James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Message

#26 Post by **cdnchris** » Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:18 pm

To my understanding Licence to Kill was originally threatened with an R rating by the MPAA. The scenes in question (more graphic bit with Krest's head exploding instead of a cut away, Dario's legs getting diced, plus apparently there's a shot of Felix Leiter's leg after getting chewed on by the shark, plus some more wonderful bits) were cut to secure a PG-13 rating in the US. I heard the R2 release had the scenes restored (though this could be a miscommunication as it may not surprise me the film was cut even more over there, and now it's the same as the American release) but I'm trying to find out if this is true and whether the R1 DVDs are the same.

colinr0380 · #27 Post by **colinr0380** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:50 pm

It looks like the Region 1 Ultimate editions are unedited. Here is a quote from the review on the Eccentric Cinema site:

Best of all, this is the totally uncut version â€” never before on home video, only a few seconds of gory violence are added but they certainly widen the movie's mean streak. (The stump of Felix's shark-bitten leg is briefly glimpsed; goo from an exploding head is showing splashing on the decompression chamber window; the death scenes of Dario and Sanchez are prolonged.)

There is also a James Bond thread at the DVD Maniacs forum which I think has discussion on the new discs.

I'm seriously considering getting these. I've only got the Brosnan Bonds on DVD (except Tomorrow Never Dies which I've only got on video - I heard that and Goldeneye were other very heavily BBFC-edited films, so I'm thinking of going for the Region 1 sets because of these too), and never got round to getting the previous discs. It would be good to see the earlier Bonds in widescreen, with lots of extra stuff, unedited and without advert breaks from my television recordings!

Highway 61 · #28 Post by **Highway 61** » Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:32 pm

Hmm, had no idea LTK was cut for American release. Great to hear the original will see the light of day. Dalton is criminally underrated.

THX1378 · #29 Post by **THX1378** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 8:14 pm

Saw it Tuesday night at the preview screening. Must say that this is hands down the best Bond film since Goldfinger or Licence to Kill. And it's the closest interpretation of the character in my mind I've ever seen. Finally, they went back to the realistic real world feel that set apart the first Connery Bond films and the two Dalton films *which is the closest anyone got to the Bond thats in the books*, from the campy tone that marred most all of the Moore and Brosnan films *sorry but Brosnan was ok with he had to deal with in his Bond films, but he still wasn't the Bond that was in the books or close to Dalton's Bond* Which leads to Daniel Craig. At last we have Bond in all his glory as both the stone-cold government killer and a man with flaws and weaknesses. For me, this is the Bond that I've been waiting to see after reading the books. The less is more style works also. I liked the way that everything was pulled back, no Gadgets, Q ect. I think that when they saw Batman Begins, they understood what they had to do to make Bond work well again.

ltfontaine · #30 Post by **ltfontaine** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:47 pm

I'm not much of a Bond fan, but if I'm at all tempted to see this, it's because Martin Campbell directed Edge of Darkness, the best espionage film of the 80s and one of the best ever. Neither he nor screenwriter Troy Kennedy Martin have ever come close to that mark since; maybe they should team up again and try to rekindle the magic.

THX1378 · #31 Post by **THX1378** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:10 pm

I had forgot that Martin Campbell directed Edge of Darkness. If anyone hasn't seen that film they really need to. I think what sets apart this Bond from the others is that for once they went back to the less is more feel. I think that the only the first 3 or 4 Connery films *Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball* and the 2 Dalton films *Living Daylights, Licence to Kill* have ever came close to what I think that Fleming was getting after in his books. Almost all of the Bonds from the late 60's to 70's are so over the top action films that it doesn't all feel like what Connery even started, or what Fleming would have even wanted to see.

The Invunche · #32 Post by **The Invunche** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:14 pm

Wasn't Edge of Darkness a mini series?

THX1378 · #33 Post by **THX1378** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:22 pm

Yes it was. They ran it back on Bravo years go and I'm not sure if it's out on DVD but in R2.

