I always enjoyed LTK from the first time I saw it when I was just a pre-teen. It has recently moved higher on my list. Timothy Dalton had also moved higher on my list. Even before I read some of the novels I always felt that Dalton played Fleming's Bond better than anyone. Some critics to this day still dismiss this notion and say only Craig has pulled off Fleming's Bond. I'm not saying they're wrong about Craig, but have they seen a Dalton film? Sheesh.
I always appreciated the intriguing plot of avenging Felix Leiter (played by the best one of all in David Hedison). I have always loved how involved Q was in the film. Both ladies are quite lovely and the song at the end is really good.
But, after watching this again last year on New Year's Eve (Dec. 31, 2007) for the first time in at least three or four years I suddenly gained a new-found appreciation for the pre-title sequence. It is just a big barrel of fun. Kamen provides great music as Bond and Felix have to take care of some drug dealer before Felix can take his vows. Bond's descent from the helicopter to capture the plane is great. The best scene of all is when Bond and Felix parachute down to the church just in time for the wedding right before the classic Gladys Knight song begins to play and the titles begin with the legendary words "Albert R. Broccoli Presents". Man, what a scene. What a movie.
I always enjoyed LTK from the first time I saw it when I was just a pre-teen. It has recently moved higher on my list. Timothy Dalton had also moved higher on my list. Even before I read some of the novels I always felt that Dalton played Fleming's Bond better than anyone. Some critics to this day still dismiss this notion and say only Craig has pulled off Fleming's Bond. I'm not saying they're wrong about Craig, but have they seen a Dalton film? Sheesh.
I always appreciated the intriguing plot of avenging Felix Leiter (played by the best one of all in David Hedison). I have always loved how involved Q was in the film. Both ladies are quite lovely and the song at the end is really good.
But, after watching this again last year on New Year's Eve (Dec. 31, 2007) for the first time in at least three or four years I suddenly gained a new-found appreciation for the pre-title sequence. It is just a big barrel of fun. Kamen provides great music as Bond and Felix have to take care of some drug dealer before Felix can take his vows. Bond's descent from the helicopter to capture the plane is great. The best scene of all is when Bond and Felix parachute down to the church just in time for the wedding right before the classic Gladys Knight song begins to play and the titles begin with the legendary words "Albert R. Broccoli Presents". Man, what a scene. What a movie.
Thank you for the nice post {[]
You are probably one of the few persons who think of LTK as "a barrel of fun", given the film's violence and intensity. However, that is not meant at all to be an insult; I too am beginning to gain a better appreciation of this film.
I too find the title "Albert R. Broccoli Presents" over what would be the last Maurice Binder title sequence for Bond is very poignant. LTK is the end of an era in many ways.
The last Dalton film. The last Broccoli-produced film. The last Binder Bond titles. The last John Glen Bond film. The last male M film. The last Bond film of the 1980s. The last Richard Maibaum Bond film.
The Most Dangerous Man In the World. . . was part of an unused tag line to promote LTK. And that's a great hook.And while our hero may well, in fact, be the most dangerous man in the world - he is undone by the failure of this film to live up to that premise... and promise.
I grew up in the Connery era and for me he will always be definitive, however I think Timothy Dalton really is Fleming's Bond. This was striking evident in "The Living Daylights" despite that film's faults (Joe Dan Baker being just one)and as one memeber has already pointed out his reading of lines such as "Yes, I got the message." is masterly.
I think much of the negative reaction to his portrayal comes from fans who came of age in the Roger Moore era and their take on what makes a Bond film. That said, it must also be pointed out - and I know this first hand having spoken to many of the actors involved in Dalton's two films - that while John Glenn may be a supurb editor and second-unit director he is lost when it comes to dealing with actors.
