MovieChat Forums > Licence to Kill (1989) Discussion > It Simply Isn't a Bond Film

It Simply Isn't a Bond Film


Other than the fact that the main character is named James Bond, and Q shows up with some gadgets, there is nothing "Bond-like" about this film. I'm not surprised it didn't do good at the box office. I know fans of the Fleming books seem to like Dalton, but he just lacked the suave charm that other Bonds have had. He did well enough in The Living Daylights, I suppose, but this film was just way too generic 80's action flick. Without the charm of Bond, then there is nothing special about Bond, hence why Dalton was not a good choice to continue the series. If Timothy Dalton had played Bond in the original Dr. No, I don't think there would even be a Bond franchise, to tell you the truth.

reply

[deleted]

It feels more like a Die Hard movie than Bond - Bond trolls the drug empiren in the same way that McClane might (although McClane was less intelligent). Because it switched from John Barry to Michael Kamen for the soundtrack, it also sounds like Die Hard in places. Those little guitar string twangs that play over certain happenings show up like in Die Hard as well.

reply

I never really saw the Die Hard connection outside of Michael Kamen and Robert Davi and Grand L. Bush being apart of it. I mean, Licence to Kill isn't about James Bond (being in the wrong place at the wrong time like John McClane but he's the only one who can save the day) having to methodically dispose a gang of terrorists one by one in a contained, claustrophobic environment. I always thought that Licence to Kill was trying to ape on Miami Vice with the drug lord angle and the '80s Florida setting.

reply

It's more a cheap, made for British TV, looking Miami Vice knock off rather than Die Hard.

reply

[deleted]

Ive been going through and watching all of the bonds, as I was too young for any of them before the end of Brosnan era. This is one of my favorites. It lends the series a unique feel and doesnt rehash whats been done previously. I wish they would have had Dalton replace Moore years before they did.

reply

In some alternate and more perfect universe, Moore replaces Connery in 1971 (Diamonds Are Forever) and is in turn replaced by Dalton in 1980 (For Your Eyes Only). Obviously, this would mean no Lazenby (sorry, George). The rest of the timeline could stay the same.

To recap:
Connery Bonds (7): Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Moore Bonds (5): Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, Moonraker

Dalton Bonds (5): For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, License to Kill

Brosnan Bonds (4): same as our universe

Craig Bonds (5): same as our universe

reply

Yes one of my favourites too.

My top 3 Bond films are:
1) Goldfinger
2) License to Kill - Loved Benicio Del Toro
3) Casino Royal

With regards to License to Kill, maybe it is because I loved the 80s action era (I'm an 80s child). I also liked that Q had a bigger part. Was nice to see him help out.

Connery was the best Bond, then for me Timothy comes second. Wasn't too keen on Moore or Brosnan. Lazenby was ok. I did enjoy his Bond film 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' with Diana Rigg, but it was very sad at the end. :-( Diana Rigg was a great Bond Girl.

reply

I'm with you on 2 of the 3 of those.
Goldfinger and Casino Royale are both brilliant.

However, IMO, License to Kill just comes off as kinda....cheap looking. And Timothy Dalton is too stiff and....stuffy.
I mean...we've got Robert Davi, the quintessential 80's B-movie actor. We have cheap-looking sets that look straight off sound stages. We have TOO MUCH Q (less is more)...we have Teri from Three's Company (REALLY??)......and what really put me over the edge was....Wayne effn' Newton??

Sorry....but License to Kill was just kinda cheap and slapped together. It's in the bottom 5 Bond films for me.
I just never got into Dalton as Bond.

reply

I do agree with you about it being cheap looking and not in the same league as Goldfinger and Casino Royal, but I found it very entertaining and it's a film I could watch over and over again, unlike some other Bond films. I do think Dalton is very sexy too which is probably why I liked him as Bond, whereas Moore and Brosnan never appealed to me. Aww I loved that Q had a bit more screen time. Yea I couldn't stand Wayne "bless your heart" Newton. The main bad guy was good though and very young Del Toro.

reply

I honestly couldn't disagree with you more. Dalton is indeed a wonderful 007 and Licence to Kill is a James Bond film that stands out from the norm of what came before with the exception of The Living Daylights. Roger Moore's tenure as Bond was way too long and his films became more and more campy and unbelievable. Ian Fleming wrote the character of James Bond as a ruthless, sexist killer who puts England before anything else. Dalton is a refreshing return of the days of Connery with his own twist. Licence to Kill breaks the mold, yes, but it is a very personal story that we've never seen before. This is a Bond that is let go from MI6 and works on his own ingenuity. Regarding your statement about there not being a franchise if Dalton starred in Dr. No; I would disagree. If Roger Moore were to star in Dr. No, I couldn't see there being a franchise after a sequel. The Bond films of the 80s became very formulaic and general, but The Living Daylights was the beginning of a change that not many were ready for.

reply

Noone gives a damn about Flemming! This novels were only succesful cuse of th era of cold war. Beside that his writing were lousy and used on almost no Bond movie at all.