John Cope · #34 Post by **John Cope** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:25 pm

THX1378 wrote: I think that the only the first 3 or 4 Connery films *Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball* and the 2 Dalton films *Living Daylights, Licence to Kill* have ever came close to what I think that Fleming was getting after in his books. Almost all of the Bonds from the late 60's to 70's are so over the top action films that it doesn't all feel like what Connery even started, or what Fleming would have even wanted to see.

What about OHMSS? Or Roger Moore's one great Bond pic For Your Eyes Only? I, too, have to admit that I'm excited about Casino Royale, which will be the first Bond film in years that I actually will go to the cinema to see (since the first Dalton to be specific). I am compelled by reports not only of the "less is more" intention but also of the supposedly classical aesthetic of the film itself--that even though this is a modern reboot, Martin Campbell has not been inclined to ape Michael Bay or Ridley Scott. There is a place for a classic, stately technique and this is it.

Oh, and I've always loved Daniel Craig (since the Maybury film on Bacon to be specific).

Barmy · #35 Post by **Barmy** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:32 pm

"OHMSS" is the best Bond flick. Some of the early ones are good too, particularly "Russia" (gotta love that Lotte!). I've only seen one post-Moore flick (the one with Michelle Yeoh), but will definitely go see "Casino Royale".

THX1378 · #36 Post by **THX1378** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:47 pm

I like parts of OHMSS, but over all it feels like their trying to just fill someone in for Connery. I think had they let Lazenby done Bond the way that he wanted to do Bond in another film, and not just lets get someone to fill in for Connery and hold him back, it would have worked. And yea, the best of the Moore films is For Your Eyes, but it still has those Moore moments that turn me off from his films. What I hated about what they did to Dalton and what I think they are going to start to say about Craig is that he's to cold as Bond. Hello! The man is a stone-cold killer! First time since Licence to Kill *which I think is the second best Bond film, the first being From Russia* that they have shown that Bond isn't a ask questions first type of guy.

Roger_Thornhill · #37 Post by **Roger_Thornhill** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:48 pm

Barmy wrote:"OHMSS" is the best Bond flick. Some of the early ones are good too, particularly "Russia" (gotta love that Lotte!). I've only seen one post-Moore flick (the one with Michelle Yeoh), but will definitely go see "Casino Royale".

"OHMSS" has really everything going for it (great story, excellent villian, nice locations, great Ken Adams' sets, one of the better Bond girls, etc) except for Lazenby as Bond. Lazenby is such a bland actor that when I first saw "OHMSS" it took me a while to get into the film. Still, it's a fine film and is my second favorite Bond after "From Russia With Love."

I'm glad that "Casino Royale" is getting good reviews (96% on rottentomatoes!) because this is the first Bond film since "License To Kill" that I've been very interested in seeing.

Just an aside: It seems as if "License To Kill's" reputation has gotten better over the years. I remember at the time that it took quite a beating from critics and audiences.

THX1378: I agree, Dalton was a fantastic Bond and in my mind second only to Connery.

tryavna · #38 Post by **tryavna** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 3:59 pm

Roger_Thornhill wrote:"OHMSS" has really everything going for it (great story, excellent villian, nice locations, great Ken Adams' sets, one of the better Bond girls, etc) except for Lazenby as Bond. Lazenby is such a bland actor that when I first saw "OHMSS" it took me a while to get into the film. Still, it's a fine film and is my second favorite Bond after "From Russia With Love."

In a weird sort of way, I've always felt that Lazenby's blandness actually makes him a bit more believable as a spy. I mean, in reality, most spies are fairly bland, unassuming people. Of course, we don't really want that from Bond, I suppose. But I think Lazenby has received a bum rap over the years. He was never as bad as some people make out. (And as you say, everything else about OHMSS is outstanding. The ski chase is one of the all-time great action sequences.)

Just an aside: It seems as if "License To Kill's" reputation has gotten better over the years. I remember at the time that it took quite a beating from critics and audiences.

You know, I've always loved The Living Daylights -- in part because the first half follows the original short story so closely -- but I've never come around to License to Kill. To me, it just seems like any other action thriller from the "war-on-drugs" era (late 1980s - early 1990s). It's not really a spy movie.