It's interesting to note that both LTK and now QOS have been condemned for their brutality, and both are emotional, revenge driven stories. In both cases I think the films would have fared much better if just a little more time had been devoted to more fully exploring the charcter's feelings - most notably his rage born out of grief. That's a very powerful motivator and had the films given it its due then he really would have been the most dangerous man in the world
I always enjoyed LTK from the first time I saw it when I was just a pre-teen. It has recently moved higher on my list. Timothy Dalton had also moved higher on my list. Even before I read some of the novels I always felt that Dalton played Fleming's Bond better than anyone. Some critics to this day still dismiss this notion and say only Craig has pulled off Fleming's Bond. I'm not saying they're wrong about Craig, but have they seen a Dalton film? Sheesh.
I always appreciated the intriguing plot of avenging Felix Leiter (played by the best one of all in David Hedison). I have always loved how involved Q was in the film. Both ladies are quite lovely and the song at the end is really good.
But, after watching this again last year on New Year's Eve (Dec. 31, 2007) for the first time in at least three or four years I suddenly gained a new-found appreciation for the pre-title sequence. It is just a big barrel of fun. Kamen provides great music as Bond and Felix have to take care of some drug dealer before Felix can take his vows. Bond's descent from the helicopter to capture the plane is great. The best scene of all is when Bond and Felix parachute down to the church just in time for the wedding right before the classic Gladys Knight song begins to play and the titles begin with the legendary words "Albert R. Broccoli Presents". Man, what a scene. What a movie.
Thank you for the nice post {[]
You are probably one of the few persons who think of LTK as "a barrel of fun", given the film's violence and intensity. However, that is not meant at all to be an insult; I too am beginning to gain a better appreciation of this film.
I too find the title "Albert R. Broccoli Presents" over what would be the last Maurice Binder title sequence for Bond is very poignant. LTK is the end of an era in many ways.
The last Dalton film. The last Broccoli-produced film. The last Binder Bond titles. The last John Glen Bond film. The last male M film. The last Bond film of the 1980s. The last Richard Maibaum Bond film.
The pre-title sequence and the title sequence of LTK is indeed very poignant, Mister Biswas. The end of an era for sure. The 1980s is not my favorite Bond decade, but it is possibly the most interesting because it had virtually the same crew making light-hearted as well as grittier Bond films for ten years. Cubby made all of this happen in his seventies with consistency and class. So many things changed between 1989 and 1995 not just in the Bond world, but also in the real world.
I feel so bad for Cubby when I think of the hell he must have gone through from 1990 until his death in 1996. With his health slolwy and slowly deteriorating several depressing things happened. Long time crew members Maibaum and Binder died in 1991. Glen, also a veteran of the series, left EON. Robert Brown and Caroline Bliss left unsurprisingly. After dealing with several idiotic lawsuits (thanks to the now deceased Kevin McClory) Timothy Dalton finally called it quits. Cubby missed out on what should have been the chance to make TWO more Bond films for Dalton. All I can say is that I think the only thing that kept Cubby going the last few years was the desire to see Michael and Barbara, with his consultation, produce a kick-ass Bond film with Pierce Brosnan in an attempt to jumpstart the franchise once more. After the success of GE, which starred Pierce Brosnan as the Bond actor he had wanted for almost a decade, Cubby must have died happy.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,994Quartermasters
edited December 2008
I really liked Timothy Dalton's Bond. A lot. And he was such a breath of fresh air after what had come before.
My problem with both Dalton films is the stubborn hanging-on of the remnants of Moore-era silliness, which IMO sap his two films' momentum each time they get going. In LTK, it was the skydiving in tux-and-tails, Bond defending himself from a mounted swordfish in the Barrel Head Bar, the obvious rubber fishing lures doubling for 'maggots', the ever-offensive wheelie-poppin' big rig...
Maibaum's heart wasn't in this one, it seemed to me, and the Writer's Guild strike in '87 forced Michael G. Wilson into the screenwriting business...as a writer, he's a great producer.
Dalton didn't get the scripts he deserved, and thus he missed his time; right now is it. A CR/QoS doubleshot from a young Timothy Dalton---right now---would probably be every bit as big as Craigger.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's interesting to note that both LTK and now QOS have been condemned for their brutality, and both are emotional, revenge driven stories. In both cases I think the films would have fared much better if just a little more time had been devoted to more fully exploring the charcter's feelings - most notably his rage born out of grief. That's a very powerful motivator and had the films given it its due then he really would have been the most dangerous man in the world
I can't comment too much on QoS as I have not yet seen the film . But, as QoS is a true sequel to CR, I would guess that QoS gains even more relevance if one knows CR.
