Licence to Kill in review

Stilicho Bias wrote:

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?

Because of its cheap production values, generic score, lack of class, Americanisation, lack of good wit etc..,

The production values don't detract significantly from the film for me, nor do they render it un-Bondian.

The scores for DN and OP were pretty generic, yet I've never heard anybody refer to those films as un-Bondian.

I don't understand the lack of class criticism. Bond wears his tux, drinks his martinis, gambles in a casino, and is even referred to as classy by Sanchez in an extremely classy seaside villa, I might add. LALD is a less classy film, and there are several others on LTK's level when it comes to class.

Bond films have been an Anglo-American hybrid from the very beginning, so I don't consider this un-Bondian.

And I consider LTK to be one of the wittier Bond films ever made and also quite humorous.

colly wrote:

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

That's what I had originally, 'Jose Bond' would be pretty funny.

As an aside, I do think a lot of the names in LTK are lame. Killifer, Butcher, Heller... cheesy for bad guys, aren't they? And then on the opposite side there's 'Churchill'.

I also noticed that two of Dalton's Bond girls have variations on the word love as their last names - Lamora and Milovy (probably supposed to sound like 'my love'). Lamora is definitely the less subtle of the two.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

The production values don't detract significantly from the film for me, nor do they render it un-Bondian.

I associate Bond with high craftsmanship from all areas of production, including cinematography, title design, score, editing, and direction. For the most part, these are not only second rate, but third rate. Completely antiquated by the standards of a 1989 Bond film.

It's the difference between dining at a expensive restaurant and a cockroach infested Taco Bell.

It is a Bond film only by name and a few tropes. The great majority of it is indistinguishable from a LETHAL WEAPON sequel or an episode of MIAMI VICE.

Quote :

The scores for DN and OP were pretty generic, yet I've never heard anybody refer to those films as un-Bondian.

I give you DN, though that benefits from it being mostly underscored. Unlike LTK, music kicks only at the key moments. It's rarely redundant.

OP I disagree with. It may be generic by Barry's standards, but it's easily distinguishable from a Bill Conti, James Horner, Marvin Hamlisch, Roy Budd, Leonard Rosenman, Michel Legrand, Jerry Goldsmtih, John Williams, Vangelis or Georges Delerue score. It's also got an Indian exoticism that sets it apart from A VIEW TO A KILL, BODY HEAT, HIGH ROAD TO CHINA or THE COTTON CLUB.

Quote :

I don't understand the lack of class criticism. Bond wears his tux, drinks his martinis, gambles in a casino, and is even referred to as classy by Sanchez in an extremely classy seaside villa, I might add.

He wears a suit, but like Daniel Craig - he never looks comfortable in it. It's also important to note that all of this occurs with the Isthmus casino sequence, which lasts about 10-15 minutes. It also doesn't help that by the way it's lensed, it looks like a TV detective serial. Time and time again, the film squanders its own chances.

Quote :

Bond films have been an Anglo-American hybrid from the very beginning, so I don't consider this un-Bondian.

You're probably right, but rarely has a Bond film become almost entirely within an American sensibility. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER had the juxtaposition of Bond's Englishness with the East Coast/West Coast characters in the movie, for humour. Here there is none of that.

Like with Craig, Bond has given up his identity for profit.

In defense of LTK, it works very well for me as a gritty, down-to-earth Bond film. Not all Bond films have to have the same high level of class, exoticness, and humour in order to be good thrillers. Even looking at Fleming's novels, they're not all the same in tone or grandeur. Fleming's CR is different in that regard from GF or YOLT, for instance. While LTK's underwhelming production values, score, and supporting cast bring the film down in my rankings from a top 10 position to somewhere in the middle, it's still got one of the better Bond performances, a great villain, a consistent plot, and a satisfying climax. I've warmed to the locations as well. The Bond of Fleming's novels would not be out of place in Key West and "Isthmus"/Panama.

The main issue I have with it is the whole "rogue agent" thing. It's no coincidence that QoS suffers from many of the same weaknesses.

LTK's cinematography, editing and direction were just fine. Were they on the level of OHMSS? No. But the Lutesse/Taco Belle comparison is death by hyperbole.

And I was waiting for the inevitable Miami Vice comparison to crop up. As many others have pointed out, Bond films have often been influenced by pop culture icons of the time (Jaws/Spy, Starwars/MR, Bourne/Craig films being merely the most obvious). Such influence does not make them un-Bondian, it merely makes them trendy.

