Dalton is my favorite Bond sinceI first saw TLD when it came out in the 80's. I'm in my 50s, so he's the Bond of my youth. When I finally read the Fleming novels during the Covid lockdown, it solidified my appreciation for his portrayal 10 fold! All the Bond actors have done their version of the character, Dalton IS Fleming's version.

This is the best analysis I ever seen about LTK and ultimately why it isn't a successful film. We really needed more moments of Dalton utilizing his intellect against Sanchez. Personally, I mostly dislike it because Bond's career has nothing to do with his mission of vengeance. In The Living Daylights, he threatened to quit due to his disgust of his mission. That's exactly what needed to be repeated here, Bond becoming disillusioned with his job and then rejoining when he sees that he must punish evil people like Sanchez.

I think of Licence to Kill as the Dark Knight Returns of the Eon Bond Franchise. It is an epic. It begins in medias res. Della’s death provides a flashback to Tracy’s death. The longstanding friendship with Felix Leiter is explored and I think Felix’s lighter as the low-tech Q-gadget is perfect. Desmond Llewelyn’s performance as Q is more developed and necessary. He is Bond’s loving uncle. He knows Bond’s dedication and trauma and wants to help him and so do Moneypenny and M. The execution isn’t always perfect but the plot outline by Richard Maibaum is GREAT. I prefer The Living Daylights but I’m glad Dalton made this as his second film. There isn’t that much that I would change about this film. I wish a few minor players had been a bit stronger. I wish we had a bit of the UK in it. I wish, as you say, Dalton could have starred in Goldeneye. If I were Dalton and given the option of his two films versus Brosnan’s four films, I’d pick the two he got. I don’t actually think I would have liked Property of a Lady. My final thought is that the lighter quality of Goldeneye was for me a letdown after this film because washed away were a lot of the stakes, character depth, and backstory. Too many reboots hurts a franchise. Take note DC Films!

Some great points of the weaknesses of LTK, when I first saw it in the theaters I was disappointed, having loved TLD so much. It remained close to the bottom of my list of Bond films for quite a long time. A few years ago I read about many of the difficulties to make this film. They had 10 mil less in the budget than the previous one, with a script no less ambitious. As result, they resorted some "TV" filming techniques to save money, such as using 50mm lenses that flatten the image but gives more flexibility to set up shots. They over lit sets to save setup time. More of a cultural perspective, they used a lot of American TV character actors in the supporting roles like Robert Davi, Anthony Zebra and Don Stroud. Many actors us Americans would have seen on the Love Boat, Fantasy Island and in B action films. These cost cutting techniques is what lent the film to be compared to a TV episode more than a big budget international film. However, taking those restraint into account, when looked at from a pure story, script and acting point of view, my enjoyment for the film grew quite a bit. I appreciated more for what it did right rather than just the budgetary hindrances alone. Even though it's still not in my top 10 for some of the reasons you talked about, I consider it to be quite a good addition rather than the failure I used to think it was.

This movie is in my top 5, and I appreciate all the positives you mentioned. This is what I would say to some of the points folks make when discussing this movie's negatives: 1: "It doesn't feel like a Bond movie" I personally always see this movie through the lense of being 14 and watching through my Uncle's collection in chronological order for the first time. This movie blew me away precisely because it was so unorthodox with its plot, and it really gave me the feeling of having gone off the tracks and now we were moving deeper into Sanchez' lion's den through a series of unpredictable twists and turns. The unorthodoxy was a feature not a bug. 2. "What's with the stinger missiles?" I actually think that the CIA plot with the stingers is a really nice touch. As I have gotten older I have come to appreciate the ways that 007 movies reflect their time without commenting on them: A sort of larger than life, non-partisan, pop-culture time capsule of geo-politics. The US supported the Contras against the Sandistas in Nicaragua, and the Contras' involvement in Cocaine trafficking had become well known and controversial. It's just a nice little nugget of the era.

I really dig LTK, that truck chase at the end is incredible. The movie almost feels like Sanchez is the main character as Mr Bond gradually thwarts his plans while slowly closing in. Excellent performance from Timothy Dalton and Robert Davi throughout. And of course LTK has by far the most gruesome fates in store for all of the bad guys. Great entertainment! "Turn The Bloody Machine Off!!!"

I have scoured youtube in search of bond discussions, reviews and rankings, but your ramblings (if you don't mind the term) are some of the most entertaining and interesting stuff I have ever come across. No flashy graphics or quick edits, just pure, down-to-earth discussions of my favorite film series. Thanks, I really appreciate your videos!

I think Dalton was vastly underrated. He played a grounded Bond who saw his job as just that. Along with Daniel Craig he is the most believable. Moody, almost sadistic, doesn't suffer fools-all the things you would feel are necessary in that line of work. I feel with Connery, if he was chocolate he would eat himself. Lazenby was similar but never looked like he could handle himself. Neither could Moore, but he knew that and leaned on humour and pure likeability, which made his films highly watchable(until he went on 2 films too long). Brosnan was a bit of a hybrid, he had a bit of everything without ever being totally convincing, but in fairness he had 2 of the most ridiculous villians in Elliot Carver and Gustav Graves, so the stories didn't help.