I, too, am anticipating a return to form with this film. But I remember hearing that old saw when Goldeneye came out, so I'm only cautiously optimistic. (By the way, I think Goldeneye is easily the best Brosnan Bond film.)

John Cope · #39 Post by **John Cope** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:09 pm

tryavna wrote: You know, I've always loved The Living Daylights -- in part because the first half follows the original short story so closely -- but I've never come around to License to Kill. To me, it just seems like any other action thriller from the "war-on-drugs" era (late 1980s - early 1990s). It's not really a spy movie.

I, too, am anticipating a return to form with this film. But I remember hearing that old saw when Goldeneye came out, so I'm only cautiously optimistic. (By the way, I think Goldeneye is easily the best Brosnan Bond film.)

I totally agree.

Cinesimilitude · #40 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:50 pm

There are so many reasons for me to love this, Goldeneye is my favorite bond film, Daniel Craig (while not Clive Owen) is perfect for a young Bond, Eva Green is Eva Green, Paul Haggis adapted it... etc. I'm seeing it tonight, and I can't wait.

#41 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 5:50 pm

Well this is quite an entertaining film. There are so many elements that are just nailed, from a classy opening to perhaps the best footchase I can recall seeing in the cinema in a while. But I think the best part was that the second act of the movie, the card game, was handled with such low-key sensibility. It was mostly all mounting tension accomplished with patience and a bit of wit. Indeed, unlike the other recent Bond films, who took being goofy as an acceptable way to not take oneself seriously, this one keeps a cold reserve of wit underneath it all. You can grin at its grimness

Daniel Craig was pitch perfect. He had just the right amounts of bemused detachment and lethal coldness running under him. He made Bond precisely what he should be: a guilty pleasure. That is, a man whose manifest flaws are precisely why he's so much fun to watch. The movie put me in mind of perhaps my favourite Bond moment from Dr. No when Connery, after gaining the answers he needs from a man, shoots him silently and without a twitch in cold blood. Precisely the feel one gets here.

So while I've never been a Bond "fan"--meaning I very much like some of the films but have no attachment to the series--I do have a strong conception of the proper sensibility for a Bond movie, and this one filled that remarkably. Its excellencies outshine its minor flaws. And for once the acting was of the highest quality all through, from the leads and also the supporting players. It's fun.

THX1378 · #42 Post by **THX1378** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:09 pm

Yea I agree Roger_Thornhill that Dalton is the second best Bond and would have went on to outdone Connery had he gotten the chance. I think the whole problem with License and again with with Royal is that people don't want Bond for some reason to be this cold-blooded person. What worked for License was that for once in the history of the Bond films was that they let him be what he was in the books. Living Daylights came close, but they held back. But it still works. I think that Dalton got the shaft just because he didn't have the cockiness that Connery had, and it wasn't the campiness that Moore had. As for OHMSS, I think the main problem is that it feels like Lazenby is filling in. I don't know if it's just the way that he is, or if it's the film makers fault. Royal feels like that they let Craig go and do Bond and make it his own.

Roger_Thornhill · #43 Post by **Roger_Thornhill** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:27 pm

tryavna wrote:In a weird sort of way, I've always felt that Lazenby's blandness actually makes him a bit more believable as a spy. I mean, in reality, most spies are fairly bland, unassuming people.

I never thought about it that way, but you're absolutely right, a successful spy would have to be rather inconspicuous if he (or she) wants to survive. I think I'm going to have to give "OHMSS" another look and give Lazenby another chance.

tryavna wrote:You know, I've always loved The Living Daylights -- in part because the first half follows the original short story so closely -- but I've never come around to License to Kill. To me, it just seems like any other action thriller from the "war-on-drugs" era (late 1980s - early 1990s). It's not really a spy movie.