OP's music, including the soporific title track, is the very definition of bland and generic. Indeed, it is the only Barry score I do not like. And as to that Indian exoticism, it is all too brief alas. Pretty much confined to Bond's arrival in India. Most of it is an unimaginative regurgitation of the Bond theme and is not terribly different from DN, another bland Bond score.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

LTK's cinematography, editing and direction were just fine. Were they on the level of OHMSS? No. But the Lutesse/Taco Belle comparison is death by hyperbole.

My point is by general standards of the late 80s they were fine. By Bond's? They're pretty dire.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

And I was waiting for the inevitable Miami Vice comparison to crop up. As many others have pointed out, Bond films have often been influenced by pop culture icons of the time (Jaws/Spy, Starwars/MR, Bourne/Craig films being merely the most obvious). Such influence does not make them un-Bondian, it merely makes them trendy.

Capturing the Zeitgeist of the time (OHMSS and AVTAK do this admirably) is not the same as taking on several hallmarks of another franchise. LALD, LTK and CR/QOS do the later, TMWTGG and MR do not.

Quote :

OP's music, including the soporific title track, is the very definition of bland and generic..

Not within the grand scale of film scores it ain't. It's pretty damn unique, because it's John Barry, who has an inimitable voice, and OP is no departure from that.

Quote :

Indeed, it is the only Barry score I do not like. And as to that Indian exoticism, it is all too brief alas. Pretty much confined to Bond's arrival in India.

I present to you 009 Gets The Knife And Gobinda Attacks, Arrival At The Island Of Octopussy, The Palace Fight and several other currently unnamed cues not released on CD from the Indian half of the film.

They are all highly distinctive from other Barry and non-Barry scores at the time.

MR using laser pistols in outer space is not battening on the hallmark of another franchise? Drax's space station does not remind you in the slightest of the Death Star? Please.

And LTK does capture the late 80s zeitgiest. It was a period when the Western world was fascinated with the drug trade, smuggling, drug enforcement policy, and Latin America. LTK taps into this ethos very effectively, just as you'd expect a Bond film to do.

Regarding OPs score, I'm not talking about film music in general, any more than I'm comparing LTK to My Fair Lady when it comes to Bondiness. By Bond music standards OP's score is as lifeless and uninspired as it gets--any Indian subtleties notwithstanding. Barry was either going through the motions here, or he was running on fumes. I'm guessing the former since he returned to form in AVTAK and TLD.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

MR using laser pistols in outer space is not battening on the hallmark of another franchise? Drax's space station does not remind you in the slightest of the Death Star? Please.

Yeah, but space lasers and Death Star ripoffs hardly pervade the whole film, from the first reel to last - as does LTK's LETHAL WEAPON aping.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

And LTK does capture the late 80s zeitgiest. It was a period when the Western world was fascinated with the drug trade, smuggling, drug enforcement policy, and Latin America. LTK taps into this ethos very effectively, just as you'd expect a Bond film to do.

It does, and more - It turns Bond into LETHAL WEAPON/DIE HARD/MIAMI VICE lite.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Regarding OPs score, I'm not talking about film music in general, any more than I'm comparing LTK to My Fair Lady when it comes to Bondiness. By Bond music standards OP's score is as lifeless and uninspired as it gets--any Indian subtleties notwithstanding. Barry was either going through the motions here, or he was running on fumes. I'm guessing the former since he returned to form in AVTAK and TLD.

I'm comparing LTK to Bond films, and OP to film scores in general. I hope that clarifies things..

LTK taps into the Latin American drug trade to the same degree MR plunges into the space craze. MR's very McGuffin is the theft of a space shuttle, after all. And one could argue most persuasively that Bond banging around in Latin America in pursuit of drug kingpins (one who maimed Bond's ur-ally, Felix Leiter, no less) is far more Bondian than chasing after an interstellar Nazi on his space station.

But I don't want to come off as an MR-basher. I consider it to be a suitably Bondian film just as I consider LTK to be.

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that while both tap into the cultural Zeitgeist of the time, MR never adopts the same approach or style of the STAR WARS's set design, direction, cinematography, score, screenplay etc... Whereas the later's sets are mostly dirty and industrial, MR's are sleek and modernist in appearance. Likewise while Williams's STAR WAR's score is highly active, with lots of flourishes in the orchestra, MR's on the other hand is slow, mournful and deliberate, as are most of Bary's compositions in this period. etc...

