A James Bond Fan Reviews the Franchise

[Starkers]

I quite liked The Living Daylights. License To Kill, not so much.

LTK was more like an ep of Miami Vice. Loved The Living Daylights.

LTK just feels one of the more dated Bond films to be, very much a product of its era. I can understand why they wanted to make it like a Lethal Weapon or similar action film (same as I understand the producers making the Craig films Bourne like) but I think they went a touch too far. Still a good film but not a Bond I rewatch as often as some others.

 

[Orcus]

I quite liked The Living Daylights. License To Kill, not so much.

LTK was more like an ep of Miami Vice. Loved The Living Daylights.

Yes. Yes it is. In fact the only thing that stopped me from tearing the VT from the cassette in frustration was the fact that Licence to Kill is Q's finest hour - he has a ball in this film...

 

[Admiral Shran]

License to Kill (****½)

Is this James Bond meets Miami Vice? Well, yes it is. But, I didn't hold it against Live and Let Die for being Bond meets blaxploitation, so I don't hold this against this one. After all, it's not as if the movies haven't been incorporating other aspects of contemporary pop culture.

I really like this movie. In fact, I'm very tempted to give it another five-star rating, but there is one thing about it I can't stand (more on that later) and a few other small things. First, what did I like....

I'm loving Dalton's portrayal of Bond, more here than even in The Living Daylights. Not only is it good to see Bond in a non-job, non-romance related activity (Felix's wedding), but this is one seriously angry and cynical man! And it's so believable. I can definitely see how an attack on Leiter, his best friend, would bring all those emotions bubbling to the surface. In fact, Bond's whole motivation during this movie is very believable. After what happened to Tracy, I can easily understand why the rape and death of Felix's wife would send Bond over the edge in a quest for vengeance. On top of that, we see the brutal, cold-blooded Bond again, such as when he feeds the corrupt DEA agent to a shark.

There's also an excellent villain in Sanchez. I mean, when the first scene with him involves him brutally whipping a woman, how can you not tell that this is not a man to mess with. Robert Davi delivers his usual great performance and makes Sanchez very menacing, even if he wears stuff like this....

A pink shirt?! Truly this man is evil!

Both Bond Girls are top-notch. We have a typical damsel-in-distress in Lupe; and I have to admit that I have fondness for damsels-in-distress. We also have a great character in Pam Bouvier. Cary Lowell plays her with just the right balance of femininity and toughness. She's clearly just as capable as Bond and doesn't need to rely on him, yet doesn't feel the need to lord that fact over Bond's head. Very nice. And, Cary Lowell is giving Lois Chiles a run for the most attractive Bond Girl thus far.

And, of course, I have to mention Q. This is the movie where I feel that the "bromance" between him and Bond comes to full fruition. Q may have tracked down Bond because Moneypenny asked him to, but there is a definite feeling that he would have done it anyway because he cares for Bond so much. Not only is he willing to put his career on the line for his friend, but his life as well, insisting that he stay and help whenever Bond tells him to leave. Though, I have say, I think it would have been better if Lupe ended up with him instead of the president. I mean come on, can't Q get a little action?

Some other little things.... The humor is pretty good ("I hope you don't snore Q."). The action is also pretty well done, even if it gets a little unbelievable in the final sequence with the semi trucks. And there's M. He may be a hardass in this movie, but he has good reasons to be - Bond is defying orders, going on a personal quest for revenge and putting three cases at risk.

So what's wrong with the film? Well, mainly it's that some of the supporting actors aren't all that great - namely Benicio del Toro and Wayne Newton. I've never been a fan of del Toro's work and his acting here is just awful. Though, the character isn't all that great to start with. You know, telling a woman holding a gun on you that she's dead while you're on your knees with a knife isn't exactly the smartest thing I've ever seen. And Wayne Newton = why? Just why?

Also, while I do appreciate that they brought back David Hedison as Felix Leiter so his injury would have more meaning for the audience, why didn't they just use the same actor from The Living Daylights? Finally, the opening title song isn't all that great, but it's balanced out by a very good end titles one.

I don't understand why this movie did so poorly at the box office and with audiences in general, even to this day. Based on what I know of the novels, it seems like this movie is very much in keeping with them. It's a shame that Timothy Dalton was essentially forced out of the franchise, as these two movies are excellent.

