A Review of LTK by JFF
JennyFlexFan
Posts: 1,497MI6 Agent
1. Timothy Dalton as James Bond: One of my biggest problems with this film and "The Living Daylights" is this man playing Bond. He just doesn't cut it: Connery, Moore, and even LAZENBY before him were witty and funny as well as being determined secret agents. Now Timothy Dalton is stiff, cold-blooded, sadistic, and almost evil in this movie and humorless. This man is the worst James Bond to date, he's cold, humorless and doesn't even try to be funny. This is one of my biggest problems with the movie.
2. The Villains (Sanchez, Milton Krest, Killifer, Dario, Heller, Prof. Joe, Truman-Lodge) In this wide-array of henchman, you'd think there would be a plus side. There isn't, these are all the worst villains of all time. Franz Sanchez, measly South American druglord. This is the stereotypical 1980s-cocaine smuggling "let's kill the druglord" movie than Bond. They're the worst-written and aren't unique in any way shape or form (like Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin, Hugo Drax, Alec Trevelyan, Ernst Stavro Blofeld...) larger than life, psychotic, completely unique villains with unique henchman as well! (Oddjob, May Day, Jaws, Xenia Onatopp, Helga Brandt, Irma Bunt) but these villains are average and could be found anywhere (Heller, Truman-Lodge, Dario, and Killifer could be found anywhere, Professor Joe and Krest are a little more interesting but screen time is cut short to the most gruesome death in the Bond series and Joe's screen time is limited as well). Sanchez is my other beef with the film, he's menacing but is merely a small time crook and is not worth going after. I hate him.
3. The plot - Bond's adventures are usually a bit over-the-top and always involve saving the world. Not here. Here we have Bond taking down small time crook Sanchez because he tried to kill Felix Leiter. So, he never had a need to go after Sanchez before but because of Leiter, Dalton gets meaner than he already is and QUITS THE SECRET SERVICE. That's right, quits. In a pointless act of defiance, Bond quits to avenge Leiter and leaves us all not rooting for him or for anybody for the rest of this trainwreck (sorry, I mean film). I'll have to give it to the film, the precredits is mildly exciting but for the rest of the film it's dull-dull-dull. This is meant to be tackled by the US Narcotics Board, not MI6, or the Chinese Narcotics Board (why on earth are the Chinese there in the FIRST PLACE?)
4. The girls - These I actually don't mind (and no, this is not a chauvinistic post on how these women are just lookers). Pam Bouvier is underappreciated (and not the most attractive) because she is probably the most equal to Bond of any woman (because no one saw this film people talk of Wai Lin and putrid Jinx). The woman definitely out-Bond's Bond most of the time, shoots Dario, carries a shotgun, and kicks serious ass. Lupe is okay but I won't waste my time there.
5. The Budget - Probably one of my biggest problems with the film is that I could make it. The money was obviously spent on the precredits sequence.
Dr. No: $1 Million Dollars
A View to a Kill: $30 Million Dollars
Licence to Kill: $12 Dollars
Getting a new Bond to replace putrid Dalton: Priceless
Exactly. This film is so cheap, it's not funny. TLD showed the money onscreen and I could make this movie in my backyard (and I'd get a better cast too). Get this everyone we get a fight scene of course but not just any fight scene... a fight scene in a SLEAZY BAR! Oh, I'm crying by now and I'm sure everyone else is too because we don't get any flashy sports cars in these films, instead we get Tanker Trucks for the finale chase scene/fight scene which seems to go on forever. They really cheaped out with having it being set in South America, getting Bond away from MI6 and using sets from a cancelled FOX TV show. How cheap can you get? Thankfully, next time we'll get a big budget Bond film, the best in the series, GoldenEye.
6. The violence factor - I'm all for action, sometimes bloody deaths, but these are unnecessary. This is the only Bond film to get a 15 over in Europe and it's NOT BOND. Bond has never been the cold-blooded killer type or rugged, ruthless action man. Here are some of the deaths that were UNNECESSARY.
1. The death of Milton Krest: Though unique, this death is probably what earned the film its rating. Sanchez, outraged that Krest is allegedly ripping him off, throws him into a random decompression chamber, cranks up the pressure and cuts the hose so his head can explode. Bloody and unnecessary, plus Sanchez thought that out pretty quickly.
2. The death of Heller: Despite being a crappy villain, Heller is likeable in my eyes and though annoying Bond is right in that Heller is ripping Sanchez off, he pays for it by being impaled on a forklift. Okay, Heller can get impaled on a forklift but what was the use of it randomly driving into the room Pam and Bond were in? It makes no sense.
