'Licence to Kill' - High-Def Digest Review

[Attebery]

'Licence to Kill' - High-Def Digest Review

Josh has reviewed 'Licence to Kill.' He says this is one of the most underappreciated entries in the 007 franchise. (Editor's Note - 20 years later I'm still terrified of watching it again because of that decompression chamber scene.) This Blu-ray looks great, sounds great, and has some great extras. Highly recommended.

Full review here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2166/licencekill.html

[lillion]

great review!

I always liked this one a lot!

After True Romance, I will pick this one up

[ludovico]

I take issue with the way this reviewer attempts to speak so authoritatively about films. Not all of the Moore outings were dumb and a steady slide downhill -- far from it. For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy both have solid plots, complex villains, great reversals, and first-rate action. It was only with the abominable "View to a Kill" that the Moore era sunk back into Moonraker antics that Mr. Zyber cites as indicative of the entire 80s run.

Dalton was disliked because he was priggish, haughty, and couldn't deliver the lines with the right savoir faire. Zero charisma for the part. Thank God they got rid of him.

License to Kill has an unbelievably cheesy opening credit sequence, the villain is a total bore, and the extreme violence seems more akin to a Tarantino film than something to come from the pen of Ian Fleming. I would suggest reading some of the original books, and it will become very clear that the constipated, bufoonish Dalton, and the clunky "License to Kill" contain little of the high-flying espionage that made the books so memorable. And those pun-inspired names were all in the spirit of the original author.

[Hi-Def Nut]

Count me as one of Dalton's fans. But, with friends & family, I'm alone in this. We get into heated debates about the best Bond and best movies in the franchise. To them, Dalton is boring and w/o good looks or charm. No doubt, Connery was perfect as Bond, but to me, Dalton is 2nd best. I'd rate Moore last. He was okay in 'The Man with the Golden Gun' and 'For Your Eyes Only', but those movies were better as Bond movies go. Also agree 'License to Kill', like Dalton, is underrated. Could've done w/o the Wayne Newton bits, but this is an edgy, no frills, highly entertaining Bond flick. Hopefully, more audiences will discover the movie and Dalton's Bond on Blu.

[horrorbusiness]

I'm not really a Dalton fan, but I do like this one.

[ack_bak]

I really enjoyed this film and I prefer Dalton to Moore and put him very close to Brosnan. I do agree with Josh in that I think the producers and studio really tried to reboot the franchise here and get away from the campiness that plagued many of the Moore movies. They were just too soon.

[Mandrake]

Originally Posted by ludovico

I take issue with the way this reviewer attempts to speak so authoritatively about films. Not all of the Moore outings were dumb and a steady slide downhill -- far from it. For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy both have solid plots, complex villains, great reversals, and first-rate action. It was only with the abominable "View to a Kill" that the Moore era sunk back into Moonraker antics that Mr. Zyber cites as indicative of the entire 80s run.

Dalton was disliked because he was priggish, haughty, and couldn't deliver the lines with the right savoir faire. Zero charisma for the part. Thank God they got rid of him.

License to Kill has an unbelievably cheesy opening credit sequence, the villain is a total bore, and the extreme violence seems more akin to a Tarantino film than something to come from the pen of Ian Fleming. I would suggest reading some of the original books, and it will become very clear that the constipated, bufoonish Dalton, and the clunky "License to Kill" contain little of the high-flying espionage that made the books so memorable. And those pun-inspired names were all in the spirit of the original author.

Yea? Well, that's just like--your opinion, man.
I prefer The Living Daylights to this one but the film has its appeal and so does Timothy Dalton, who represented a more serious take on the character than any of the actors in the series' 45-odd year span up until Daniel Craig. Despite the implausible scenarios one tends to find oneself in when one is James Bond, Dalton came off to me as more credible, if perhaps less entertaining, than his peers.

[bouch24]

Just watched this one with my wife after not having seen it since '89. I was impressed with the presentation. We both thought was Licence was somewhat similar to the latest Bond, except that since the action scenes aren't filmed so up close you can actually tell what was happening in them.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by ludovico

I take issue with the way this reviewer attempts to speak so authoritatively about films. Not all of the Moore outings were dumb and a steady slide downhill -- far from it. For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy both have solid plots, complex villains, great reversals, and first-rate action. It was only with the abominable "View to a Kill" that the Moore era sunk back into Moonraker antics that Mr. Zyber cites as indicative of the entire 80s run.

Dalton was disliked because he was priggish, haughty, and couldn't deliver the lines with the right savoir faire. Zero charisma for the part. Thank God they got rid of him.

License to Kill has an unbelievably cheesy opening credit sequence, the villain is a total bore, and the extreme violence seems more akin to a Tarantino film than something to come from the pen of Ian Fleming. I would suggest reading some of the original books, and it will become very clear that the constipated, bufoonish Dalton, and the clunky "License to Kill" contain little of the high-flying espionage that made the books so memorable. And those pun-inspired names were all in the spirit of the original author.

