Licence to Kill in review

Fast, efficient and unusually gruesome Bond. Partly in the spirit of the decade in which it was made, and partly in response to competition from Arnie and Sly, Licence To Kill ditches the gadgets, gags and camp tomfoolery of earlier Bonds and instead pitches itself as an earnest action thriller. Unexpectedly, the filmmakers pull it off, thanks to some of the series' most searing action sequences and a lean, mean performance by Timothy Dalton.

This time 007's enemy is Sanchez (Robert Davi), a ruthless drug dealer responsible for crippling Bond's pal Felix (David Hedison). The chase leads Bond to Florida where M (Robert Brown) demands Bond's resignation. Undeterred, Bond goes it alone, now motivated entirely by revenge.

Though shorn of its trademark trimmings, this is one of the most admirable Bonds in the series. The tone is sombre, the action is ingenious and in Dalton the series finds the only actor to take 007 seriously. It would be six years before the next instalment (Goldeneye) but for action, tension and something approaching credibility, Licence To Kill is a corker.

(FILM4)

This film is now in serious competition with FRWL as my favourite. Serious competition and looks like its gonna win. Blasphemous eh?

groucho070 wrote:

This film is now in serious competition with FRWL as my favourite. Serious competition and looks like its gonna win. Blasphemous eh?

I would say that but then again ... why should we follow the crowd? Be indie about it ;)

Personally, I find TLD and LTK to be perfectly complementary, since the first has a bit more of a globetrotting feel and the second has this 'dangerous world' feel that seems very Fleming circa L&LD. I always rank the Dalton films under FRWL at the top of my favorites.

groucho070 wrote:

This film is now in serious competition with FRWL as my favourite. Serious competition and looks like its gonna win. Blasphemous eh?

By definition, it wouldn't be blasephemous unless License to Kill was the work of the devil. I think you're safe ;).

License to Kill really is great, but I'd never rank it higher than TLD or FRWL, myself. I just don't care too much for the Bond girls, mainly....That often makes the films, for me. I need someone to relate to or something? :?: Who knows.

Timothy Dalton's final film may have put the series under some financial woes, but did you like it? Post your thoughts here!

License to Kill (1989) - 7.5/10
As License to Kill is the first Bond movie I ever saw, I have developed a soft spot for the film. And while the film is very strong in certain parts, it becomes a little confused in others. The film begins off fairly brutally, with poor Felix Leiter being mauled by a Shark at the hands of Robert Davi’s brilliantly played villain, Sanchez. And while the next twenty minutes that follows is just as serious and dramatic, we then get a silly bar fight scene that kind of loosens tensions. This type of back and forth motion is repeated throughout the film. Secondly, but less of a detriment is the obvious lack of production value. I know the budget was lowered for License to Kill, but does that excuse something like the super boring cinematography? Bashing aside, there are, in fact, many positives in License to Kill. Timothy Dalton once again gives a good performance in his last turn in the role, Robert Davi (as mentioned before) plays a great villain, and his sidekicks (Krest and Dario) are also worthy henchman. Both Bond girls are serviceable, but Bond ends up with the right girl at the end so it all works, I guess. And of course the action is superior, with a special nod going to the ending tanker chase. Dalton for sure deserved at least one more Bond film, but License to Kill isn’t the worst picture to depart on and is still a fairly worthy entry.

I have to say that Leiter had the lamest wedding music ever.



And we had to see poor Dalton dance to it.

It sounds like they're singing "WE CHOP EET UP! WE CHOP EET UP!"

Perhaps a foreshadowing of Dalton's Colombian massacre?

lalala2004 wrote:

groucho070 wrote:

This film is now in serious competition with FRWL as my favourite. Serious competition and looks like its gonna win. Blasphemous eh?

By definition, it wouldn't be blasephemous unless License to Kill was the work of the devil. I think you're safe ;).