3. The death of Dario: "You're dead!" "You took the words right outta my mouth!" Good dialogue there, Pam shoots Dario a few times, causing him to lose his balance and falls into the cocaine shredder, getting his legs chopped to bits in the process and having his mangled flesh and blood fly at the camera. Ewww, gross and unnecessary.
This violence is not needed, plus it isn't very Bond-ish. Bond is not about gruesome deaths, he kills when necessary and I don't believe he enjoys it when Dalton seems to almost enjoy the deaths and here's Heller's little witticism.
Pam: Oh my God! It's Heller!
Bond: (stiff as a plank of wood) Yeah, he came to a dead end. Because "He got the point" was already used in Thunderball and it was delivered better by Sean Connery, it worked there so they had to come up with a second-rate "He got the point".
So there you have it, a long list of why LTK is one of the worst Bond films ever. With all these negatives, the only thing positive is Q gets a little more screen time and Pam is a good Bond girl.
2. The Villains (Sanchez, Milton Krest, Killifer, Dario, Heller, Prof. Joe, Truman-Lodge) In this wide-array of henchman, you'd think there would be a plus side. There isn't, these are all the worst villains of all time. Franz Sanchez, measly South American druglord. This is the stereotypical 1980s-cocaine smuggling "let's kill the druglord" movie than Bond. They're the worst-written and aren't unique in any way shape or form (like Auric Goldfinger, Max Zorin, Hugo Drax, Alec Trevelyan, Ernst Stavro Blofeld...) larger than life, psychotic, completely unique villains with unique henchman as well! (Oddjob, May Day, Jaws, Xenia Onatopp, Helga Brandt, Irma Bunt) but these villains are average and could be found anywhere (Heller, Truman-Lodge, Dario, and Killifer could be found anywhere, Professor Joe and Krest are a little more interesting but screen time is cut short to the most gruesome death in the Bond series and Joe's screen time is limited as well). Sanchez is my other beef with the film, he's menacing but is merely a small time crook and is not worth going after. I hate him.
3. The plot - Bond's adventures are usually a bit over-the-top and always involve saving the world. Not here. Here we have Bond taking down small time crook Sanchez because he tried to kill Felix Leiter. So, he never had a need to go after Sanchez before but because of Leiter, Dalton gets meaner than he already is and QUITS THE SECRET SERVICE. That's right, quits. In a pointless act of defiance, Bond quits to avenge Leiter and leaves us all not rooting for him or for anybody for the rest of this trainwreck (sorry, I mean film). I'll have to give it to the film, the precredits is mildly exciting but for the rest of the film it's dull-dull-dull. This is meant to be tackled by the US Narcotics Board, not MI6, or the Chinese Narcotics Board (why on earth are the Chinese there in the FIRST PLACE?)
4. The girls - These I actually don't mind (and no, this is not a chauvinistic post on how these women are just lookers). Pam Bouvier is underappreciated (and not the most attractive) because she is probably the most equal to Bond of any woman (because no one saw this film people talk of Wai Lin and putrid Jinx). The woman definitely out-Bond's Bond most of the time, shoots Dario, carries a shotgun, and kicks serious ass. Lupe is okay but I won't waste my time there.
5. The Budget - Probably one of my biggest problems with the film is that I could make it. The money was obviously spent on the precredits sequence.
Dr. No: $1 Million Dollars
A View to a Kill: $30 Million Dollars
Licence to Kill: $12 Dollars
Getting a new Bond to replace putrid Dalton: Priceless
Exactly. This film is so cheap, it's not funny. TLD showed the money onscreen and I could make this movie in my backyard (and I'd get a better cast too). Get this everyone we get a fight scene of course but not just any fight scene... a fight scene in a SLEAZY BAR! Oh, I'm crying by now and I'm sure everyone else is too because we don't get any flashy sports cars in these films, instead we get Tanker Trucks for the finale chase scene/fight scene which seems to go on forever. They really cheaped out with having it being set in South America, getting Bond away from MI6 and using sets from a cancelled FOX TV show. How cheap can you get? Thankfully, next time we'll get a big budget Bond film, the best in the series, GoldenEye.
6. The violence factor - I'm all for action, sometimes bloody deaths, but these are unnecessary. This is the only Bond film to get a 15 over in Europe and it's NOT BOND. Bond has never been the cold-blooded killer type or rugged, ruthless action man. Here are some of the deaths that were UNNECESSARY.
