for me was slightly mis-cast.

I feel that Daniel Craig's films have really paved the way for new enjoyment of LTK. When I first saw LTK I thought it was too dark and, almost, 'ordinary'. But watching it again recently i enjoyed it more because I've bought in to the darker, more sardonic version of Bond that DC portrays so well.

Higgins

Barbel wrote:

IMHO it's compromised: it has fantastic parts but doesn't add up to a satisfying whole.

I mostly agree with Barbel's summary - missing the phantastic parts though ;%

The movie starts well , the Florida locations are beautiful and the action is there.
I for my part was never touched by the 'grittieness' of the shark scenes, they left me surprisingly cold and still leave me today.

The move to Istmus could have been phantastic but it's ruined by the non-spectacular casino setting and Daltons weird hairstyling.
I welcomed to see Q again and Carey Lowell has some good moments but all in all it's not really exciting to me.

The appearance of the HK agents I never understood, I found it totally unnecessary and to me, it's terribly slowing down the pace.
The underwater scenes are plain boring to me - the tanker chase has some highlights - however the wheelie (though Glen emphasized that it could be done like that) is simply unnecessary and stupid.

The Mexico pyramid settings looked cheap then as well and the entire action is pretty boring imo - so is the happy-ending with the pool-jump and the blinking fish.

To me the movie starts pretty exciting and looses pace and fascination after Bond puts Carey Lowell to bed.

My well-known beef with Dalton is a bit milder than with TLD - we don't see wetty-puppy eyes too often (I recall only 4 times - could be more - 1. when he mentions that he's been married before, 2 when he sees Felix after the shark attack 3 when his license is revoked and 4 when meeting with Felix again) and he acts like being angry. The problem is that you see that he's acting, it never convinces me like Craig does for example.

Imo all the side-actions are really confusing and mix up to a boring mess in the second half with the too-long tanker-chase as a visual highlight.

Kamens score sounds spectacular when you watch the movie for the first and second time, later it gets more and more annoying.

Imo, this nails it best:

"Ian Christie in the Daily Express was scathing of the film, saying that the plot was "absurd but fundamentally dull", a further problem being that as "there isn't a coherent storyline to link [the stunts], they eventually become tiresome"

L Jones

It's an acquired taste.

Any James Bond movie can be regarded as an acquired taste. It all depends upon the individual.

"Ian Christie in the Daily Express was scathing of the film, saying that the plot was "absurd but fundamentally dull", a further problem being that as "there isn't a coherent storyline to link [the stunts], they eventually become tiresome"

I disagree. I understood the plot completely. Perhaps Mr. Christie was expecting another one of those plots featuring egomaniacal villains who want to conquer the world or dominate a certain industry. Who knows?

Blackleiter

L Jones wrote:

It's an acquired taste.

Any James Bond movie can be regarded as an acquired taste. It all depends upon the individual.

"Ian Christie in the Daily Express was scathing of the film, saying that the plot was "absurd but fundamentally dull", a further problem being that as "there isn't a coherent storyline to link [the stunts], they eventually become tiresome"

I disagree. I understood the plot completely. Perhaps Mr. Christie was expecting another one of those plots featuring egomaniacal villains who want to conquer the world or dominate a certain industry. Who knows?

Nicely said! And I agree. -{

Higgins

well, my 2 friends

Mr. Christie did not say that he did not understand or follow the plot.

His words where "the plot was "absurd but fundamentally dull", a further problem being that as "there isn't a coherent storyline to link [the stunts], they eventually become tiresome"

I did not expect that you guys where not even able to follow that not overly-complicated sentence )

Richard--W

I'm a big fan of LICENCE TO KILL. The film has weathered the years well. It doesn't seem dated. Timothy Dalton carries the film on his shoulders, and he's true Bond. I love his performance in this film.

It ain't perfect. I wish more attention had been given to Dalton's appearance, dress, the camera angles used on him. I wish the character of Professor Joe Butcher, played by Wayne Newton, had been cut. Cut as in eliminated altogether. He's an unnecessary subplot. His stuff slows down the progression and interrupts the narrative flow. One of those tiresome Michael Wilson contributions, no doubt. Sometimes it feels as if we're spending too much time with the villains and not enough time with Bond. He's offscreen for long periods. Michael Kamen's music is adequate but nothing special. I do enjoy the downbeat note on which his music starts.

Otherwise, Richard Maibaum's screenplay is so good and the casting so right, I wish it had been directed by someone who understood dramatic timing and emphasis, someone who knew how to work with actors and who was better at pacing. An actor's director (who can also do action) could have coaxed more natural and relaxed performances out of Carey Lowell and Talisa Soto. Someone like Peter Hunt, John Boorman, J. Lee Thompson, or Mike Hodges. Any one of them could have done a better job than the house director John Glen. Glen is great with action sequences, mostly -- no one could have handled that small plane sequence better -- but he just pounds the story to death. That final sequence with the trucks goes on much too long and way after it peaks.

It sounds like I'm complaining but I'm not really. LICENCE TO KILL is more right than wrong. It was the strongest entry in the series since OHMSS. It was the last true Bond film.

Sir Miles

Richard--W wrote:

It sounds like I'm complaining but I'm not really. There is more right than wrong in LICENCE TO KILL. It was the strongest entry in the series since OHMSS. It was the last true Bond film.

But when you look at your signature you have two films better than it that were made AFTER OHMSS....

Blackleiter

Bondtoys wrote:

well, my 2 friends

Mr. Christie did not say that he did not understand or follow the plot.