As for LTK, personally I thought that, as a concept, Bond is doing what he does because of two basic reasons:
(1) Sanchez mauled Leiter; and
(2) Sanchez serves as proxy for the killers of Tracy in OHMSS. Della's death, while a horrible event, itself seems not to provide enough motivation for Bond. It's only what Della's death represents to Bond--i.e., the destruction of FELIX's happiness, the death of a wife on a wedding day a la OHMSS.
Thus, it seems to me that one should probably (1) watch OHMSS before LTK, and (2) watch all the Leiter films, or at least realize who Leiter as a character is and his relationship to Bond.
That being said, while QoS is "officially" the first direct sequel in the Bond series, it seems to me that LTK is really the first true sequel, as in the sequel to OHMSS. And, on a secondary level, LTK is a sequel to the Leiter films.
Finally, as Peter Hunt told George Lazenby, "Let's do one more take with out the tears. Bond doesn't cry." In other words, Bond is more interesting as a character by the way he hides his emotions rather than by how he outwardly shows his emotions. And thus, that LTK did not explore the character's feelings worked to the film's advantage. (I can only assume the same can be said for QoS.)
Thanks,
An interesting point about LTK being a sequel to OHMSS (one of my all time favorites).
However, what I meant to say about more time being devoted to Bond's feelings is not meant to imply that we should see him cry or otherwise wallow in them. I quess what I really meant is not so much more time but better clarity. There is a disconnect in many of these films in what they're trying to portray and what actually comes across.
As a long time veteran in this business I fully realize that many factors conspire to undermine the best of intentions: Poor scripts or direction, rushed schedules, and on and on.
Now as one wag put it we're not in the Bill Shakesphere business, but even a casual glance through film history will show that the best films-whether they be action/adventure or any other genre - have some sort of resonance emotional or otherwise. That's why films such as FRWL or OHMSS stand out.
Anyway, don't mean to go on about this. Just one fans opinion. I've been going to these movies since 1963 and I still love them even if sometimes, like a errant child, they disappoint.
Thanks for the forum and we'll see you at the movies
I am not in the business and I have no sense with regard to stagecraft or film production. I only know what those DVD commentaries or film books or websites tell me. So it is refreshing to hear an opinion from someone like you who is in the business. {[]
Thank you, Mister Biswas, for your couteous reply.
If you have an hour or so to kill sometime, I would consider it an honor if you would check out my website at http://www.trenchcoat.tv/ which features the graphic adventures of one "Trenchocat Jones."
Perhaps of even more interest to you and fellow Bond fans are the movie reviews posted in the "spy" section of the site.
I would be interested in your comments.
Regards
Trenchcoat/
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
edited December 2008
Watched it again the other night (for something like the 10th time). It gets better and better. I was surprised to actually catch some new "subtleties" I had missed in previous viewings (of course I've forgotten what already...) Certainly the details of the script are better than I had given the writers credit for. In my opinion the Craig era has legitimized the film and given it a new lease of life (But I've always been a Dalton fan).
Dalton is great in it, and so are Davi and Lowell. Lowell is not smoking hot but she's genuinely likeable. And Davi's Sanchez is one of the best villains of the series. Q is pretty funny too, and Carline Bliss's Moneypenny less offensive than in TLD.
The only false note is the final truck-chase (John Glen having fun with big cars again... still better than the AVTAK fire-engine).
Regrettably (but it's a minor quarrel) the film still looks a little low-budget (as in, made for TV). But that thought is a luxury we enjoy as Bond fans for having survived the 80s.