That's Amore: 40
Bond slept with Lupe and Pam Bouvier.

Body Count: 230 (+10)

Redshirt Sidekicks: 8

 

[Andrew_Kearley]

It's actually a very gritty thriller that works very well on its own. There are some very good action set pieces. And the idea, Bond going out on a limb for personal vengeance, there's nothing wrong with that. It just seems so... mundane, samey, not exotic and spectacular and interesting and well, classy, in the way that I would expect Bond films to be. That's my real problem with it. The plot derives from various bits of Fleming they hadn't managed to use in other films yet - Felix thrown in the shark tank comes from Live and Let Die; the Milton Krest character comes from The Hildebrand Rarity (as does his habit of whipping his wife with a stingray's tail, although they've transferred that to Sanchez here); and the main plot: Bond ingratiating himself into the organization of a pretty third-rate thug, before finally fighting him man-to-man in the aftermath of a massive vehicular crash, is lifted out of The Man With the Golden Gun. Actually, in many ways, it's more like a Mission: Impossible film than a Bond film, especially the way Krest is set up. A better Mission film than the Tom Cruise ones anyway. Maybe that's why they cast Anthony Zerbe as Krest. Maybe not... Dalton seems to have adopted a curious Northern accent though!

 

[Evil Twin]

Meh, I'd give LTK 3 stars tops. 4 1/2 is too generous. Just feels too much like a generic 80's action film and not enough like a Bond film. And yeah, the supporting cast is pretty damn lousy.

One little thing that annoys me is Dalton's hair. It looked fine in TLD but he's got some serious widow's peak action going on in LTK, especially during the casino scenes.

 

[SchwEnt]

Ehh, I just don't get it.

When Bond goes into outer space to battle villains or tangles with supermen, it's dismissed as too ridiculous.
But then when he confronts a more realistic bad guy, like a drug lord, then it's condemned as too mundane or typical of other movies.
Can't please anyone!

And when Dalton takes on a more serious Bond, no-nonsense, brutal, all business, deadly serious and dangerous... he gets flak for being humorless.
Yet when Craig takes Bond in a similar direction, he gets rave reviews. Huh?

I don't know. I think LTK is fine. Yeah, lacking in some areas but I enjoyed this more dangerous approach to Bond overall.

And it didn't do too well for a couple reasons not concerning the film directly itself.
It was a summer release, which is unusual for 007.
Most Bond films come out in fall/winter.
The studio marketing and promotion was weak.
And of course, that summer was the summer of Batman and Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon and some other big big hits. Fairly formidable competition. Bond didn't fare too well (and neither did TFF, for that matter).

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Bond movies were usually released during the summer back then. It's only been since LTK didn't hold its own opposite Batman etc that they moved them to the autumn, where they've generally done better.

And yes, LTK was unlucky to go up against Batman, which crushed most movies in its wake, even should've-been-hits like STV:TFF and Ghostbusters.

I liked this movie a lot but it it hasn't aged terribly well. Nonetheless, Dalton is excellent as is Davi and there are some great action scenes and memorable Bond-Q interaction. I agree that the Leiter from TLD should've returned (Jack's dad in Lost, IIRC) - he and Dalton were closer in age and it would've been more believable for Bond to be his best man. Not to mention he would have been closer in age to his wife; why did Felix age by 20-odd years in two years?!

Shame Dalton was forced out. I do prefer Brosnan but Dalton could have fitted another couple of movies in before Brosnan could've replaced him.

My theory for some time has been that Quantum Of Solace, like LTK, overplayed the strengths of its predecessor. Each was preceded by a brand new actor, much grittier than his predecessor and was acclaimed as an improvment on the OTT last outing for the previous actors. However, both LTK and QOS probably overdid it on the grittiness and could have used more Bond traditional humour and spectacle. Just as many say that LTK is like a generic 80s action movie or episode of Miami Vice, in years to come QOS will probably be viewed as little different from Bourne and other shaky-cam action movies.

 

[Evil Twin]

I agree that the Leiter from TLD should've returned (Jack's dad in Lost, IIRC)

Holy shit, that was John Terry! I'll have to go rewatch those scenes now. Never realized that before.

"Dad?!"
"Hey, kiddo."