His words where "the plot was "absurd but fundamentally dull", a further problem being that as "there isn't a coherent storyline to link [the stunts], they eventually become tiresome"

I did not expect that you guys where not even able to follow that not overly-complicated sentence )

Thank you for clearing that up, Toys, but I still disagree. I found the plot to be neither absurd, nor dull, and especially not when compared to the plots of some other Bond films.

ZorinIndustries

Sir Miles wrote:

Richard--W wrote:

It sounds like I'm complaining but I'm not really. There is more right than wrong in LICENCE TO KILL. It was the strongest entry in the series since OHMSS. It was the last true Bond film.

But when you look at your signature you have two films better than it that were made AFTER OHMSS....

I'm sure those are just the films he enjoys the most instead of the best films. For example, I think CR is one of the best-made Bonds, but it's just at the bottom of my top 10.

I get confused by these things too )

Sir Miles

Then I am confused

The films I enjoy most ARE the best films, as far as I'm concerned....isn't it silly to think othetwise ?:)

chrisisall

Sir Miles wrote:

Then I am confused

The films I enjoy most ARE the best films, as far as I'm concerned....isn't it silly to think otherwise ?:)

No, Sir Miles. Look at my list- FRWL is one of the Best Bond movies ever, yet it doesn't appear on my top ten(ish). We must separate what we LIKE from what is EXCELLENT- they are not always the same.

Mr_Osato

I saw it again the other night. It has been a few years, it is not a movie I pick quickly if I want to see Bond. 8 out of 10 it will be a Connery movie.

I still cannot enjoy it as much as some of my other fellow fans can. To me it is not that special. I love Miami Vice, it is my favourite TV show and the characters of this movie could have been from the series. In fact, a lot of actors, like del Toro and Davi actually had guest starred in Vice!!

I dont know why but for some reason it is just a typical 80's action flick. Nothing wrong with that, I love the 80's but I miss the Bond feeling in this one. To me it is a decent action movie. Nothing more.

CmdrAtticus

As much as I enjoy Dalton's performance and some aspects of the film, I was also dismayed by the plot. Fleming had Bond tangling with US mobsters in DAF, but for some reason, I was never convinced that a Secret Service 00 would be involved in such an operation. When I first read DAF, I was very surprised how Fleming had to jump through some difficult plot hoops to give an official reason why Bond would have been given such an assignment. It seemed more of just an excuse to write about traveling in the US and diamond smuggling.

Using Leiter's shark mauling and his wife's death at the hands of the leader of a drug cartel as a jumping off point for Bond to go after the villain just never sat right with me. It's not something I think Fleming would have written. When he was maimed in LALD (and wasn't even married), he and Bond were performing a joint US/UK mission to take down Big's operation. I can't see Fleming writing a novel where Bond would be put in the situation the way it's done in the film. Had it been written where Bond teamed up with Leiter because Sanchez had gotten his nose into a UK intel/security issue and Leiter was already married and then he and his wife were attacked, it would have been more logical for me.

Rainier Wolfcastle

chrisisall wrote:

Look at my list [...] We must separate what we LIKE from what is EXCELLENT- they are not always the same.
_______________________
Top Ten Favourite list:
1: TLD, 2: LTK,

Looking at your list, you are indeed very good in separating what you like from what is excellent!

chrisisall

Rainier Wolfcastle wrote:

Looking at your list, you are indeed very good in separating what you like from what is excellent!

Why you I oughta... X-( )

Firemass

from John Glen's book For My Eyes Only:

"I could see it coming, but I was nevertheless disappointed when LTK failed to find the audience it deserved. I can blame the subject choice or the marketing, but what really frustrated me more than anything else was that even though LTK was the finest film I had ever made, it was ultimately seen by fewer people than had watched my previous Bond films"

chrisisall

Firemass wrote:

from John Glen's book For My Eyes Only:

"I could see it coming, but I was nevertheless disappointed when LTK failed to find the audience it deserved. I can blame the subject choice or the marketing, but what really frustrated me more than anything else was that even though LTK was the finest film I had ever made, it was ultimately seen by fewer people than had watched my previous Bond films"

I wonder if he's seen the rise in that movie's status in the fan's eyes since Craig's movies have seen their success....

ZorinIndustries

chrisisall wrote:

Firemass wrote:

from John Glen's book For My Eyes Only:

"I could see it coming, but I was nevertheless disappointed when LTK failed to find the audience it deserved. I can blame the subject choice or the marketing, but what really frustrated me more than anything else was that even though LTK was the finest film I had ever made, it was ultimately seen by fewer people than had watched my previous Bond films"

I wonder if he's seen the rise in that movie's status in the fan's eyes since Craig's movies have seen their success....

I just searched for the book on Amazon, would you guys recommend it? I noticed it's only $2.99 so I'm not quite sure if it's worth the read.

Sir Miles

ZorinIndustries wrote:

chrisisall wrote:

Firemass wrote:

from John Glen's book For My Eyes Only:

"I could see it coming, but I was nevertheless disappointed when LTK failed to find the audience it deserved. I can blame the subject choice or the marketing, but what really frustrated me more than anything else was that even though LTK was the finest film I had ever made, it was ultimately seen by fewer people than had watched my previous Bond films"

I wonder if he's seen the rise in that movie's status in the fan's eyes since Craig's movies have seen their success....

I just searched for the book on Amazon, would you guys recommend it? I noticed it's only $2.99 so I'm not quite sure if it's worth the read.

It's worth a read at that price )

UltimateTruth

One of the best opening theme songs IMO. I love the pet iguana. Dalton is the most underated Bond (Well, not on this forum).