I don't think Licence to Kill is a bad movie, but I don't think it is as loyal to Ian Fleming's Bond as many think. Without a doubt, the use of the revenge elements of the Live and Let Die novel and Timothy Dalton's performance in general reflects a higher level of authenticity to Fleming than most of the series does. Nevertheless, while Fleming's Bond was indeed "ironical, brutal, and cold" when he needed to be, but he was not a person who seemed perpetually angry. He did not come off, at least to me, as someone who looked so enraged at every moment that no one could ever trust having him around for fear he may explode. That is honestly the feeling I get when watching Dalton in the film.
The film itself does not also contain the high production values synonomous with the best of the Bond films (something that also correlates with the Fleming novels, and the films that are close to them). It is a colorless movie, with nothing inspiring surrounding the action, and the film coming off as more of a Miami Vice episode than a Bond film. Sanchez is a decent villian, and I like the way Bond infiltrates his organization to usurp his trust of his men. But outside of that, I don't think too much else going on in the film is all that suspenseful or interesting. The title sequence is bland, and the cast is good, but there has definitely been better.
All in all, it is not a bad action movie, but frankly, when it comes to watching Fleming's Bond on screen, I'd rather watch the first four Connery films, OHMSS, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale
I rank LTK to be one of the top five Bond films.
It's tough, has a good story, it's smart (the way bond turn Sancez against his own men). The villan is good. The whipping is from Flemming (The Hildebrand Rarity), he is scary and believable and he doesn't kill just to show the audience how evil he is. The action is good and not cartoonish and Dalton is a superb Bond. He isn't angry all the time, like some people seem to think, only when it is appropriate (finding Leiter wife, killing Killifer and the like.
Moore never seemed remotely as dangerous.
On the negative side:
- The filming is to static and old-fashioned (cutting, camera-angels etc)
- the title song isn't memorable. Tina Turner, U2 or David Bowie would have made something people would still remember.
- The bar fight when 007 picks up Pam Bouvier should have been set outside Latin America. since TLD was set in Europe and Afghanistan and LTK has an Asian link (Hong Kong), Pam should be on a mission in Africa?
- Bond isn't british enough. Perhaps Bond should travel back to Britain for a talk with M, and then escape back to America after resigning?
Harry Palmer Somewhere in the past ...Posts: 325MI6 Agent
edited January 2009
It's true that the film would have benefitted from an injection of Britishness, and that the truck chase was out of tune with the serious, grown-up tone of the rest of the film. But that's the price we have to pay for John Glen and his love of big heavy vehicles. If only act 3 could have been sobered up (easily done: just remove those unecessary stunts, which add nothing to the plot anyway), and a little extra footage could have been spent on setting up the exotic locations (a wide-angle shot of Panama, for instance) LTK would have easily been in my top 4.
As it is, it still rates very high, but I find myself having to close an eye to the film's two or three false-notes.
- The filming is to static and old-fashioned (cutting, camera-angels etc)
I totally agree on that point. It surprises me that loads of other movies released in the '80s look way ahead of their time and don't seem to date at all. Look at the Star Wars saga, Indiana Jones etc. Marginally better to look at because the direction has more depth and is allowed to flow, and they are better films overall.
I think there are several contributing factors to why this is:
-Its easy to judge the quality of an old film from its video/DVD quality. The quality of the Bond VHS titles that MGM released in the mid-late '90s were so staggeringly awful that only with the recent releases of the Ultimate Editions that the films are opened out more with all the special features and the widescreen, but on the down side, they only expose more of actually how awkwardly directed those films were.
-The Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies benefited from THX enhancement when they were re-released on VHS around the same time, because THX has close association with the studios that made them. The Bonds, being MGM, sadly do not.
-In the '80s, there were better action heroes out there that relied on wits rather than merely operating gadgets, and possibly dented 007's credentials. But because they are totally different franchises, and not part of a strict cinematic formula that has been carved out of the past two decades, the producers can tweak the character and not run the risk of critics and fans getting all prickly about it.
On a positive side, the UEs of the Bonds actually show how clever those producers were. The tiger from Octopussy, which looms out of the bushes as a static model, provides a good 'jump-out-of-your-seat' moment because it is totally unexpected. The train sequence with Gobinda and Bond was just made using a roller with railway lines painted on it. Totally old-fashioned, but looks so convincing.