 

[scotpens]

. . . Just as many say that LTK is like a generic 80s action movie or episode of Miami Vice, in years to come QOS will probably be viewed as little different from Bourne and other shaky-cam action movies.

That's how a lot of people see it now.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

License to Kill (****½)

Is this James Bond meets Miami Vice? Well, yes it is. But, I didn't hold it against Live and Let Die for being Bond meets blaxploitation, so I don't hold this against this one. After all, it's not as if the movies haven't been incorporating other aspects of contemporary pop culture.

I really like this movie. In fact, I'm very tempted to give it another five-star rating, but there is one thing about it I can't stand (more on that later) and a few other small things. First, what did I like....

I'm loving Dalton's portrayal of Bond, more here than even in The Living Daylights. Not only is it good to see Bond in a non-job, non-romance related activity (Felix's wedding), but this is one seriously angry and cynical man! And it's so believable. I can definitely see how an attack on Leiter, his best friend, would bring all those emotions bubbling to the surface. In fact, Bond's whole motivation during this movie is very believable. After what happened to Tracy, I can easily understand why the rape and death of Felix's wife would send Bond over the edge in a quest for vengeance. On top of that, we see the brutal, cold-blooded Bond again, such as when he feeds the corrupt DEA agent to a shark.

There's also an excellent villain in Sanchez. I mean, when the first scene with him involves him brutally whipping a woman, how can you not tell that this is not a man to mess with. Robert Davi delivers his usual great performance and makes Sanchez very menacing, even if he wears stuff like this....

A pink shirt?! Truly this man is evil!

Both Bond Girls are top-notch. We have a typical damsel-in-distress in Lupe; and I have to admit that I have fondness for damsels-in-distress. We also have a great character in Pam Bouvier. Cary Lowell plays her with just the right balance of femininity and toughness. She's clearly just as capable as Bond and doesn't need to rely on him, yet doesn't feel the need to lord that fact over Bond's head. Very nice. And, Cary Lowell is giving Lois Chiles a run for the most attractive Bond Girl thus far.

And, of course, I have to mention Q. This is the movie where I feel that the "bromance" between him and Bond comes to full fruition. Q may have tracked down Bond because Moneypenny asked him to, but there is a definite feeling that he would have done it anyway because he cares for Bond so much. Not only is he willing to put his career on the line for his friend, but his life as well, insisting that he stay and help whenever Bond tells him to leave. Though, I have say, I think it would have been better if Lupe ended up with him instead of the president. I mean come on, can't Q get a little action?

Some other little things.... The humor is pretty good ("I hope you don't snore Q."). The action is also pretty well done, even if it gets a little unbelievable in the final sequence with the semi trucks. And there's M. He may be a hardass in this movie, but he has good reasons to be - Bond is defying orders, going on a personal quest for revenge and putting three cases at risk.

So what's wrong with the film? Well, mainly it's that some of the supporting actors aren't all that great - namely Benicio del Toro and Wayne Newton. I've never been a fan of del Toro's work and his acting here is just awful. Though, the character isn't all that great to start with. You know, telling a woman holding a gun on you that she's dead while you're on your knees with a knife isn't exactly the smartest thing I've ever seen. And Wayne Newton = why? Just why?

Also, while I do appreciate that they brought back David Hedison as Felix Leiter so his injury would have more meaning for the audience, why didn't they just use the same actor from The Living Daylights? Finally, the opening title song isn't all that great, but it's balanced out by a very good end titles one.

I don't understand why this movie did so poorly at the box office and with audiences in general, even to this day. Based on what I know of the novels, it seems like this movie is very much in keeping with them. It's a shame that Timothy Dalton was essentially forced out of the franchise, as these two movies are excellent.

That's Amore: 40
Bond slept with Lupe and Pam Bouvier.

Body Count: 230 (+10)

Redshirt Sidekicks: 8

I love the title song, so I'm going to post the video:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txf3A8-QAaw&feature=fvst[/yt]

 

[Starkers]

Bloody hell I never knew it was Jack's dad...but now it seems really obvious!

As for LTK...its difficult to exactly put my finger on what's wrong with it. Is it too gritty and too real world? Possibly, but this is lessoned by having a made up country and el Presidente. I do like it, I'd just rather it wasn't so much of an American action film. I'm not overly keen on Lupe or Pam either if I'm honest, neither are terrible, but neither seem that memorable.