I also like The Living Daylights too, but I guess the reason I prefer License to Kill is that the mission has become personal for Bond. I don't think I've ever seen another Bond film where Bond is so angry and Dalton's performance conveys that intensely (although Craig may change that). I also like the Hamlet-esque touches of Bond working for and developing a relationship with Robert Davi's memorable villian. Davi's villian intrigued me as being more than the typically one-dimentional evil madmen that is so common to the Bond franchise because, to me, he's a relatively honorable villian who finds loyalty and trust more important than money and power (which he says in so many words

). I dare say he's even likeable at times with his generosity towards Dalton's Bond. However, it's certainly not a great film by any means with some awful acting in the beginning and an out-of-left-field cameo by Wayne Newton ("bless your heart."). And there's no doubt this film is heavily influenced by the 80's "war on drugs" films, but the Bond films have always adjusted their sails towards the prevailing wind. Casino Royale, from what I hear, seems to be a response to the popular gritty and low-key action films like The Bourne Identity and to the back-to-basics franchise adjustments as in Batman Begins. Sounds good to me.

Polybius · #44 Post by **Polybius** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:06 am

I'm really happy to see this much love for the greivously underrated Timothy Dalton Bond. My personal preference is for The Living Daylights, but they're both stellar films.

Highway 61 · #45 Post by **Highway 61** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:46 am

Just got back from seeing this, and I must echo the praise: it's fantastic. My only complaints are that it is a tad too long, that Chris Cornell's song absolutely sucks (although David Arnold wove the melody into the score nicely), and finally, that the Bond Theme never kicks in until the very end. Otherwise, it's easily one of the very best Bond films, and Martin Campbell's direction of the action set-pieces really does rise above most of the action fair today. Campbell actually gives the action scope, so you can sense what's going on, unlike, say, Christopher Nolan in Batman Begins, who just cuts from close-up to close-up, creating an incomprehensible mess.

Cinesimilitude · #46 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:57 am

I only have one gripe, and that is that I have to wait another decade to see Clive Owen as Bond. Everything in this film was Nailed, sometimes literally.

#47 Post by **cdnchris** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:56 am

Now you guys have me even more pumped about this one.

I'm a huge Bond nut, can find value in even some of the worst Bond films (the value in A View to A Kill? A blonde Christopher Walken), and I could kick all your asses at the 007 version of Scene-It in less than 20-minutes, but I fucking hated Die Another Day (took the place of Moonraker as my most despised Bond film) and have to admit I wasn't looking forward to another one.

I was going to go see Casino Royale just because it was Bond but wasn't expecting much, despite all the "reboot to the franchise" talk. Now all the word of mouth, like it being compared to From Russia With Love and OHMSS (my two favourite ones), and now you guys praising it actually have me all excited and dying to see it. I just hope I'm not let down.

jon · #48 Post by **jon** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:39 am

I agree with you on Die Another Day being the worst Bond film. It's a shame that Brosnan had to go out like that. I've always wondered what OHMSS would have been like with Connery...

lord_clyde · #49 Post by **lord_clyde** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:03 am

Yeah, it's fucking fantastic. Refreshing to see Bond solve problems with nothing but his brain, hands, and sometimes gun. The most high tech gadgets in the film are laptops and cell phones, and a defribrillator. Highly recommended to fans of OHMSS and FRWL, and for those who can accept a black Felix Leiter and a Bond origin story in the 21st century.

MichaelB · #50 Post by **MichaelB** » Sat Nov 18, 2006 12:56 pm

jon wrote:I agree with you on Die Another Day being the worst Bond film. It's a shame that Brosnan had to go out like that. I've always wondered what OHMSS would have been like with Connery...

In all seriousness, it might not have been as good. I always got the impression that Eon pulled all the stops out with OHMSS because they knew that they'd come under an unusual amount of scrutiny after changing their leading man - and Connery was visibly losing interest in You Only Live Twice.

And there was also the fact that Lazenby's lack of acting experience needed every other aspect of the film to be absolutely top-notch in case there was a problem in that department - for instance, is it a coincidence that this film had one of the strongest female leads in the entire series?

James Bond Franchise (1962-∞)

Casino Royale (Martin Campbell, 2006)