SPECTRE Review Thread

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

.... Wow, so Licence to Kill almost became Dalton's Quantum of Solace?

No.
I didn't say that.
Licence To Kill, even in its compromised and badly flawed final form is so far above Quantum of Solace there is no comparison. None.

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Yeah, there's some silly stuff in it (normally I love ninjas but wtf are they doing in this movie) but it sounds like overall Wilson saved it from being a real wrist-slasher.

No.
I didn't say that.
Maibaum's draft wasn't a wrist-slasher. It may have had his usual brand of ironic humor, but it was never silly or campy or cartoonish. Wilson threw a lot of stuff in -- like ninjas -- without regard for continuity, narrative flow, logic or common sense.

Originally Posted by Infernal King

P.S. Q also complained about being in the field in You Only Live Twice and pretty much complains about it every other time he's in the field. So yeah, his appearances in the field in the 60s films do count, even though you seem to think the Bond films from that decade are flawless and the later ones couldn't have more faults.

No.
I didn't say that, and that's not what I think.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

No.
I didn't say that.
Maibaum's draft wasn't a wrist-slasher. It may have had his usual brand of ironic humor, but it was never silly or campy or cartoonish. Wilson threw a lot of stuff in -- like ninjas -- without regard for continuity, narrative flow, logic or common sense.

There's always room for ninja's.

[Richard--W]

Message for you Kryptonic:

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Xenia

I understand that but the 007 films have been, up until Barbara got ahold of the series, "mentertainment" if you will. Male fantasy stuff.

The novels were too but to a lesser extent whereas Bond was more overtly sexist

My parents wouldn't let me see Bond films when I was a kid. Nor would they let me read the novels. I had an aunt who told me she loved the books and reassured my parents they wouldn't do me any harm. They still said no, but my aunt snuck some of the paperbacks into my suitcase when we left. Later, another aunt, on the other side of the family, told my parents how much she enjoyed OHMSS and recommended that they let the boys see it. We didn't, but when the double-feature re-releases came around in the summer of 1970, and again in 1971, I was there.

Women do read the Bond novels. Ian Fleming provided a fantasy for women readers, too. Women always share in the adventure in a Bond novel. Women were always a major part of the audience when I started going to Bond films in 1970. Just because the James Bond films are male lead stories doesn't mean they are exclusively "mentertainment" anymore than female lead stories are exclusively for women. Women have always enjoyed the Bond films, too.

Despite a few provocative moments the 1960s Bond films were not misogynistic. Misogyny does not enter the series until Diamonds Are Forever in 1971.

Barbara Broccoli has changed the tone of series drastically. It is fanatical male-bashing now, much worse than the misogyny of the 1970s. However, audiences have changed. The current audience thinks its normal for a 40-year-old spy to be followed around the globe by his nagging scolding M who gives him on-the-job training in how to be a better man and a kinder gentler spy. This is the same audience who sits through high school and college classes on how to behave with the opposite sex. We didn't need that in the 1960s.

[Kevin Holly]

Best Film: License to Kill (flaws? that film has no flaws!)
Best Bond: Dalton
Worst Film: Die Another Day
Worst Bond: Brosnan

And there is no misogyny in any Bond film. Guinea Pig is a misogynistic film.

[Xenia]

Licence to Kill feels far too much like another episode of Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon with its bad lighting and made for TV look to be the best Bond film of the series. Dalton's hair during the casino scene alone should dethrone it from the top spot. I still like the movie quite a bit, Dalton is still good, but it often loses that Bond feel in favor of a Miami Vice feel. And Michael Kamen's score sucks.

The Living Daylights >>>> Licence to Kill.

But of course, all of this is my opinion.

[V2David]

Originally Posted by Xenia

Licence to Kill feels far too much like another episode of Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon with its bad lighting and made for TV look to be the best Bond film of the series. Dalton's hair during the casino scene alone should dethrone it from the top spot. I still like the movie quite a bit, Dalton is still good, but it often loses that Bond feel in favor of a Miami Vice feel. And Michael Kamen's score sucks.

The Living Daylights >>>> Licence to Kill.

But of course, all of this is my opinion.

I agree -- I much prefer The Living Daylights to License to Kill. TLD feels like a classic Bond movie. Licence to Kill is just another episode of Miami Vice.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Xenia

Licence to Kill feels far too much like another episode of Miami Vice or Lethal Weapon with its bad lighting and made for TV look to be the best Bond film of the series. Dalton's hair during the casino scene alone should dethrone it from the top spot. I still like the movie quite a bit, Dalton is still good, but it often loses that Bond feel in favor of a Miami Vice feel. And Michael Kamen's score sucks.

The Living Daylights >>>> Licence to Kill.

But of course, all of this is my opinion.

An astute and observant post. The score and photography are the worst in the series. Except for one stunt, on the water, the direction is lazy bordering on inept, but there is a good story at the core of the mess. Even the makeup and wardrobe are inattentive, to say the least. Yet despite it's flaws and technical incompetence, there is much to enjoy in Licence to Kill. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an episode of Miami Vice; there isn't any neon or cool acqua colors. But the influence is definitely there.

I like the tone of the film, Dalton's performance with his obsessive drive to get Sanchez.

[AKORIS]

I prefer License To Kill over Living Daylights but I agree that it's a different tone than most Bond films (like QOS with Daniel Craig). It still has plenty of classic James Bond theme music to remind you of what series you're watching...

