I always thought it looked more like a reenactment from America’s Most Wanted or Unsolved Mysteries. Particularly that awful “state of Oregon!” scene in Felix’s hospital room.
And yes, it’s probably the only great finale in 30 years. It’s one of the worst Bond movies for me, but it goes down swinging.
Brilliant!
I have mentioned on here before that I have totally flipped on this movie. For a very long time it was my favourite and then (after 10-15 years) I began to see all the flaws - many of which are noted above by others. For a long time it has been near the bottom of the Bond movies for me and I cannot remember the last time watched it. But there are some great moments nicely highlighted in the fan made trailer and I loved Dalton’s portrayal of Bond here. One key point to remember was the writers strike. While Richard Maibaum is listed as a co-writer, it is my understanding he did not contribute much to the script due to the strike. So essentially we got a Michael G. Wilson script and I think it was in need of a lot of polish. Given that it is the 30th anniversary, I think it’s time for me to give the movie another look and another chance. Cheers
Funnily enough, my opinion of this movie flipped in the opposite direction. As a child and teenager, this movie lacked both the glamour / elegance and the punch of many of its predecessors. GF, YOLT, TSWLM, and MR all wowed me, but LTK felt a bit stale-- boring, no cool set pieces, lame action, and a “TV movie” feel.
With time, though, the movie has shot up tremendously in my rankings. The “this time it’s personal” aspect of the plot feels real and deserved here. The performances are mostly top notch, and the down-to-earth feel of the film contrasts nicely with most of the other entries in the franchise. Also, and I know I am in the minority here, but I LOVE Kamen’s score-- it fits the film perfectly. I’d put LTK just in my top 10 (it had previously been in my bottom 3).
So I finally got around to rewatching License to Kill again for the first time in several years. While I still found flaws in the movie, it was much better than I remembered and Dalton was even better than I thought in this movie (and I always ranked him very highly). Glad I gave it another chance.
Licence to Kill appears to be going down the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service route, aging like fine wine. It’s always been an underrated gem with one of the series’s best villains. Not to mention the way Bond ruins Sanchez by making him distrust all of his confidants is spectacular. It’s always been one of my favorites and I’m glad it’s finally getting the credit it deserves.
It takes hindsight; it takes less-impressive subsequent entries to make it better in comparison. For example, after Win, Lose or Die I didn’t thinks so much of Brokenclaw - until I read the Man From Barbarossa.
The 4 that make up the rest of the 80’s entries are hardly masterpieces…
Tbh, I think the backlash at the time was more a fear that all Bond movies going forward would take this tone, now they clearly havn’t, it’s easier to appreciate LTK as a break from the norm, which works heavily in its favour; “This isn’t Bond’s world” taking such a heavy role in the narrative.
I think the high reception to the Craig era has also made people few the Dalton films, particularly, LTK in a more positive light.
I think what was dark and edgy in 1989 looks surprisingly mainstream 30 years on, especially in light of Craig’s interpretation of Bond. What strikes me most watching recently is how many traditional Bond elements remain in a film that was considered a departure from the formula at the time: a very strong villain (complete with diamond wearing pet lizard no less!) with a penchant for killing his own, some of the most outrageous stunts in ages (the waterskiing behind the plane in particular just oozes Bond) all topped off by a ridiculous hidden villain’s lair that goes up in flames surprisingly easily. Yes, some of the design looks rather cheap, but there is still a really great classic Bond movie behind all the Miami Vice dressing.
I’m not too sure about the argument that it’s aged better because of the poor quality of what followed: Brosnan (though my least favourite Bond) saves the series and Goldeneye remains a 24 karat classic. I just think it has lost much of its shock value and that now leaves the viewer to focus on a great film underpinned by a really strong story and great action.
Kingsley Amis liked the film but not Dalton whom he appears to like even less than Roger Moore. Still thinks highly of Fleming’s novel Casino Royale.
In a 1989 BBC interview, Amis said, “As soon as you start thinking about the present film, which is enjoyable, don’t let me put anybody off it. When it comes around again in the cinemas I’ll be there, I’ll see it several times because it’s rattling good entertainment. But it’s lost the character. [Interviewer asks Amis what he thinks about Dalton] I don’t want to discourage the young man, but I think very ordinary. In a sense, ordinariness is good. The trouble is that Sean Connery was a very difficult act to follow. The way he talked was absurd. Who could take that seriously? The way he moved, he was marvelous when he moved. And Roger Moore was perhaps a bit of a joke in some ways, but he had a certain sort of very nasty, glacial charm. But I don’t think this fellow’s got it… More than once, I found myself saying ‘Oh there he is, he’s carrying a tray of drinks into the nasty men’s conference chamber.’ And it was just an ordinary waiter from the cast. He doesn’t look like anybody in particular. [On Fleming’s Casino Royale] What attracted me was that it was written - and I still say this just as firmly as before - with such distinction, so marvelously, that it carried me away, quite unlike the run-of-the-mill stuff we read by the hundred thousands. I don’t want to get too intellectual, but it’s like something out of Wagner. [[The interviewer asks, ‘And some of that has been translated into the films, you think?’] Very little, and decreasingly, and none at all in this one.”
Bit difficult to understand some of what he says. Slurs his words, you know.
For the full interview… https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p03m0s4c
Sounds like Kingsley Amis.
LTK came out in the summer of 1989. I was turning 14 that October and excited that now aged 13, I could finally see a Bond movie on the big screen!! BUT it turned out to be 15 certificate!!
Have they ever discussed the decision to go with such graphic violence? I get that in general they were competing with the Lethal Weapons, Rambos, Die Hards, Commandos and American Ninjas of the time (although some of the gore is more akin to something out of an Elm Street film), but it’s still quite a decision to go from a two and a half decades of PG rated films to 15+ certificate in the UK and similarly restrictive certificates elsewhere in the world. Perhaps they thought any loss of Box Office in those countries could be compensated by the potential benefits yielded by the new PG-13 certificate in the US, which offered greater latitude for violence whilst theoretically still allowing attendance from a younger audience. If so, ironic that is where the film struggled the most.
At the time in the UK, they brought out a new 12 certificate for the cinema, the first release of this was batman in summer of 1989.
The 12 certificate was not issued for video releases until five years later, so it was a strange set up at first, as a movie was a 12 certificate at the cinema,but a 15 on video, or would be edited from the cinema release and issued as a PG
Yeah, I’m not quite old enough to remember the summer of 89, but I do remember 12 being introduced on video in the mid-90s and films being 15 on video until then. Supposedly they did ask the BBFC if they could secure a 12+ rating with (further) cuts, but the BBFC didn’t think it would be appropriate.
All these years down the line and this coming Sunday, 19th December, ITV are showing this film at lunchtime.
Although firmly of the irrational view that it shouldn’t be shown at any time, I may “tune in” (is this the modern phrase?) to see how much lunchtime carving has had to be done to broadcast this… then.
I’m not following your rationale or intention with this statement, especially as a big fan of LTK personally, and knowing that if you’re on this forum, then you’re a fan of the films. Can you explain? I’m honestly curious. Thanks!
The first time I saw it was taped off an ITV showing in 1999 at about 8pm, and it was more or less completely uncut. More uncut, I would discover a few years later, than any version released in the UK on Home Video or in Cinemas until 2006.