1. The death of Milton Krest: Though unique, this death is probably what earned the film its rating. Sanchez, outraged that Krest is allegedly ripping him off, throws him into a random decompression chamber, cranks up the pressure and cuts the hose so his head can explode. Bloody and unnecessary, plus Sanchez thought that out pretty quickly.
2. The death of Heller: Despite being a crappy villain, Heller is likeable in my eyes and though annoying Bond is right in that Heller is ripping Sanchez off, he pays for it by being impaled on a forklift. Okay, Heller can get impaled on a forklift but what was the use of it randomly driving into the room Pam and Bond were in? It makes no sense.
3. The death of Dario: "You're dead!" "You took the words right outta my mouth!" Good dialogue there, Pam shoots Dario a few times, causing him to lose his balance and falls into the cocaine shredder, getting his legs chopped to bits in the process and having his mangled flesh and blood fly at the camera. Ewww, gross and unnecessary.
This violence is not needed, plus it isn't very Bond-ish. Bond is not about gruesome deaths, he kills when necessary and I don't believe he enjoys it when Dalton seems to almost enjoy the deaths and here's Heller's little witticism.
Pam: Oh my God! It's Heller!
Bond: (stiff as a plank of wood) Yeah, he came to a dead end. Because "He got the point" was already used in Thunderball and it was delivered better by Sean Connery, it worked there so they had to come up with a second-rate "He got the point".
So there you have it, a long list of why LTK is one of the worst Bond films ever. With all these negatives, the only thing positive is Q gets a little more screen time and Pam is a good Bond girl.
Comments
I personally disagree that the plot and the villains of the film are ineffective; the fact that they are in the drugs business and are absolutely ruthless is a grand example of what the Bond films needed an injection of; realism. These are people who the secret services actually deal with in real life; they are a real threat to people on the streets. If Blofeld walked into a magazine shop with his henchman Hans, you'd just take one look at him and think "Oh, it's just some old fart looking through Gardener's Weekly". Were Sanchez and Dario to walk through the door, you'd damn-well notice it!
The film's plot is great because it's not about following orders or saving the world; it's about good, old-fashioned revenge. Bond throws away his badge (another nice little touch) to avenge his long-time friend Felix Leiter. Seeing Bond on the edge like this is far more effective, and it provides the excuse for violence in the film (which, all things considered, I don't think is that bad). Again, some realism back in the Bond series. Good.
Despite our differing points of view, these things are merely a matter of opinion, without a doubt. If you looked back over threads which have long sank into the depths of AJB, you'd see me bad-mouthing Tomorrow Never Dies any chance I got!
Dalton's portrayal of Bond - darker, more grittily realistic and truer to the original character as portrayed in Fleming's novels - was something of a double-edged sword. Critics and fans of Fleming's original novels welcomed a more serious interpretation after more than a decade of Roger Moore's lighthearted approach but the reaction of Moore aficionados and those who had grown up with Moore as their Bond during his 15 year tenure as well as Sean Connery before him were generally unfamiliar with Ian Fleming's original novels was mixed.
Shows Differnces between The Bonds, The Flims and Fleming's original novels.
(Title Year ,James Bond )
A View to a Kill 1985 Roger Moore
$50,300,000 (U.S. Box Office Gross)
$102,100,000 (Int.,US excluded, Box Office Gross)
$152,400,000 (Total Box Office Gross)
42.9 million (Total Admission)
(Title Year ,James Bond )
Licence to Kill 1989 Timothy Dalton
$34,700,000 (U.S. Box Office Gross)
$121,500,000 (Int.,US excluded, Box Office Gross)
$156,200,000 (Total Box Office Gross)
39.1 million (Total Admission)
At The end A View to a Kill was liked more, by The Americans, than Licence to Kill, which is showed by U.S. Box Office Gross.
But, World Wide, with US excluded, Licence to Kill, was liked more than, A View To A Kill, which is showed by Int., US excluded, Box Office Gross.
Licence to Kill, made more than, A View To A Kill, but, The Total Admission showed Licence to Kill to be low rated, Which is why Licence to Kill is underrated.
The villians? Well, again harkening back to the literary canon, Sanchez was strongly based on the 'real' Pistols Scaramanga in the novel "The Man With the Golden Gun". And Milton Krest was ripped (and elaborated on) from the Fleming's short story "The Hildebrand Rarity" and many of the actual elements of the LTK story are taken from Fleming's "Live and Let Die"
And yes, there are elements that are just, well, silly (your forklift example, for instance) but let's not begin looking too deeply for "non-sensical" elements or we'll have to start disecting the other films too (AVTAK for instance
Your dislike for LTK is understandable from a cinematic standpoint. But from a standpoint of translating Fleming's literary Bond to the screen, I think the film does an incredible job. If your definition of Bond is going to based on what the other films were like, then I suggest you not read the original novels as you may be deeply disappointed.