License to Kill really is great, but I'd never rank it higher than TLD or FRWL, myself. I just don't care too much for the Bond girls, mainly....That often makes the films, for me. I need someone to relate to or something? :?: Who knows.

It's...no.4 on my list behind OHMSS/TLD/FRWL. A lot about LTK clicks, enough clicks to make me ignore the background nonsense to the film or its production values etc and even the girls. Though Pam does her best

It's sh**e, really. Sadistic, Americanised, classless, generic, cheap, trash.

Quite so.

Loathe the first act. Enjoy it immensely once it gets to Isthmus.

I think a lot of fair criticisms can be levied at this film, but why do so many people point at the winking fish like it's the nadir of the franchise?

traumatic experiences in a fishtank perhaps

Sharky wrote:

It's sh**e, really. Sadistic, Americanised, classless, generic, cheap, trash.

Pretty much.

I do like Dalton/Davi so it's not totally unsalvageable IMO.

groucho070 wrote:

This film is now in serious competition with FRWL as my favourite. Serious competition and looks like its gonna win. Blasphemous eh?

Not a bit of it. I've got it at No.4, just ahead of TLD.

This film has the same combination of dark humor, Benign Bizarre and wonderful secondary characters that make DAF so memorable and wonderful. Replace Talisa Soto with a real actress, sub in a ripping Barry score, and blimey, it would climb to No.3 in my ranking, possibly even No.2. It's a dam' good Bond film

Quote :

Replace Talisa Soto with a real actress, sub in a ripping Barry score,

And hire a better director, DP, supporting cast etc...

I consider LTK as when the rot set in.

It really doesn't have much to with Bond IMO.

ambler wrote:

I consider LTK as when the rot set in.

It really doesn't have much to with Bond IMO.

Does this mean you're giving a mulligan to the entire Moore era? :shock:

Salomé wrote:

ambler wrote:

I consider LTK as when the rot set in.

It really doesn't have much to with Bond IMO.

Does this mean you're giving a mulligan to the entire Moore era? :shock:

Of course he is, you dirty waterzooi.

Vesper wrote:

Loathe the first act. Enjoy it immensely once it gets to Isthmus.

I find the film takes a big step up once Killifer dies, then another step up once Hawkins makes his exit. It plunges briefly into hell for the bar fight, but after that it's smooth sailing for the most part.

Oh, and I think LTK should get a direct sequel before Dalton dies.

Licence 2 Kill: Son of Sanchez.



In which we find Bond retired and settled down with Lupe Lamora. He raises her child, little Jose Lamora, believing it to be his. In time, however, this child learns that he's actually the son of Franz Sanchez.

IT IS BUILT INTO JOSE'S DNA THAT HE KILL JAMES BOND.

WILL BOND ESCAPE THE COUNTRY ALIVE? Rated R for strong sexual content and robot violence.

LA, I second this :D

Surely if Bond believes the child to be his, he wouldnt setlle for it having a last name like "Lamora". ;)

As for me, I'm kind of middle ground between most of everyone here - its a decent Bond flick, but its coming at the end of a very tired cycle and like TLD before it, they're trying to make an A-grade action film with a B-grade budget and leading man, written by 2 guys who had exhausted most of their originality in the first two of 5 consecutive films, a similarly unimaginitve title sequence by Binder, an uninspiring score by Kamen (though a great title song) - luckily Davi gets some badass moments and Carey Lowell is a hot bird, though not really ideally suited for Bond.

Its either an un-Bondian Bond film or an average action film. Its decent, but excells at neither.

The un-Bondian criticism of LTK strikes my as an oft-repeated yet unexamined canard that is entirely false.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

The un-Bondian criticism of LTK strikes my as an oft-repeated yet unexamined canard that is entirely false.

Why's that then, Khan?

ambler wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

The un-Bondian criticism of LTK strikes my as an oft-repeated yet unexamined canard that is entirely false.

Why's that then, Khan?

The burden of proof falls on the accuser. Why is LTK un-Bondian?