Hello all, long time lurker popping his first post cherry here...
It should also be remembered that to save money, as many other studios were doing at the time, LTK was the first Bond not to have the soundstage work done in Pinewood but in Mexico instead. The crew found a building with leaks in the ceiling and a much lower overall quality of equipment than in what they called "glorious Pinewood". While the crew were very complimentary of the work the Mexican soundstage workers did in creating the sets, it is still evident that the sets are far less lavish and convincing, while the facilities only really allowed orthodox, TV style mid-angle camera work. Other films that were shot at the same studios to save money and suffered the same ultimate shortcomings were David Lynch's Dune and Conan the Destroyer.
This is probably why the outdoor set pieces set such a contrast, with Glen proving a reliable set of hands for the water skiing and juggernaut scenes. Though the part in the PTS involving the gunfight with the jeep still looks a bit set up and A Team to me.
Comments
I always appreciated the intriguing plot of avenging Felix Leiter (played by the best one of all in David Hedison). I have always loved how involved Q was in the film. Both ladies are quite lovely and the song at the end is really good.
But, after watching this again last year on New Year's Eve (Dec. 31, 2007) for the first time in at least three or four years I suddenly gained a new-found appreciation for the pre-title sequence. It is just a big barrel of fun. Kamen provides great music as Bond and Felix have to take care of some drug dealer before Felix can take his vows. Bond's descent from the helicopter to capture the plane is great. The best scene of all is when Bond and Felix parachute down to the church just in time for the wedding right before the classic Gladys Knight song begins to play and the titles begin with the legendary words "Albert R. Broccoli Presents". Man, what a scene. What a movie.
Thank you for the nice post {[]
You are probably one of the few persons who think of LTK as "a barrel of fun",
I too find the title "Albert R. Broccoli Presents" over what would be the last Maurice Binder title sequence for Bond is very poignant. LTK is the end of an era in many ways.
The last Dalton film. The last Broccoli-produced film. The last Binder Bond titles. The last John Glen Bond film. The last male M film. The last Bond film of the 1980s. The last Richard Maibaum Bond film.
I grew up in the Connery era and for me he will always be definitive, however I think Timothy Dalton really is Fleming's Bond. This was striking evident in "The Living Daylights" despite that film's faults (Joe Dan Baker being just one)and as one memeber has already pointed out his reading of lines such as "Yes, I got the message." is masterly.
I think much of the negative reaction to his portrayal comes from fans who came of age in the Roger Moore era and their take on what makes a Bond film. That said, it must also be pointed out - and I know this first hand having spoken to many of the actors involved in Dalton's two films - that while John Glenn may be a supurb editor and second-unit director he is lost when it comes to dealing with actors.
It's interesting to note that both LTK and now QOS have been condemned for their brutality, and both are emotional, revenge driven stories. In both cases I think the films would have fared much better if just a little more time had been devoted to more fully exploring the charcter's feelings - most notably his rage born out of grief. That's a very powerful motivator and had the films given it its due then he really would have been the most dangerous man in the world
The pre-title sequence and the title sequence of LTK is indeed very poignant, Mister Biswas. The end of an era for sure. The 1980s is not my favorite Bond decade, but it is possibly the most interesting because it had virtually the same crew making light-hearted as well as grittier Bond films for ten years. Cubby made all of this happen in his seventies with consistency and class. So many things changed between 1989 and 1995 not just in the Bond world, but also in the real world.
I feel so bad for Cubby when I think of the hell he must have gone through from 1990 until his death in 1996. With his health slolwy and slowly deteriorating several depressing things happened. Long time crew members Maibaum and Binder died in 1991. Glen, also a veteran of the series, left EON. Robert Brown and Caroline Bliss left unsurprisingly. After dealing with several idiotic lawsuits (thanks to the now deceased Kevin McClory) Timothy Dalton finally called it quits. Cubby missed out on what should have been the chance to make TWO more Bond films for Dalton. All I can say is that I think the only thing that kept Cubby going the last few years was the desire to see Michael and Barbara, with his consultation, produce a kick-ass Bond film with Pierce Brosnan in an attempt to jumpstart the franchise once more. After the success of GE, which starred Pierce Brosnan as the Bond actor he had wanted for almost a decade, Cubby must have died happy.