Do you see what I'm getting at, Khan?

A thought: it's ironic how LTK and QOS get tossed in the same boat so often, while they have such different deficiencies. LTK's strengths (focused plot, consistent script, measured action sequences, strong villain-Bond dynamic) are Quantum's weaknesses, while Quantum's strengths (the style, cinematography, set designs) are where LTK comes up short in. Add the best of both together, and you'd get one brilliant Bond film.

GeneralGogol wrote:

A thought: it's ironic how LTK and QOS get tossed in the same boat so often, while they have such different deficiencies. LTK's strengths (focused plot, consistent script, measured action sequences, strong villain-Bond dynamic) are Quantum's weaknesses, while Quantum's strengths (the style, cinematography, set designs) are where LTK comes up short in. Add the best of both together, and you'd get one brilliant Bond film.

Quite. They're mutual counterparts. The only real constant is their anarchic portrayal of Bond, out on his own, and the setting of Latin America. The differences are virtually endless - i.e. while LTK looks to SCARFACE, bits of Fleming and those 80s buddy cop movies mentioned above - QOS takes its reference from THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, NETWORK, THE CONVERSATION, THE PARALLAX VIEW, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, MARATHON MAN, CHINATOWN, and SOYLENT GREEN... Especially CONDOR. In fact there are so many plot and stylistic similarities it's ridiculous.

It takes from BOURNE too, but I think a lot of the comparisons are due to the fact that Damon and co. were themselves deriving most (if not all) of their inspiration from 70s dramas and thrillers.

Though it's a shame none of the went with THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1,2,3. It's arguably a finer film than most of those listed above, and has what QUANTUM seriously lacks. An excellent ballsy score, first rate cast, and a bloody good sense of humour.

GeneralGogol wrote:

A thought: it's ironic how LTK and QOS get tossed in the same boat so often, while they have such different deficiencies. LTK's strengths (focused plot, consistent script, measured action sequences, strong villain-Bond dynamic) are Quantum's weaknesses, while Quantum's strengths (the style, cinematography, set designs) are where LTK comes up short in. Add the best of both together, and you'd get one brilliant Bond film.

I always saw that. Two Bond flicks about revenge in South America and both have gaffes going for them. I still like the two flicks, but very flawed I I can't deny.

Sharky wrote:

I suppose what I'm trying to say, is that while both tap into the cultural Zeitgeist of the time, MR never adopts the same approach or style of the STAR WARS's set design, direction, cinematography, score, screenplay etc... Whereas the later's sets are mostly dirty and industrial, MR's are sleek and modernist in appearance. Likewise while Williams's STAR WAR's score is highly active, with lots of flourishes in the orchestra, MR's on the other hand is slow, mournful and deliberate, as are most of Bary's compositions in this period. etc...

Do you see what I'm getting at, Khan?

Yes, I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree with it entirely, it's just that LTK approximating Miami Vice doesn't strike me as a betrayal of Bond's essence. In fact, I rather like it.

Watching LTK again last year, I appreciated it more as a gritty, brutal and exciting action thriller which I'm sure Ian Fleming would have been proud of as there were exotic locations and entirely believable villains.

Stilicho Bias wrote:

Bond wears his tux, drinks his martinis, gambles in a casino, and is even referred to as classy by Sanchez in an extremely classy seaside villa, I might add.

I've always hated that moment - it kind of reeks of a charcter telling the audience that they should find Dalton classy.

Quote :

And I consider LTK to be one of the wittier Bond films ever made and also quite humorous.

Similarly to when people say "Dalton laughs a lot in LTK" - I dont find it means he's being funny. They're just trying to accentuate the jokes. But then again, these two factors are my lack of enthusiasm for Dalton talking, whereas Sir Sean blew us away with his natrual chram, swagger and wit without the need for outbursts of laughter and such obvious appraisals on his performance.

I don't find LTK funny because Dalton laffs a lot, Colly; I think it's funny because it's funny. Lodge and Sanchez have several thigh-slappers, I find Professor Joe a droll character and love his scene with Pam, and the beginning of the Barrelhead fight is hilarious.

"He's had enough!"

"Hokay!"

Miami Vice? No. "Ripped from the headlines of the day". Yes.

I've been hearing the comparison to Miami Vice for ages now and it has not ended.