1. I liked Dalton's interpretation of Bond. I welcome his sobriety which, in my opinion, saved Bond from the silliness of such entries as Octopussy, LALD and TWMTGG. I do prefer TLD to LTK though.
2. It's not correct to say that there are many henchman. There is one henchman (Dario) and the rest are partners in crime. I do agree, though, that Dario makes for a weak henchman. While he lacks the larger-than-life powers of someone like Oddjob, he is also no cold-blooded understated killer (Red Grant, Necros)... This, however, has nothing to do with the number of henchmen.
3. Sanchez, while not the best villain ever, is among the most effective because he is believable. In this he is more like Kristatos than, say, Zorin (and to some of us FYEO is a better movie than AVTAK). For me Sanchez works fine.
4. I agree with you about Pam Bouvier. You can check out other posts of mine, I've always said she was among my favourite girls
In sum:
Dalton's two entries are a deliberate attempt to bring Bond back to earth: to make him a spy in a believable world again. This is a Bond for people who like FRWL better than GF, and FYEO better than AVTAK. Bond actually does covert work. He investigates and cunningly infiltrates the enemy's system (too often, in the larger than life plots, his method is to get himself captured and than work himself out of harm's way)
We must therefore agree to totally disagree (except on the subject of Pam Bouvier who is quite adorable--especially when she's being jealous of Lupe and Q consoles her).
I'm especially a fan of its Greek-ness and its wonderful score.
I agree completely with you darenhat. I have never understood why people think that Bond has this 'joie de vivre'. He may like nice things, enjoy good food and wear nice clothes but he certainly isn't dropping a witty line every other minute. He will make a dry observation or sarcastic comment but the humour is an over development of movie Bond.
But as you rightly say, Dalton has a unique position of being a fabulous Bond and a disappointing Bond. It all depends which side of the fence you sit on.
I think Dalton knew what he was doing and letting himself in for and I think it was a bold move on his behalf.....
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Film/7518/Bond_Eng/Bond_Eng.htm
'If I failed as Bond, I would have been a world famous failure, and I would have been very seriously hurt as an actor for a long time. Much of the public was divided. Some people loved the Connery movies and hated the Moore movies, and some loved the Moore movies and hated the Connery movies, and the fear was that they might have all gotten together and hated me'
( Fabulous interview BTW for anyone who wants to read what Dalton thinks of literary Bond - he knows his stuff and you can see where his portrayal was coming from. He talks alot about CR.)
But back to LTK ... I think you can guess JFF, I disagree with your review but I understand it. I love both Dalton films but today I prefer TLD simple because it is more of a traditional Bond film but I think LTK was a turning point for the series in numerous ways and its importance cannot be understated.
This is why TLD is my favorite of the Bond films, or the reasons that both you and Golrush mention...it made a strong effort to bridge the gap between the cinematic and literal Bond. I will say this, though: I like LTK, and I'm glad it was made, but I couldn't imagine too many films in the 007 canon like it before getting tired of it.
Wow Darenhat, I have never known someone who has TLD as their favorite WTG. Very underrated if you ask me. Deserves a place in history near GF.
Again, I concur. LTK was great but it would have been wrong to carry on in that vein. You only have to look at the Brosnan Bonds to see how boring the whole 'personal' theme became.
LTK gave the series a huge kick but a second one would have been inappropriate. From what I have read of the treatment for the third Dalton film it would have been more along the traditional Bond formula. World domination and robots
I still watch LTK and The Living Daytlights on dvd. Just Awesome movies and Living Daylights is one of the Best Bond Movies ever. But everyone has his/her own Favorite Bond and Favorite movies. To each their Own.
P.S Jenny that was good reading thou. Even if i didn,t agree with most points on the Review, at Least u made the reading interesting. {[]
I agree with you about Tim's one liner delivery. The 'dead end' one was particularly awkward. In a way, I wish they just hadn't bothered with any such lines during his tenure.
The trouble is, I don't think a Bond actor can afford to completely polarise opinion. Connery fans put up with Moore because at least he was entertaining. Moore fans still enjoy Connery because it is difficult to fault his performance. With Dalton it is not difficult to dislike his performance if you enjoy the lighter side of Bond that both the previous encumbents handled well.