My problem with both Dalton films is the stubborn hanging-on of the remnants of Moore-era silliness, which IMO sap his two films' momentum each time they get going. In LTK, it was the skydiving in tux-and-tails, Bond defending himself from a mounted swordfish in the Barrel Head Bar, the obvious rubber fishing lures doubling for 'maggots', the ever-offensive wheelie-poppin' big rig...
Maibaum's heart wasn't in this one, it seemed to me, and the Writer's Guild strike in '87 forced Michael G. Wilson into the screenwriting business...as a writer, he's a great producer.
Dalton didn't get the scripts he deserved, and thus he missed his time; right now is it. A CR/QoS doubleshot from a young Timothy Dalton---right now---would probably be every bit as big as Craigger.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can't comment too much on QoS as I have not yet seen the film
As for LTK, personally I thought that, as a concept, Bond is doing what he does because of two basic reasons:
(1) Sanchez mauled Leiter; and
(2) Sanchez serves as proxy for the killers of Tracy in OHMSS. Della's death, while a horrible event, itself seems not to provide enough motivation for Bond. It's only what Della's death represents to Bond--i.e., the destruction of FELIX's happiness, the death of a wife on a wedding day a la OHMSS.
Thus, it seems to me that one should probably (1) watch OHMSS before LTK, and (2) watch all the Leiter films, or at least realize who Leiter as a character is and his relationship to Bond.
That being said, while QoS is "officially" the first direct sequel in the Bond series, it seems to me that LTK is really the first true sequel, as in the sequel to OHMSS. And, on a secondary level, LTK is a sequel to the Leiter films.
Finally, as Peter Hunt told George Lazenby, "Let's do one more take with out the tears. Bond doesn't cry." In other words, Bond is more interesting as a character by the way he hides his emotions rather than by how he outwardly shows his emotions. And thus, that LTK did not explore the character's feelings worked to the film's advantage. (I can only assume the same can be said for QoS.)
An interesting point about LTK being a sequel to OHMSS (one of my all time favorites).
However, what I meant to say about more time being devoted to Bond's feelings is not meant to imply that we should see him cry or otherwise wallow in them. I quess what I really meant is not so much more time but better clarity. There is a disconnect in many of these films in what they're trying to portray and what actually comes across.
As a long time veteran in this business I fully realize that many factors conspire to undermine the best of intentions: Poor scripts or direction, rushed schedules, and on and on.
Now as one wag put it we're not in the Bill Shakesphere business, but even a casual glance through film history will show that the best films-whether they be action/adventure or any other genre - have some sort of resonance emotional or otherwise. That's why films such as FRWL or OHMSS stand out.
Anyway, don't mean to go on about this. Just one fans opinion. I've been going to these movies since 1963 and I still love them even if sometimes, like a errant child, they disappoint.
Thanks for the forum and we'll see you at the movies
I am not in the business and I have no sense with regard to stagecraft or film production. I only know what those DVD commentaries or film books or websites tell me. So it is refreshing to hear an opinion from someone like you who is in the business. {[]
If you have an hour or so to kill sometime, I would consider it an honor if you would check out my website at http://www.trenchcoat.tv/ which features the graphic adventures of one "Trenchocat Jones."
Perhaps of even more interest to you and fellow Bond fans are the movie reviews posted in the "spy" section of the site.
I would be interested in your comments.
Regards
Trenchcoat/
Dalton is great in it, and so are Davi and Lowell. Lowell is not smoking hot but she's genuinely likeable. And Davi's Sanchez is one of the best villains of the series. Q is pretty funny too, and Carline Bliss's Moneypenny less offensive than in TLD.
The only false note is the final truck-chase (John Glen having fun with big cars again... still better than the AVTAK fire-engine).
Regrettably (but it's a minor quarrel) the film still looks a little low-budget (as in, made for TV). But that thought is a luxury we enjoy as Bond fans for having survived the 80s.