Everybody has an opinion and I can see where some people are put of by Dalton, but I do agree with Josh in that Moore (and more specifically the writers, studio, producer, etc) had drug the franchise down. "For Your Eyes Only", and "Man With The Golden Gun" and "Live and Let Die" were highlights for me of the Moore franchise while "Moonraker", "View To A Kill". "Octopussy" were just bad... Octopussy? Ughh. Not a highlight for me at all with Bond wearing clown suits, gorilla suits, the ridiculous Tarzan scene, etc, etc.

And I do agree with Josh in that Moore was never believable as a brawler. Many of the hand to hand scenes with Moore are just not even close to being believable. He did bring charm and wit to the character, but he was just rarely, if ever, believable as a top British Secret Service Agent. He was anything but tough and intimidating. Dalton was much more believable as a secret agent (I think Daniel Criag is the most believable).

[ludovico]

Originally Posted by ack_bak

I really enjoyed this film and I prefer Dalton to Moore and put him very close to Brosnan. I do agree with Josh in that I think the producers and studio really tried to reboot the franchise here and get away from the campiness that plagued many of the Moore movies. They were just too soon.

I'm not debating the producer's intentions or the tendency towards campiness in the Moore era. It was a good idea for a re-boot of the character. But Mr. Zyber says a lot more than that -- dismissing an entire body of work. And I believe it is too simplistic an analysis to say the studio was "just too soon"; License to Kill would be a turkey if it hit theaters today. They bungled the entire affair by choosing a clod as the new 007. Never could a Bond film done so poorly had they done it with style.

Please somebody try and address the specifics of what Mr. Zyber writes and stop making excuses for his sloppy generalizations. It sounds like most of you agree with my main point -- and it's an important one -- that this review unjustly trashes on some good films in an attempt to make a persuasive argument.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by ludovico

I'm not debating the producer's intentions or the tendency towards campiness in the Moore era. It was a good idea for a re-boot of the character. But Mr. Zyber says a lot more than that -- dismissing an entire body of work. And I believe it is too simplistic an analysis to say the studio was "just too soon"; License to Kill would be a turkey if it hit theaters today. They bungled the entire affair by choosing a clod as the new 007. Never could a Bond film done so poorly had they done it with style.

I think you are reading Josh's review too literally. If you read some of his individual reviews of some of the Moore/Bond films, you will see that he gives Moore credit where credit is due. But per my previous post, there are just things about Moore that many of us struggle with that plagued him through the entire franchise.

Dalton has his flaws too. He is not the best Bond in my book, but I feel that he brought some edge back into the character that was seriously lacking with Moore. I just don't see Dalton as a "clod" the way you do. IMHO, both Dalton films are on a completely different level (and I mean that in a good way) vs the worst of the Moore movies (ie Moonraker, and View To A Kill).

View To A Kill, for me, was just awful. The lowpoint. Moore was just way too old...

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by ludovico

I'm not debating the producer's intentions or the tendency towards campiness in the Moore era. It was a good idea for a re-boot of the character. But Mr. Zyber says a lot more than that -- dismissing an entire body of work.

If you bother to read the rest of my James Bond reviews, you'll find that I give Moore his due credit for his better efforts. The Spy Who Loved Me is one of my favorite Bond films. I even find Moonraker entertaining on some levels.

I like For Your Eyes Only a lot. I don't hate Octopussy, but it had far too much silliness, as ack_bak posted above. (Admittedly, I haven't watched that one in a long time.) Nevertheless, by the time A View to a Kill came around, Moore had practically killed the franchise. That movie was the culmination of everything wrong with the Moore era. People were tired of him, and were tired of the direction the series was heading. It was time for a major change.

License to Kill would be a turkey if it hit theaters today. They bungled the entire affair by choosing a clod as the new 007.

You seem to have a very visceral negative reaction to Timothy Dalton, one that really isn't justified by anything he did as an actor. I think you just set your expectations for what you wanted "James Bond" to be, and he didn't fit that mold.

Originally Posted by ludovico

License to Kill has an unbelievably cheesy opening credit sequence, the villain is a total bore, and the extreme violence seems more akin to a Tarantino film than something to come from the pen of Ian Fleming.

It's interesting that you single out the credits as being "unbelievably cheesy". You'll have to explain exactly how they're any cheesier than every other Maurice Binder title sequence in the series? The same man did the titles for 13 of the previous 15 movies, and they're all in the same basic style.

As for the violence and the lack of savoir faire, I have to wonder what you think of Daniel Craig as Bond.

[cheez avenger]

This was the first Bond that I saw in theaters.


Damn, 20 years ago.

[eNoize]

The only good that came out of 'View to a Kill' was Duran Duran!
(I still own the 7", LOL )


Great review, Josh. I also liked Dalton and it was a great move to get away from the campy Moore. And 'License' was a very decent installment --- only in a Bond film can you see a semi drive on its side to avoid a missile.

[crazzeto]

Great review, this is the only Daulton film I liked.