LTK has all that Bond films needed, and actually improved on its predecessor with better and realistic Bond villains and henchmen with a more realistic plot involving bad guy just wanna make more money and in the process got Bond's friends killed.

Miami Vice is a cop show set in Miami. Period. LTK is a film featuring Ian Fleming's James Bond in every word the credit says. This Bond is from Fleming's You Only Live Twice and you will never see this character again. Ever. Not with Craig's leashed-to-Bitchy-M-Bond That's why LTK is so precious to me. The last time you saw the most effective Bond performance.

GeneralGogol wrote:

A thought: it's ironic how LTK and QOS get tossed in the same boat so often, while they have such different deficiencies. LTK's strengths (focused plot, consistent script, measured action sequences, strong villain-Bond dynamic) are Quantum's weaknesses, while Quantum's strengths (the style, cinematography, set designs) are where LTK comes up short in. Add the best of both together, and you'd get one brilliant Bond film.

Agree with this. They're opposite sides of the same coin.

Aside from the production values, had the first act been more like a traditional Bond film/plot, and had Leiter's injury stemming from that - and Bond's revenge motive being supplementary to a mission-based imperative to get Sanchez - I think it'd probably be received much better.

The contrived attempts to make things personal and edgy in the first parts of the film is the biggest weakness to the plot and characters. Maibaum was probably a bit beyond trying to be modern in his writing. Binder was also well past his prime.

Also recast Hedison and Soto with people who can act.

For what it's worth, I heard it looks a lot better visually in the new HD versions.

eta: I'm pretty sure the Miami Vice comparison stems from the horrid pre-title sequence.

With all due respect, Miami Vice's influence is palpable in LTK, and that's a good thing. That series was incredibly influential, and got Michael Mann momentary A-list status in Hollywood. And don't think that because it was set in Miami, the series had nothing to do with Latin America. For all intents and purposes that city might as well be in Latin America.

Sharky wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

LTK's cinematography, editing and direction were just fine. Were they on the level of OHMSS? No. But the Lutesse/Taco Belle comparison is death by hyperbole.

My point is by general standards of the late 80s they were fine. By Bond's? They're pretty dire.

I don't get it. Did cinematography, editing and direction in general all take a hit in the late eighties? There's nothing wrong with the editing in LTK as far as I can see. The direction is bland bland bland, but that was the case for all of John Glen's films. So much for Bond's standards. The thing that bugs me most about LTK's visuals, and what I think ultimately makes it feel cheap, is how the camera just won't sit still. It's not shakey-cam (Bond could use a lot more of that, TBH) - it's the cameramen feeling the need to track every little movement the actors make. Really makes the film feel like it was shot with some huge time constraint and little preparation, like a TV production.

Vesper wrote:

Aside from the production values, had the first act been more like a traditional Bond film/plot, and had Leiter's injury stemming from that - and Bond's revenge motive being supplementary to a mission-based imperative to get Sanchez - I think it'd probably be received much better.

That's not a half bad idea, considering they didn't do much with Bond being on his own. However, the opportunity for Bond to become reckless and screw up someone else's mission might be lost.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Stilicho Bias wrote:

LTK's cinematography, editing and direction were just fine. Were they on the level of OHMSS? No. But the Lutesse/Taco Belle comparison is death by hyperbole.

My point is by general standards of the late 80s they were fine. By Bond's? They're pretty dire.

I don't get it. Did cinematography, editing and direction in general all take a hit in the late eighties?

With mainstream action blockbusters (i.e. LETHAL WEAPON), I think they did.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

[There's nothing wrong with the editing in LTK as far as I can see. :

It's got TV-grade editing. It's cut to commas and fullstops, but not where natural rhythms lie. That's why it feels so incredibly stiff.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

The direction is bland bland bland, but that was the case for all of John Glen's films.

The difference is that here it's especially bad. LICENSE TO KILL is John Glen on steroids.

All of his worst tendencies as a director to the power of n.

Quote :

That's not a half bad idea, considering they didn't do much with Bond being on his own. However, the opportunity for Bond to become reckless and screw up someone else's mission might be lost.

Not neccesarilly. Pam could still have her own agenda. So could Hong Kong narcotics.

As much as I enjoy Licence To Kill, one of the biggest problems of it (and QoS) is that it is fundamentally out of character for Bond to a) go rogue and b) place the personal ahead of duty.

Well, QoS has a whole lot more problems than just that. But that's for another thread.