Basically Dalton was a Bond for fans of the books which alienates a large amount of the cinema going public..
Thanks Jenny, Glad to see we agree on A View to A Kill.
JFF,
I am curious: just how many of Fleming's novels have you read? If you read any of his novels, you will see that Bond is exactly that.
Also, I can rattle off a number of examples throughout the history of the film franchse pre-Dalton that do indeed portray Bond as you described, and here they are:
* Connery's killing of unarmed Dent in Dr. No
* Connery's slapping around of Tatiana and his down-and-dirty fist fight with Grant in FRWL
* Connery's treatment of the mistress at the beginning of Goldfinger (non-chalantly thrusts her to get beaten by henchman, coldly walks away after he fries the guy in the bathtub)
* Connery's similiar treatment of Volpe in Thunderball, first insulting her, and then thrusting her in front of the bullet meant for him and then coldly joking about her death as he sets her down
* Connery slapping arses in FRWL and Goldfinger (rather barbaric way to behave toward women, wouldn't you agree?)
If these aren't dark, tough, cold-blooded moments, I don't know what is dark, tough, and cold-blooded. The series broke from this after Thunderball and through the Moore movies, and the argument could be made based on Fleming's novels as well as these moments and many other elements of Connery's movies that Moore's country club gentleman, unathletic, lackadaisical, wise-cracking portrayal wasn't a real James Bond. (An argument that I would most certainly agree with) And the series maintained this darker version of Bond to some degree in the Brosnan movies (killing of Trevelyan and beach scene in GoldenEye, hotel room scene while awaiting Paris in TND, numerous scenes in TWINE). This sort of cold-blooded, tough, rugged, darker aspect is a well-established aspect of Bond's character by both Fleming's novels and by numerous films thorughout the franchise from the beginning. The Dalton films in no way were a major departure in this regard: they just chose to focus on it moreso than any of the others.
As far as Dalton being evil is concerned... other than the deeply personal motivation behind the "frying" of Sanchez, what is the difference in "evil," exactly, between it and Brosnan's drop of Trevelyan to his death at the end of GoldenEye?
With this established, I would place Dalton as #2 on the list to Connery in quality of Bonds. (And as much as you won't want to hear this, I would imagine, Moore ranks dead last) He, up to this point, is the closest of any to the pure portrayal of Fleming's Bond, doing the best job of any of portraying all of the aspects we've mentioned above and with an unmatched insensity. He is also a lot better than given credit for in a lot of the other aspects: he has a suave appearance, he wears the suit and tuxes well, he carries himself with a great smoothness and coolness, he is quite intuitive, and he is great with the ladies (he had great, Bond-appropriate chemistry with Milovy, Bouvier, and Lupe).
It seems as though you place a high premium on humor when evaluating Bonds. In my opinion, this is probably the last thing that should be considered when looking at the Bonds. Fleming's character was not a very wise-cracky guy. Connery did this, of course, but he did it to a very non-obnoxious and non-distracting degree. Moore's portrayal basically dependend on wise-cracks, and this is one of the reasons why I would rate him as by far the worst Bond with a very big distance between he and #4 (Lazenby), because it seemed like this was all he was. Dalton didn't have many one liners, and he probably didn't deliver them to the degree that Connery, Moore, and Brosnan did, but this is a very unimportant category to begin with, in my opinion.
As for the film itself, I would say it is probably the most Fleming-like in its tone of any of the films so far (ironic, since it is the first film not to derive its name from a Fleming story, although it borrowed tons from many of his different stories). It is very well-made and very well-acted. The locations are terrific (especially Isthmus), and they add a great dimension to the immense library of escapist locations in the Bond film franchise. It flows very well. The girls are great: Bouvier is cunning, and Lupe is freaking hot. Sanchez is one of the best, most charismatic villains in the series. If you don't like this film, there are probably not a lot of Fleming novels you will like. This one is #7 on my list.
I think you are off base in many of your criticisms. Since when is it a requirement that Bond villains be over-the-top, "larger-than-life," totally unbelievable characters with rediculous plots? A few of these are ok if well-written and well-acted (like Auric Goldfinger, who is the best), but part of what makes a Bond movie great is having a believable, intriguing villain. Sanchez is this to a large degree, and Davi does a terrific job. I generally regard henchman as sideshows who just do their job and don't have much of an impact: Grant and Oddjob are the two exceptions.