So acting like Flemings Bond means that he isnt Bond at all! And no, Connery never acted like Flemings Bond (perhaps a little in Dr No and FRWL. But he didt became succesful before Goldfinger which kicked Fleming out of the franchise completely).

reply

You might want to learn how how to spell and think.

But where’s the fun in that, you trailer trash peasant?

However, I wholeheartedly agree that YOU are “no one.”

reply

The problem with Timothy Dalton (at least at the time) is that we went to the other extreme of his predecessor Roger Moore than maybe the general public was ready to handle at the time. Dalton brought a a toughness, intensity, and determination to his Bond in sharp contrast to 12 years and 7 films worth of Roger Moore's smirking, tongue-in-cheek gentleman spy. Dalton was probably the first Bond actor, where you genuinely don't want to be him (in other words, he's not the ultimate Alpha Male/unflappable super-spy). There wasn't a middle ground so to speak or a gradual process. Even in Roger Moore's most "serious"/down to earth Bond movie, For Your Eyes Only, there's still several goofy, campy moments. Dalton's second and last go around as 007 on the other hand, just so happens to be the most mean-spirited, violent (in a hard PG-13 type of violence) Bond movie up until that point.

reply

People complain about the drug dealing plot, but isn't that the same as what LIVE AND LET DIE was about in '73 with Roger Moore ? And that film was super successful at the time. Maybe because it had more colorful characters than LTK ?

reply

[deleted]

Several Bond films have had drug plots or drug subplots:

- Goldfinger
- Live And Let Die
- For Your Eyes Only
- The Living Daylights

This isn't anything new.

reply

Please, Hippo. Name the “drug subplot” for me in Goldfinger. I defy you.

reply

Doesn't the film start off with Bond destroying the compound of a South American drug lord?

reply

The guy was using heroin flavored bananas to finance revolutions , the plot very much did involve drugs

reply

In many Bond movies, the pre credit title sequence has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. While Goldfinger involves Bond destroying heroin, the plot of the film does not involve drugs

reply

That's why it says plots or "subplots". There was a subplot in Goldfinger that involved drugs.

reply

Its not even really a subplot, it has nothing to do with the film.

reply

It absolutely was as it had an impact on the plot. It also explains why he was in Miami at the start of the film as he went there right after blowing up the heroin factory and in Miami he met Goldfinger for the first time. (His contact tells him about the plane to Miami)

reply

Wrong! This had no impact on the film. One could follow the film perfectly without watching the pre title sequence. The audience doesn't need an explanation as to why Bond was in Miami at the start of the movie. They just had to make passing mention that he was on vacation.

reply

That's why it's my favorite Bond.

reply

http://www.agonybooth.com/licence-to-kill-1989-57543

But just as Moonraker was accused of going overboard with the lightheartedness, many fans (myself included) thought that Licence went overboard in its attempts to be more mundane. By doing so, it comes across as downright boring in some scenes, and “boring” is something Moonraker cannot be accused of. Both Davi and Del Toro make fine villains, but the movie doesn’t seem to pick up the speed you think it would once Bond resigns and goes out on his own. I appreciate that the story is set into motion because of Bond’s friendship with Felix, which makes the viewers believe that it will lead to a nerve-jolting climatic confrontation between Bond and Sanchez (a la the fight between Bond and Grant in From Russia with Love). But no, said fight scene just consists of Bond whipping out a gadget that wasn’t supplied by Q and the villain quickly becomes charcoal.

What staggers me, however, is that those fans who love this film insist that it’s the closest to Fleming’s Bond. But as someone who’s read each book in that series more than once, I find it hard to agree with that sentiment. Not once did I imagine Bond to be as intense as Dalton plays him in either of his Bond outings. Now, before anyone says, “He’s closer to the books than Moore’s Bond,” as I once noted, both Connery and Moore gave the character a carefree aspect that I didn’t see in the books, which helped the film series become the great success it did. I can also say with 100% certainty that Bond never once frenched his BFF’s bride on her wedding day in any of the books.

reply