101

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Dirty Punker wrote:

And I agree that Dalton, as much as I enjoy his stuff, just didn't have the muscle...figuratively and literally for the 80s.

Not only for the 80s - generally!  ajb007/cheers

President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.

-------Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!------

102

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

No star charts to hand unfortunately, though I do have something else- numbers.


For Your Eyes Only (1981) worldwide gross: $195,300,000.
Octopussy (1983) worldwide gross: $187, 500,000.
A View to a Kill (1985) worldwide gross: $152, 627,960.
The Living Daylights (1987) worldwide gross: $191, 200,000.
Licence To Kill (1989) worldwide gross: $156, 200, 000.


As we see here, the downward trend in ticket sales started a good six years before Dalton took on the role.
The only film to notably reverse this decline was (shock horror!) TLD.
These figures would suggest important reasons at play other than Dalton singlehandedly poisoning the franchise. The logical conclusion to be made here I think is that Dalton wasn't the deciding factor.

I rest my case... ajb007/smile

103

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Hello, my agents. I saw this for the first time yesterday. I just like the films of Connery, Moore and a little Talton, because I think he is a hero who fights against the Cold War. Today I start the Pierce Brosman phase, which is certainly very good. Anyway, this 1987 film is great. Action, beautiful women, and it's because it's the 80's, my favorite phase of cinema. You have to take the AIDS era into account, why don't you see James Bond having sex. The scene of James on the plane gave me distress, just like Octopussy (1983). And about Roger Moore's last film, I really liked it. I didn't care at all about the actor's age. The villain is great, the women are beautiful (Especially the one in the bathtub), and the action scenes are good (Yes, I know they were stuntmen).

Sean Connery: The best of all James Bond

104

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

"The scene of James on the plane gave me distress."

One of the best fights in the series in my view...

Welcome Mr. Powers. Unfortunately the sharks in LTK are not equipped with laser beams on their heads, that would have improved the film considerably ajb007/lol

105

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Friggin' mutated sharks with laser beams...  ajb007/lol

106

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

I wanted a change of pace for Bond in 1989. Without wishing to sound like a blood-lust junkie LICENCE TO KILL wasn't violent enough! Des Llewelyn's doddery Q felt well out of place - a sop to fans unable to cope with a radical change of pace. Dalton's brooding intensity felt thrilling but it was evident he wouldn't endear himself to the Saturday night crowd. He's grim throughout but I suppose when your best mate's been fed to a shark you're probably not too disposed to fun & japes. The simplicity of narrative helps & again Glen feels energised by his leading man. But the tough stuff doesn't feel entirely natural. Bruce Wills bloodily disposes of baddies with stylish ease in DIE HARD. There's something not quite right about Bond's similar ruthlessness. Looking at it now it feels that little bit forced, as though everyone's consciously making a violent film. I don't know. It's still a good watch & one must commend EON for trying something different (indeed ahead of its time) but tastes change & these days I'm more likely to prefer the comfort blanket of the Moore era.

107

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

LTK is one of my favourite Bond films. Much better than TLD in my opinion. Sanchez is also a favourite villain of mine.

108

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Number24 wrote:

There is a lot to touch upon in your essay, but for now I'll comment on the plot. I think the plot of LTK is one of the strongest in the series. The way Bond manipulates events and the villain himself to bring him down is smart and interesting. Sanchez actually kills more of his closest crew than Bond does. LTK has fewer gaping plot holes than most action films, including Bond films.
In my opinion (and many others) Sanchez is among the best Bond villains. He's believable, but still larger than life. He's scary, but still seductive. You comment on Bond going rogue. Now the hero going rogue has been over-used. Ethan Hunt has barely been on an impossible mission where he isn't a rogue agent and Bond himself needs some missions where he doesn't go rogue. But back in 1989 this wasn't a problem. Back then this was fresh and exciting. Bond hadn't done it before, but the attack on his best friend and the killing of Della was enough motivation to make it believable and acceptable.

i agree with everything. LTK is probably in my top 3, the plot being the reason mostly. Bond systematically and thoroughly destroys every aspect and element of Sanchez' operation. I dont think we've every seen a more efficient Bond than in LTK. Plus the Gladys Knight's theme song is #1 for me.