I often wonder if the fact that this Bond film was filmed totally overseas gave it a different vibe somehow? Still, full of great scenes- the pre title sequence, Bond escaping Krest with all the money, the finale on the tanker trucks...there's just something off about the film, but for the life of me I can't think what it is.

Gotta love Dalton going all Derbyshire though... "Thing's were about to turn nas'ty." and the hair, dear God what went wrong with his hair!

I sometimes think I'm the only person in the world who actually likes QoS

 

[Saga]

I sometimes think I'm the only person in the world who actually likes QoS

not so. i like QoS just fine.

 

[Skywalker]

I like QoS, but I'll save my comments on it until after Admiral Shran reviews it.

As for Licence to Kill, I don't think it's a bad movie at all, it's just so generic and bland. It felt more like a standard action movie than a spy thriller. As a movie on its own I'd give it a "good" rating, but as a Bond movie I'd put it somewhere between "above-average" and "good."

It's a shame this was Dalton's last Bond movie, though, because I really enjoyed his take on the character. It's too bad Roger Moore didn't decide to retire from the role after For Your Eyes Only, maybe then Dalton could have taken over sooner and done a couple more movies.

 

[Admiral Shran]

And of course, that summer was the summer of Batman and Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon and some other big big hits.

Well, that explains why it didn't do too well at the box office.

But I still don't get why a lot of people, friends of mine included, are so cool towards it. I'm glad to see some others here like it, so I won't say it's another of the franchise's red-headed step-children, but based on some of the things I've heard people say about it you would think it was horrible.

 

[Harvey]

I like LICENSE to KILL, but it does get bogged down a little bit when Wayne Newton is on screen. Still, it's a shame Dalton wasn't able to star in GOLDENEYE.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I like LICENSE to KILL, but it does get bogged down a little bit when Wayne Newton is on screen.

'Hello Newman'

'Hello Jimmy.'

Hmmm, could work.

Still, it's a shame Dalton wasn't able to star in GOLDENEYE.

I disagree. I would have liked to see Dalton in a third Bond movie but I think Brosnan was perfect for that particular movie at that particular time.

 

[Starkers]

I like LICENSE to KILL, but it does get bogged down a little bit when Wayne Newton is on screen.

'Hello Newman'

'Hello Jimmy.'

Hmmm, could work.

Still, it's a shame Dalton wasn't able to star in GOLDENEYE.

I disagree. I would have liked to see Dalton in a third Bond movie but I think Brosnan was perfect for that particular movie at that particular time.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I agree, Brosnan and Goldeneye was a perfect fit.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Goldeneye (***½)

Pierce Brosnan is off to a very good start with this film.

It's definitely a return to a less gritty style of Bond than was offered during Timothy Dalton's era, but I certainly don't hold that against the movie. Here we have an almost perfect blend of action, comedy, and seriousness - the best blending of these different aspects since For Your Eyes Only.

Of course, the biggest thing to talk about is Brosnan himself. He plays Bond very, very well. He incorporates all the best aspects of the previous actors (Connery's toughness, Lazenby's compassion, Moore's cultured sophistication and Dalton's seriousness). In addition, he adds a new dimension to the character - smoothness. Seriously, this man is smoother than a newborn baby's ass wrapped in a silk diaper squared. He can kick ass when needed (and the wonderful action sequences bear that out), be gentle when the situation calls for it, be serious and self-reflective (such as the scene on the beach before they fly to Cuba) and be brutal/coldblooded (the death of Trevelyan). Very well done.

Other things I liked - there's a good balance between the humor and the action, it's good to see Q joking around with Bond (more so than ever before), and the villains are all wonderfully well done. Sean Bean in particular plays Trevelyan perfectly - a wonderful antagonist for Bond.

And of course, there's Natalya. A very well acted, well portrayed Bond Girl. Not only is she very attractive, I'd say she's the most developed and fully fleshed out one thus far. She has many of the qualities of Cary Lowell's Bond Girl from License to Kill (being capable of holding her own and not being a typical damsel-in-distress). However, since she's a simple computer programmer, and not an agent, she often times gets in over her head and has to rely on Bond. The result is a very nice combination of an innocent, inexperienced Bond Girl with a modern woman. Very nice. Also, even though she is very attractive, I wouldn't say I find her the sexiest Bond Girl. She is, however, undoubtedly my favorite one overall thus far (and, I'm willing to predict, of all Bond Girls).