The film itself does not also contain the high production values synonomous with the best of the Bond films (something that also correlates with the Fleming novels, and the films that are close to them). It is a colorless movie, with nothing inspiring surrounding the action, and the film coming off as more of a Miami Vice episode than a Bond film. Sanchez is a decent villian, and I like the way Bond infiltrates his organization to usurp his trust of his men. But outside of that, I don't think too much else going on in the film is all that suspenseful or interesting. The title sequence is bland, and the cast is good, but there has definitely been better.
All in all, it is not a bad action movie, but frankly, when it comes to watching Fleming's Bond on screen, I'd rather watch the first four Connery films, OHMSS, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale
It's tough, has a good story, it's smart (the way bond turn Sancez against his own men). The villan is good. The whipping is from Flemming (The Hildebrand Rarity), he is scary and believable and he doesn't kill just to show the audience how evil he is. The action is good and not cartoonish and Dalton is a superb Bond. He isn't angry all the time, like some people seem to think, only when it is appropriate (finding Leiter wife, killing Killifer and the like.
Moore never seemed remotely as dangerous.
On the negative side:
- The filming is to static and old-fashioned (cutting, camera-angels etc)
- the title song isn't memorable. Tina Turner, U2 or David Bowie would have made something people would still remember.
- The bar fight when 007 picks up Pam Bouvier should have been set outside Latin America. since TLD was set in Europe and Afghanistan and LTK has an Asian link (Hong Kong), Pam should be on a mission in Africa?
- Bond isn't british enough. Perhaps Bond should travel back to Britain for a talk with M, and then escape back to America after resigning?
As it is, it still rates very high, but I find myself having to close an eye to the film's two or three false-notes.
I totally agree on that point. It surprises me that loads of other movies released in the '80s look way ahead of their time and don't seem to date at all. Look at the Star Wars saga, Indiana Jones etc. Marginally better to look at because the direction has more depth and is allowed to flow, and they are better films overall.
I think there are several contributing factors to why this is:
-Its easy to judge the quality of an old film from its video/DVD quality. The quality of the Bond VHS titles that MGM released in the mid-late '90s were so staggeringly awful that only with the recent releases of the Ultimate Editions that the films are opened out more with all the special features and the widescreen, but on the down side, they only expose more of actually how awkwardly directed those films were.
-The Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies benefited from THX enhancement when they were re-released on VHS around the same time, because THX has close association with the studios that made them. The Bonds, being MGM, sadly do not.
-In the '80s, there were better action heroes out there that relied on wits rather than merely operating gadgets, and possibly dented 007's credentials. But because they are totally different franchises, and not part of a strict cinematic formula that has been carved out of the past two decades, the producers can tweak the character and not run the risk of critics and fans getting all prickly about it.
On a positive side, the UEs of the Bonds actually show how clever those producers were. The tiger from Octopussy, which looms out of the bushes as a static model, provides a good 'jump-out-of-your-seat' moment because it is totally unexpected. The train sequence with Gobinda and Bond was just made using a roller with railway lines painted on it. Totally old-fashioned, but looks so convincing.
However, I dont think that the film looks that bad, looks better than AVTAK and OP.
Alec Mills (cinematographer) isnt to blame, as TLD had a great creative look about it.
"Better make that two."
It should also be remembered that to save money, as many other studios were doing at the time, LTK was the first Bond not to have the soundstage work done in Pinewood but in Mexico instead. The crew found a building with leaks in the ceiling and a much lower overall quality of equipment than in what they called "glorious Pinewood". While the crew were very complimentary of the work the Mexican soundstage workers did in creating the sets, it is still evident that the sets are far less lavish and convincing, while the facilities only really allowed orthodox, TV style mid-angle camera work. Other films that were shot at the same studios to save money and suffered the same ultimate shortcomings were David Lynch's Dune and Conan the Destroyer.
This is probably why the outdoor set pieces set such a contrast, with Glen proving a reliable set of hands for the water skiing and juggernaut scenes. Though the part in the PTS involving the gunfight with the jeep still looks a bit set up and A Team to me.