Badmovies.org Forum

I rented this movie last FRiday and I started watching it and I couldn´t finish it because IT f**kING SUCKED!Q was gone,M was gone,Moneypenny was gone hell the entire MI-6 branch is gone,the Bond villain is a Stereotypical Drug Dealer and the once great,suave James Bond is reduced to a Don Johnson rip-off.

Sean Connery must be really p**sed-off at this movie.

What do you think?

Q and Moneypenny don't show up for a while. And you missed the spectacular 20-minute shootout/car chase/fistfight at the end. You missed a lot of this gem.

Ok maybe I'm insane, but Timothy Dalton is my second favorite Bond, after Connery.

Sure, the last part of the movie features quite intense action, but still this is one of my least favourite Bonds ever. Looks to me that they transformed Bond in an action hero, and the movie feels more like pure action than like a Bond film. I don't have any problems with Dalton, I enjoyed his first Bond film, "The living daylights", and I think it is one of the best in the series. Can't understand why his next Bond was so different.

i'm really conflicted on this topic, being a big bond fan.

on the one hand, i enjoyed the film immensely.  it was more how bond was meant to be: a cruel bastard.

and thats what he was.  Ian Fleming's James Bond was a womanising, chain smoking, racist, son of a b***h really.  but that alll changed with the movies.   he became more witty, funny and, well, lovable.  sure they tried to be faithful in a few things about his personality:  in one film he doesn't hesitate to use the woman he's dancing with as a human shield, but in the name of PC they made him better.

timothy dalton was great in the sense that he sort of captured the icy feel that the original bond had.  sean connery could also capture this, but he was also the charming, dashing spy.  sean's still my favourite but is not like the bond in the novels.

nevertheless it was great to see the bond series back when they released goldeneye.  the only problem now is that it is getting increasingly tacky, and just plain outrageous.  i mean, come on, invisible cars my ass.  you don't need kickass gadgets to win the day, you need useful ones.

the producers need to go back to their bond roots and rediscover the fact that simplicity and just plain cloak and daggerness was the original essence of the bond series, not over the top explosions and action scenes.

I agree fully. The Bond franchise ain't what it used to be. In terms of realism, this and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" are best. Both also have great action, and beileve these to be the two best.

"You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"-"Dr. Strangelove"

Was "License to Kill" the one with the scene at the end where the semi truck tilts sideways on its wheels as the rocket passes under it?

The living daylights... is the only bond film that put me to sleep...

I do think Licenced To Kill is one of the better bond films (timothy dalton did his best and the bad guys was good characters)

I do think why Timothy Dalton didnt work out so well is because durring that time "Political Correctness" was a big movie and kinda hurt bond's character... Sadly Timothy was a victim from this move, "the New James Bond"

And as for "On her majesty secret service" which I do think the ending sucked so bad because there was no real followup (except from "For your eyes only") but still it wasnt a real followup... I do think it was a big mistake, and would of been better if Bond killed them all at the end of the movie  or made a part 2 where bond is killing the bad guys, I do think it was all planed but the actor thought he was some big shot and took off... so it was never made...

I rank LICENSE TO KILL in the #9 slot, as follows:

1. GOLDFINGER
2. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
3. DR. NO
4. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (this would be #1 if Connery had been in it)
5. THUNDERBALL
6. MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN
7. LIVE AND LET DIE
8. GOLDENEYE
9. LICENSE TO KILL

Basically, the Bond films have lost much of their charm over the years. The original M, Q, and Moneypenny are sorely missed. Also, the 1970s, 80s, 90s and beyond are not (and never will be) as "cool" as the swingin' 60s. (Austin Powers has proven that numerous times).

Dalton is not at the top of my Bond list . . . mainly because he doesn't "look" like Bond. His facial features are a bit too tough & rugged. Connery, Moore and Brosnan all have a bit of a "pretty boy" look to them, which makes them appear more refined. Dalton just doesn't look like a guy who knows how to have a suit tailored, or which wine to select for dinner, or where to get the best caviar. Lazenby is somewhere in between the "pretty boy" and the "tough guy" category..

The Cold War ended.  No more West vs. East  show downs (and I'm sick of the "evil druglord" villian).  We can't use Arab/Islamic terrorists, wouldn't be PC, and North Korea was just done.  So where are the good villians?

And the series should definitely stop trying to out do other movies with more explosions & killings, Bond's already had a fight in space (MoonRaker).

Once again it comes down to having a good story, and not relying on FX.

Dean pretty much summed up what I was thinking completely.  Not really too much else to add, other than the fact that I like Brosnan the best, and I feel that the newer movies, while outrageous, are still good.

Goldeneye's my favorite, followed closely by On Her Majesty's Secret Service (which also happens to be one of the most controversial Bond movies as far as like/dislike).

Nick

The Bond Films of the 60s fit in with the culture of the 60s, with shows like "Mission Impossible" and "The Man from Uncle" when the cold war was very much on people's minds and the idea of clock-and-dagger spies was really cool.

But the politics and the culture's changed, and so did Bond.

The Bond of today, sorry to say for some of you, is *not* for the same people as the Connery Bond, they are meant for people who are young today.  It's a different audience in a different culture with different tastes.  Not good, not bad, just different.  If the feel of the 60's bond, or even the 80's bond, were kept today, it would just look silly.

<>

Actually - Diamonds Are Forever was supposed to be a direct sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And it was either Lazenby's manager or agent that turned down the role for him. He actually wanted to do it.