109

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

I enjoyed Spectre of Defeat's original post and agree with much of it. However... while films like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard are said to be bloodthirsty and gritty, to my mind they simply brought the action movie into the present. More importantly, and crucially even, they had leading men in Willis and Gibson who could do witty one-liners that were also genuinely funny. Dalton really did not do that and no attempt at that could make it work.
So cinemagoers checked out his first film, saw that was the case, and only did the second one out of patriotic duty. A bit like voters going for Corbyn the first time round, second time round, nah. You lost us.
Along with that, Dalton did not seem like a young stud against the old Moore. His look was outmoded - like the 70s Gareth Hunt from The New Avengers. He did not look like the short haired square jawed stars of the late 80s - Arnie, Bruce, Mel. His torso did not look athletic and when he got his kit off in this there was no narcissism and nothing to admire. He was not ripped.

On top of all that, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon were really more like Bond films than the Bond films were. Both had better Bond villains, both played by British actors. The latter followed the set piece rule. The former looked great, sort of noirish

These films reinvented the action genre and how badly that was needed. In contrast, the Bond films still had John Glen and had been bamboozled by the fanboys saying, hey make one like Fleming! Make it serious! But without that knowing humour, it was thought back in the 50s that Fleming's stuff was a B-movie thing, the kind Rank pictures did. Saltzman and Broccoli added the knowing humour, so Dr No was above the pack. LTK omitted that - so it was a B-movie.

One final point, In another thread I'll maybe talk about the three-card trick that most Bond films require. It basically distracts you from the fact that the plot is a bit pants and has been seen before - it's money for old rope.
Even Die Hard does that. It's not just about terrorists in a skyscraper. It's set at night. Willis is a New York cop in LA - fish out of water. He's there by accident. He's trying to win back his wife - who is hostage. A white cop strikes up a poignant rapport with black cop outside. There's a lot going on. It juggles plates.
In many Bond films there's a subtext going on to make it more interesting, it's a distraction technique. LTK really doesn't have that. So if you don't go for the whole revenge plot against Leiter - never, frankly, a consistent and successful Bond character - then you don't really have much to go on. LTK is Bond with his pants down.

Last edited by Napoleon Plural (1st Jul 2020 20:12)

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

110

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

I'm looking forward to you talking about the three card trick, NP, it's definitely worth going into. Your point about juggling plates also makes sense. GF is possibly the best example of both those points, though obviously more modern ways of carrying them out is the priority.

111

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Thanks  ajb007/smile , okay, I'll have a go at it this week. I do tend to overwrite though. Loads of posts I've done in my head I've never got around to doing.

"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."

Roger Moore 1927-2017

112

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Thanks  ajb007/smile , okay, I'll have a go at it this week. I do tend to overwrite though. Loads of posts I've done in my head I've never got around to doing.

...you're not related to Silhouette Man, by any chance...?

113

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

I agree Dalton needed shorter hair and more muscle tone. They should've made sure Dalton was trained by someone from the SAS or SBS - that would have made him even more belivabel also. You could see the influence from Bond in other 80's action movies, but I I can't remember any villans in them where they were typical Bond villans. Their villans usually had much more limited plans and usually lacked good lairs.

There was no need to distract from a plot that was " a bit pants". LTK had one of the best plots in the series.

114

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

"Connery said in an interview had read three Fleming novels. I think this was while he was making DAF. One of the novels was TB, I can't remember the others."


I watched this interview for the first time the other night. Connery says he read TB to prepare for Dr. No, and later on read GF and LALD. You can tell in this clip, a BBC interview, that by the time of DAF Connery was done with Bond. He's generally a bit terse and dodges answering some of the questions fully.
Q: What does Bond mean to you?
A: Bond means different things to different people...


It is amusing to compare with modern interviews, where Craig lavishes praise on Fleming and the series' history, and then go back to Connery's obviously tired and fed up demeanour here. However, to be fair Connery still manages to have a laugh and charm the interviewer at times even when discussing a subject he's grown to dislike immensely, so there is that.


"On top of all that, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon were really more like Bond films than the Bond films were. Both had better Bond villains, both played by British actors. The latter followed the set piece rule. The former looked great, sort of nourish.."


Agree regarding Die Hard's overall look and tone. I'd never thought of Alan Rickman in DH as imitative of Bond villains, yet he is arguably more like a traditional Bond villain than both of Dalton's. Die Hard also has a big blond henchman evoking memories of the various Red Grant clones, suitably played by Andreas Wisniewski from TLD...

115

Re: James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill

Was Die Hard really more like Bond films than the Bond films of the time? Die Hard had only one small  location, the villans' plots were limited in scope, the villan had no lair, the women were not noted for their importance for the plot or their great beauty, the hero was an American in a T-shirt ....

I think the main simularities were that traditional Bond movies and Die Hard were both action francihises where the hero sometimes cracked a joke. That's a bit like saying "four weddings and a funeral" and Goldfinger were alike because they both had a good looking and funny leading man.