When I was growing up in the mid-nineties, Licence to Kill was dismissed. The consensus was that it was a misguided attempt to jump on existing trends and missed the humour and fantasy of ‘classic Bond’.
Around this time, Timothy Dalton was the odd one out of the Bond actors. Sandwiched between the 12-year tenure of Roger Moore, and the incumbent Pierce Brosnan, he was treated as a mistake - an actor who took the role far too seriously.
I first saw Licence to Kill around nine or ten. From memory, I believe I watched the movie alone - which probably did not help. If it had turned into a family viewing I am not sure if they would have let the kids sit through the shark attack and the head blowing up.
It was far too violent for my little brain, and I remember leaving that first viewing disturbed.
I did not rewatch it for a few years until I was given it for Christmas in a collection with a couple of other Bond films. This was during the era when the films were just coming out on DVD, and the films were released in bundles.
So for about 5 years it was my one example of eighties Bond, and Dalton’s portrayal.
Because it was one of the few Bond movies I had access to, I would watch it fairly regularly, but it never became my go-to watch.
After watching Casino Royale for the first time, my brother was keen to watch another Bond movie in a similar vein. The closest thing I could think of was Licence to Kill. We started watching it, but we only lasted a few moments before we turned it off.
Around this time, I finally had the means to start buying Bond movies on my own, and I was able to re-watch Dalton’s debut, The Living Daylights, for the first time in about a decade.
I had always enjoyed Daylights, and I gained a new appreciation for it in the noughties. I had a new reason to ignore Licence to Kill. I cannot remember the last time I bothered to watch it.
Hilariously, it was around this point in time that Licence to Kill really began to experience a critical revelation. Craig’s success as a ‘serious’ Bond that was closer to the Fleming books probably helped.
But it never really affected my own opinion.
Why would I bother watching an attempt at a darker Bond that does not fully work when I have other films (Casino Royale, The Living Daylights) that do a better job in a similar vein?
As Craigs’ movies got darker, I found my own taste shifting.
As always with the franchise, the variety is what keeps me interested. Other films began to rise in my estimation. The most notable is Octopussy, a movie I never had strong feelings about before.
I had also enjoyed rewatching Licence to Kill’s spiritual sibling Quantum of Solace last year.
With Craig in the rearview, I wanted to take another look at Dalton’s last stand.
His movies always felt like the type of adventures I wished Craig had done.
And having gone through the increasingly dour Craig tenure, Licence to Kill has added historic value - this is the first attempt at what Bond would become in the 21st century.
After a decade in the wilderness, Licence to Kill’s moment had come.
On this viewing?
I cannot say I have had any major revelations about it, but the highs are higher.
Bond’s vengeance plot - once it gets underway - is the best aspect of the film. The way he puts Sanchez against his own people is clearly set up and paid off.
Sanchez is a solid antagonist - deceptively calm, hiding a paranoid, explosive temper. He feels like a real threat, and part of that is because his motivations are understandable.
The finale with the tankers is so well-executed i left the movie with a good feeling - even the arbitrary tag scene does not undermine it.
But overall, I still left feeling like it was a missed opportunity.
I was really struggling to think of what my key problem with this movie is.
Part of it is that the film does not have the power of its convictions.
Firstly, Bond’s motivation. Ostensibly he is seeking vengeance on behalf of his friend Felix for the death of the man’s wife. Della’s death is meant to echo Bond's own loss in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.But the symbolism only works for people with a knowledge of the series.
Della is barely onscreen - it would have had more impact if the filmmakers had made the logical choice to kill Felix.
The older I get, the more I realise the key ingredient for Bond - most of the time - is the relationship between Bond and the woman of the film.
This is one of the key reasons why The Living Daylights always had a leg up over its successor. Licence to Kill just misses on this count.
Pam Bouvier is almost great. Tough, independent and a professional in her own right, she is set up to be Bond’s equal and a potential rogue variable..
But the film shows a depressing regression with the decision to have the pair become lovers. It feels inorganic - the characters have barely met each other. And the only growth to their relationship is when Lupe becomes an alternative for Bond’s affections.
Cary Lowell is solid in the role, even if she seems a shade too young for what the script wants, but she is hamstrung by the script’s constant reversion to romantic cliches.
Licence to Kill’s aesthetics have come under a lot of criticism. I share the complaint about the look of the cinematography, but I have a bigger issue with the overall direction.
First of all, I like John Glen. He is a solid action director with a good understanding of how to construct a set-piece. I also want to credit him for making Bond more vulnerable in these scenes, less reliant on gadgets and more of a master improviser.
All that being said, as a filmmaker he has limitations - he shows little facility for imaginative blocking, and tends to favour editing over camera movement. The focus on editing coverage over following action in one take results in films that can feel less dynamic and more televisual, rather than cinematic.
His work with actors seems entirely dependent on the performer’s own experience and abilities. While established actors like Moore and Dalton seem unaffected, this lack of care shows elsewhere - such as the one-note hysteria of Tanya Roberts, and Dalton’s first Felix Leiter, John Terry.
Licence to Kill features some terrific performances - Robert Davi, Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Zerbe are personal standouts - but that weakness shows in the younger performers. I have already mentioned Lowell who I think does a decent job, but it feels like the first draft of something more specific.
To her credit, Taliso Soto does have the right handle on Lupe Lamora's sense of trauma - the issue is that there is not a lot else to the performance. Considering the way the character shifts allegiances, her approach is too blunt and unyielding.
I do not think either of these performances are bad, but with how this film wants to play with the archetypes of the Bond formula, it requires a more refined sense of performance, and Glen bears some responsibility for the result.
The other issue is tone. I was listening to the Blank Check podcast and the hosts quoted Ethan Coen talking about how the role of a director is tone management. John Glen has many strengths, but I do not think he has a feel for this film’s tone.
The Brosnan films are criticised for their wild swings between the light comedy of Moore and darker material, but Licence to Kill has similar problems. The film wants to be more realistic and violent (the attack on the Leiters, Milton Krest’s (Zerbe) death) but then you have the cartoonishly ridiculous bar brawl and the tanker truck doing a wheelie. The film’s sense of humour seems to be calibrated at a broader level to match the violence, but it comes off as discordant and disruptive.
It also has the effect of undermining the movie’s overall intent - it wants there to be consequences and repercussions where character deaths are supposed to matter. The gags seem ported in from a different cinematic universe.
Ultimately, I think Glen was ultimately better suited to the style of Roger Moore. As the filmmaker responsible for grounding Bond for the Eighties, he was more than up for the job. But with an inherently more serious take on the character, Glen was on less sure footing.
Considering the change in direction, Licence to Kill would have been the perfect transition point to a new filmmaking team.
Why do I not like this movie? More importantly, do I think it works?
These are different questions: The difference between my own subjective interest, and my own subjective barometer for whether the movie succeeds at its objectives.
I do not know if I will ever entirely come over to the cause of this film. I see it as a great concept with a sloppy execution.
As a film, Licence to Kill is a solid piece of entertainment. It is not a masterpiece, but a welcome attempt at originality. After 15 movies, the franchise needed it. The powers that be have probably taken more lessons from it than they would be willing to admit.
No comments:
Post a Comment