[Kevin Holly]

I didn't realize that feeling like Miami Vice was a bad thing now

That's what makes it so great! Sometimes, when a Bond film rips off a trend of its day, it sucks (Moonraker). Sometimes, it works (Licence to Kill, Live and Let Die).

But The Living Daylights is also incredible

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

I didn't realize that feeling like Miami Vice was a bad thing now

That's what makes it so great! Sometimes, when a Bond film rips off a trend of its day, it sucks (Moonraker). Sometimes, it works (Licence to Kill, Live and Let Die).

But The Living Daylights is also incredible

Have you even seen Miami Vice

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Message for you Kryptonic:

I'm all for a wide variety of opinions, but saying that what is clearly one of the better films in the franchise, if not one of the best, is the absolute worst in a franchise that includes Die Another Day and Diamonds are Forever, is absolutely ridiculous and worthy of the best gif. available.

[Xenia]

I love Diamonds Are Forever, personally. Manky's script is witty as all get out and Connery's performance is sardonic, aloof, and fitting.

It's a hilarious darkly comedic film with a sense of danger that lurks around every corner. Let's not forget Barry's score either.

[StingingVelvet]

Licence to Kill is a lot like Quantum of Solace to me. It's a very "un-Bond" Bond film, and doesn't have the usual charm and fun. That said I think it's an underrated film, and far better than Moore's last movie.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Licence to Kill is a lot like Quantum of Solace to me. It's a very "un-Bond" Bond film, and doesn't have the usual charm and fun. That said I think it's an underrated film, and far better than Moore's last movie.

License to Kill is what Quantum of Solace wishes it was. It is my favorite Bond right behind Casino Royale. As you can see, it is a divisive film.

[nashcameronn]

I wonder how much gadgetry this movie will have. My guess is not much. Skyfall poked fun at the use of gadgets and none of Craig's Bonds have really had them. Probably aren't too fitting in the new style of Bond anyway.

[Xenia]

Originally Posted by nashcameronn

I wonder how much gadgetry this movie will have. My guess is not much. Skyfall poked fun at the use of gadgets and none of Craig's Bonds have really had them. Probably aren't too fitting in the new style of Bond anyway.

They'll probably go the route of "down to earth but practical" gadgets such as the PPK in Skyfall. I really liked that gadget, liked how it was used (or not used, by the henchman), and I'm hoping they go that direction again. Short sweet and simple.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by singhcr

License to Kill is what Quantum of Solace wishes it was. It is my favorite Bond right behind Casino Royale. As you can see, it is a divisive film.

I think of Licence to Kill as the last authentic Bond film, flaws and all.

Brosnan surprised me and took good care of the character, however, insofar as EON let him. I wish that Casino Royale had been done differently with Brosnan in the lead. Ian Fleming's story is strong enough to support a film that plays the scene. Brosnan earned that film and they slammed the door on him.

They're making something else now.

[Kevin Holly]

Given that Brosnan, as a comparatively older man, made an incredibly badass and good spy film just this year, I suspect that his castrated, bawlderized, worthless Bond was more due to executive meddling than any fault of his own.

He just had the misfortune of being the age to play Bond during the era when they thought it might be better if Bond was a kitten.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by Kevin Holly

Given that Brosnan, as a comparatively older man, made an incredibly badass and good spy film just this year, I suspect that his castrated, bawlderized, worthless Bond was more due to executive meddling than any fault of his own.

He just had the misfortune of being the age to play Bond during the era when they thought it might be better if Bond was a kitten.

That wasn't Brosnan's fault.

Actors are the hired help. They don't write the scripts or make production decisions. Their job is to put across the story and the character. The Bond films are essentially producer's films. Creative control is in the producer's hands, even when they don't make a point of it. If the producers say you have to put on a clown face and baggy pants, then you point on a clown face and baggy pants. If the producers say you're going to be excoriated, humiliated and degraded then you're going to be excoriated, humiliated and degraded. If they're going to turn your character into a wus and give you a geriatric female lead, then you do your best with it. Brosnan was hired by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson in 1994 when Barbara took over as controlling producer. She started to impose her agenda on the series with Goldeneye (1995). If anything, her agenda has become more prevalent with each successive film. Fans respond to the action and to the bells & whistles, but they don't look too closely at the underlying meaning of Bab's Bond films, which frankly is getting uglier and uglier.

Brosnan didn't get the best scripts, but he took James Bond seriously and invested the character with dignity and style. He played the scene. He was 41 when he filmed GoldenEye and 42 when it was released, but he looked and acted much younger. He threw himself into the role with enthusiasm and physical grace. He was enormously popular. Audiences enjoyed his Bond more than they liked the films. Bab's agenda undermines the films, but Brosnan managed to walk the tightrope. I think he deserves enormous credit. His three-picture deal completed, Brosnan agreed to do a fourth film that was the serious script he'd been promised, and then he opened the pages to find out it was Die Another Day (2003). He did the film with the understanding that the serious Bond film was next. Brosnan expressed his regret that he never got the straightforward scripts that he was promised, and that "I never felt as if I'd nailed it." His chance to nail it came with Casino Royale, owned by Columbia, when a distribution merger brought the property within range of EON. Brosnan suggested the project and had a clear idea of how he wanted the film to be. After promising him the film, the producers changed their minds, fired him, terminated the personal friendship, and hired Daniel Craig instead. Craig is also the first actor to be allowed creative input, as per SAG's negotiated gains in the recent basic agreement.