So, why ***½ and not higher. Well, there are a few things that hold it back. First, Bond is again acting more like a commando than an intelligence operative, especially in the pre-credits sequence. Why would two spys be sent into the U.S.S.R to destroy a factory? That's something for the special forces to do, not the intelligence community. Second, we seem to have a lot more gadgets than normal. Now, I like Bond Gadgets, but here we seem to be focusing too much on them. One of the reasons I started these reviews was because I felt I had been too hard on Brosnan's movies before, and I'll admit that this is one reason. Lay off the gadgets.

Finally, some of the supporting characters really annoy me. All of the actors are fine and deliver wonderful performances with what they're given, so please don't think I'm criticizing them. It's the characters I have a problem with. Onatopp, Ourumov, Zukovsky, and Boris are all pretty good. M, Moneypenny and Wade, however, are not.

M - Before you say it, I don't have a problem with M being a woman. My problem is that she is so antagonistic to Bond, really for no reason. What was the point? It destroys the whole Bond/M relationship that has been established. It's one thing to push Bond hard, like M has always done. It's another to act like "I don't care if you always get the job done. I don't like you because you're a misogynist." When has Bond ever shown a hatred of women? And even though she dislikes being thought of as an accountant, that's exactly what she appears to be.

Moneypenny - Moneypenny is a one note character. Without her unrequited love for Bond, there is no point in having her in the movie. Yet, Goldeneye jettisons that relationship and makes her more condescending toward Bond. Why? If it was simply to modernize the character, I have to say "mission failed." Simply being antagonistic for the sake of it doesn't make a character more appealing.

Wade - He's no Felix Leiter. In fact, he's simply a stereotypical American, i.e. an elephant in a glass shop. Could have done without him.

So, overall, the problems with this movie are things that are outside Brosnan's control. In fact, if there had been fewer less likable characters, he could have pulled the film's rating even higher.

That's Amore: 42
Bond slept with his MI6 psychologist (damn that's hot) and Natalya Simonova.

Body Count: 264 (+34)
Again, that's all I can be sure of. More had to be killed when Bond blew up the factory and the antenna's control room.



P.S. - You know, this movie would probably make a very good video game. Someone ought to look into that.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Almost forgot....

Rush, or I guess I should say St. William, what was the story you wanted to tell about Goldeneye?

 

[Captaindemotion]

Goldeneye was just the right movie at the right time with the right actor. After LTK's poor performance and with franchises like Batman making the big bucks, then True Lies' hugely successful Bond pastiche, many thought that old Jimmy was toast. I mean, who needs James Bond after the cold war is over, right?

Eon approached Mel Gibson, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes and Hugh Grant(!) for the main role but all declined, save Fiennes, whose take on the role was deemed too Dalton-esque and wasn't pursued any further. So when a washed-up tv actor was cast, along with a director whose last movie, No Escape, wasn't exactly Die Hard, nobody expected to be murmuring 'Oh James!' during Goldeneye.

But - it was a blinder. Brosnan fit the role like he fitted his tuxedo. One of the best opening sequences for years. One of the best ever Bond girls (and is it any wonder that Jansen is one of the few Bond girls to have a successful post-007 career?). A villain who gave Bond the toughest run for his money since Red Grant in FRWL. And, instead of the usual no-name supporting cast, some genuine actors. Coltrane, Minnie Driver, Joe Don Baker (who had been another character in TLD but was renewing his connection with his Edge of Darkness director, Martin Campbell), Sean Bean and, best of all, Judi Dench, reflecting Stella Remington's real life M.

Goldeneye was a real populist Bond movie, ticking all the boxes, giving you everything you expected and wanted, but with just enough of a twist (or a shake?). A baddie who had a genuine reason to hate the UK, a reference to Bond as a cold war relic and a Bond girl challenging him on his attitude to life ('It's what keeps me alive.' - 'It's what keeps you ALONE!').

Oh, and a washed up tv actor who just happened to be the best 007 since Connery and who managed to brilliantly blend all the best bits of his predecessor.