Liked Dalton, was a bit cold to Lazenby, Loved Sean, accapted Moore and Brosnan.
Sean had it all, to my mind. The wit to do a good line, and a killer smile, that was the cold smile of a killer, when push came to shove the bad guy out the window..
Too much reliance on Gadgets. Its how well Bond used them, that was key. Remember Little Nellie?
No, i think the changes in  culture are accepting of lesser quality heros. More brute, then brilliant, less style, more short tempered.
As for explosions....how are they going to top the latest one, with out blowing up the Earth?

No, i think the changes in culture are accepting of lesser quality heros.

I wonder how many people said that about Connery as Bond in comparison  to,say...Roy Rogers?

Hummm....likely some did. Maby i'm being too subjective? But then agine...what else could i be?

Maby i'm being too subjective? But then agine...what else could i be?

One thing I try very hard not to do is to judge things subjectively on my own generational biases.

 Sean Connery's Bond was a particular character in a particular cultural and geo-political climate and he only made sense within that climate.  Brosnan's Bond belongs in a different world.  You can compare Connery's Bond to Vaughn's Man From Uncle; you can compare Brosnan's Bond to Diesel's XxX, but the only way you can really compare Connery to Brosnan is not in who they are directly but in how well the fit in and work against their own time

A few months ago I watched all the "Freddy" movies, I found myself thinking they were a bit silly, but then I realized something.  I'm 34 years old, I'm *really*  not the target audience these movies were aimed at, so naturally my  opinion of them is not going to be as good as someone who actually is in the target audience

You are not the target audience for Pierce Brosnan Bond either.

i think the problem is that the bond series has developed into a big money making business rather than a movie.  how much money did they make for die another day for advertising products?  more than enough to cover the $200 million or so budget.  thats a s**tload of money.  so they justify this with big explosions and whatnot.

i actually thought that judi dench was a good choice to play M, though the old one will be missed.

and Q/ Desmond Llweyn will also be sorely missed.  he was just starting to become the character he should have been made years ago and was a fantastic asset to the series.

in terms of who to fight next, megalomaniacs have been done to death, but rather than break from convention, each knew bond movie sticks to the formulae that has become the conventional bond idea: bond gets with a chick at the start of the movie, theres a big action scene at the start, then the credits start with lots of naked women dancing around.  bond gets some assignment, gets help from some friends and makes a sexy female ally, whilst, in some cases, also having to deal with a sexy female enemy, who is working for the 'genius' behind wanting to make loads of money and become powerful.  bond gets some gadgets, kicks their butts, says some smart witty lines, then goes off and sleeps with his sexy ally.

the series is starting to fail, and drastically needs a revamp if it wants to survive.  there'll always be an audience, but we don't want it to be remembered as crap now do we?


tamahori tried to mess with the film, but ended up making the most 'bond' film of them all, in terms of the conventions i just mentioned.

like i said earlier, i think it needs to go back to it's cloak and dagger roots, and cut back on the gadgets, and focus more on the whole spy thing.  it is still allowed plenty of action mind you [we can't alienate our audience can we! :P ] but more 'smart' action instead of this other crap thats been going on [by smart i mean it actually has a point].

but yes, unfortunately, ppl are right in saying that bond is a victim of cultural circumstance, and now bond films can now be more likened to the fast and furious movies than the old classics.

but on a similar note, who should play bond when brosnan hangs up his walther ppk?  i heard someone mention jude law once, and i almost had a heart attack.

i just can't see anyone playing bond anytime soon...  how sad.

Lazenby's agent was tipped off that Bond was a "Woodstock character" and advised him not to do DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, which is a shame. They had written more of a revenge script, with the diamond smuggling thrown in. It would have been a lot like LICENCE TO KILL, with Bond strangling Blofeld and boiling Irma Bunt. I would've liked that with Lazenby more than Connery, frankly. Lazenby and Dalton were the only actors who really understood the literary character, which is why I prefer them over Sean Connery. I understand why people would like Sean, but, having read the books first, he was never Bond for me.

They could get a young unknown, and have him play Bond's son (James has got to have a bunch of kids all over the world.)  Then Bond gets to groom him to take over.  They could even trot out Sean to play him one last time, he is old enough.

yes, you are crazy.

I rank Moore and Brosnan above him.

That has already been done,in the cartoon"James Bond Junior".

Yes, and since I answered that question, let me say what I liked about "Licence to Kill." I liked the villians. There was such a range of them from the drug dealer (Robert Davi), to the corrupt DEA agent (Anthony Zerbe), to the ex-Green Beret (Don Stroud) to the televangelist (Wayne Newton) to the Wall Street Whiz Kid, who's name I have forgotten, who had to flee the U.S., after he was caught in some sort of financial shenaigans, to Davi's hired muscle, who really looked like hired muscle, and not actors playing hired muscle.

In the intro to Diamonds Are Forever, when Bond is killing all the baddies in his search for Blofeld, wasn't that intended as revenge for killing Tracy in OHMSS? Kind of a follow up, I guess.

I liked Dalton, I think he gets a bad rap. But, I do think that License To Kill has a Golan-Globus meets Miami Vice kinda feel to it...that's the 80's though.

"And the Jam Trousers...were they your idea? F*cking useless!"

We always called it "Excuse to Spew" Not a good film and killed Dalton's chances as a viable bond successor. At least it wasn't Moonraker

Moonraker was definitely the Jump the Shark film.  Specifically the battle in space.