As far as the plot is concerned, again: what is wrong with realism? What is wrong with showing Bond as a complex human character who goes after the guy who tried to kill the man who had long been established as effectively his best friend? He went after Blofeld on a personal vendetta after he killed Tracy in OHMSS, so why not his best friend? I would say that frustration over the fact that no one will do anything to take down the attempted murderer of your best friend, and not being allowed to do anything about it, would be reason enough to resign and go after him. And why are the Chinese there? Because Sanchez's coke is going into their country.
As far as the budget is concerned, if budget is the determination of a great Bond movie, then that must mean that Die Another Day is the best Bond movie. I'm sure the vast majority of Bond fans and analysts would disagree with that assertion. The quality of a movie has zip to do with the budget. Period. You are WAY off base in this criticism, IMO.
As far as violence is concerned... again, it really doesn't appear as though you have read much of Fleming's novels, especially not Casino Royale. The violence in LTK is perfectly founded in Fleming's tradition and in the tradition of some of the more disturbingly violent scenes in the film series. You're rather off base yet again here, IMO.
As far as Dalton enjoying the killing... I really don't get a sense of that. He probably got a sense of satisfaction from killing Sanchez a bit, but then again, I would probably get the same from killing the guy who tried to murder my best friend.
True,then again in LTK so was Sanchez--in fact,he was coming at Bond with a machete intent on killing him while Bond was badly wounded and literally unarmed.007 had no gun or other corresponding weapon.
Accordingly,Bond used the only "weapon" available to him--the cigarette lighter presented to him at the start of the film by Felix and Della Leiter.It was planted in the story for a reason and given to 007 in a moment we should all remember.It had already been established in the story as having a short flint and high flame.It was going to reappear in the story eventually, otherwise it never would've been in it at all.This is called foreshadowing.
Bond struck back in self defense against Sanchez with the only object available.Had Sanchez not accidentally been drenched in gasoline,he'd have happily killed 007.
Like nearly all of the Bond villains,Sanchez is a dangerous man but he's also something coward.He hires other people to kill for him.He'll take advantage of a situation where he can kill an injured and unarmed opponent.He won't pause and wait for an adversary to become armed and present a threat to him.
There are no rules of conduct to follow when fighting for your life.
And yes,Sanchez's death is an ugly one.It's not neat and clean like one in a videogame, or as a single shot to the head or body(and in real life those are pretty ugly),nor was he thrown down from a high place(that's ugly,too--the body usually splatters).But if ever a villain should fry so spectacularly it's one who has people gang-raped,fed to sharks,their hearts cut out, and happily produces a dangerously addictive drug designed to destroy the lives of countless people all over the world.He's a mass murderer and immolation is exactly what he deserves...
As for Dent?He had his chance to kill 007 and failed,and Bond wasn't about to give him a second one.
Director Terence Young insisted on this sequence--noting of James Bond that,"We must never forget that this man is an executioner,and we must never forget that."
He was as unflappable as Bond.
LTK - I really could give two Hoot-nannys it didn't rake in as much as Keaton's Batman or Willis' Die Hard. Big whoop. Some take the financial side of these things way too seriously. As if profit equals quality. Success is certainly needed but it never measures up the definition of a production.
As for Dalton's portrayal, he's an anti-hero. (as Fleming envisioned) That rare protagonist who's faults and character make you wonder who's side he really is on, while you're secretly rooting for him regardless.
Dent's Smith and Wesson was empty. Therefore, I would consider him effectively unarmed and Connery's killing of him to be rather brutal.
I was about to post a long response to the anti-LTK rant that probably would have gotten me banned for flaming, but it accidentally got wiped out. But your post covers it a lot more civilly than I would have.
The only thing I have a slight disagreement with you on is best Bond. I have Dalton at #1 and Connery at #2. {[]
let's all sip a vodka martini and relax. I too belong to the Pro-Dalton crowd (as you can ascertain, if you check my posts earlier in this thread and throughout the forum); JennyFlexFan is a member of the opposing party and his opinions are -- how shall I put it? -- highly contentious. But they are very civilly put, and from what I've read in other threads, well-meant.
In other words, he is not the enemy and there's no need to douse him in gasoline and light him up).
Dalton made a great Bond because he took a deliberate and difficult decision. It's in the nature of such decisions that they will be loved by some and hated by others, and I'm sure the makers of LTK realised they were taking a risk.
They get my vote, and I'm glad to see that many here feel the same way I do.
But the fact that the film is not unanimously liked also confirms that it was a courageous step, it took Bond in a new and risky direction.