Happy new year and thank you so much for your videos and analysis regarding Bond! I found your channel by chance and now you quickly became one of my favourite ones ❤ One big hug from Ireland and keep going strong!! Hope this year a new era for Bond finally begins...

Thanks for this excellent video! While I appreciate Licence to Kill more now than I did years ago, I never liked things getting too personal for Bond. There are plenty of other characters who go rogue for revenge. One of the things I like about Bond is that he's someone doing a job. Keep up the great work!

I love-love-love "The Living Daylights"(1987)! It's a very important milestone in the franchise! Great cinematography, story, locations and amazing actors: Timothy Dalton, Joe Don Baker, John Rhys-Davies, Maryam d'Abo... ***** I like LTK(1989) too, but this is a very different film! It's a good revenge movie of course. DAF(1971) should have been like LTK(1989)! This film looks much cheaper than TLD, it almost feels like TV episode to me. TLD vs. LTK is almost as comparing a great old Single (Barley)Malt Scotch Whisky vs. cheap American Bourbon Whiskey....................

LTK was one of my favourites and then went down in my estimations, but it has risen close to the top again. I don't mind some of the inconsistencies - all Bond movies are in one way or another. People say it is humourless, but there are some genuinely funny lines, albeit they are in the dead pan Dalton manner, but I like them that way. Definitely agree Dalton is underappreciated and would like to see more in future films of the intelligent Bond on a mission, as opposed to the blunt instrument version of the character

Enjoying these videos immensely, especially getting me through my cardio sessions

Im really glad I stumbled upon this channel. Keep doing what you're doing!

The problem is License to Kill isnt a Bond film, its a Miami Vice episode.

The Living Daylights is a great Bond film, and it establishes a good portion of what Dalton's tenure was to be. That being said, it's also a fairly traditional Bond movie. M hands him the mission, Moneypenny flirts, Q hands outs gadgets, etc. It would be one you would show a friend who wanted to dive into Bond for the first time. For me, Licence To Kill is the one of the starting points where the Bond movie series breaks from the traditional story set ups, and takes a dive into unfamiliar waters (OHMSS would be another to do this). And I was very captivated by it. I enjoyed all the previous films that came before this film, but, this is the first time it felt a lot heavier than some of the previous ones. You see the scariness of Bond's anger; you have an absolutely terrifying villain in Sanchez; you see him bleeding and battered multiple times (the only film before this that I can currently recall him in this particular state is in Dr. No, when the doctor's goons beat him). It felt more grown up than most of the other films (Bond was in outer space only 10 years earlier!) and it led me to believe that this would raise the films to another level. And it did, in a seesaw way, because you see a lot of LTK's influence on the Brosnan and Craig eras (the "this time, it's personal" angle you mention.) Is it flawed? Yes. I would've liked seeing a more somber ending, with Bond having a deeper heart to heart with a fellow widower, and also Bond contemplating his next move since he was somewhat disavowed. And it probably could've been suggested that Bond did his country a huge favor anyway, because the expansion of Sanchez's invisible empire would've eventually spread across the whole world, the UK too. But there's still a good tightness to the story that keeps it going. A revenge angle is something that had not really, at the time, been explored to the fullest, and it added more to Bond's character. We see what obsessive vengeance does to him. In scenes like Bond, after threatening Pam, realizing how much he botched Hong Kong and American operations combating with Sanchez's activities. Or the brief moment of sorrow and weariness right after killing Sanchez (and notice, no quip). We also have to consider that this movie is also influenced by Fleming's Man With the Golden Gun, with Pistols Scaramanga letting Bond into his inner circle while trying to expand his crime empire with foreign gangsters. Sorry, long, unfocused post, but you can tell I really like this film, lol.

Overall interesting perspective, couple of comments: I think in retrospect we can see the different eras of Bond as attempting to mould the character to the current cinematic landscape. The Connery era was indebted to Ian Fleming's influence, Hitchcock films and maybe a slight hint of film noir. The Moore era of course went more exotic, fantastical and veered into science fiction influenced by the success of Jaws and Star Wars, this was possible because Bond became more of an archetypal and self-aware character. The problem is by the 80s many action films were competing with Bond and the box-office reflected a decline in interest. I think this led to a lot of uneasiness as to how to handle the character. For example in LTK, the tension of "Americanising Bond" to make him fit in the current cinematic world against Dalton's grounded, novel inspired acting approach. I think this lends Dalton's two movies a unique tone in the series but I can see how the stylistic influences begin to detract from the archetypal aspects of the franchise.

Remembering back to the premiere of the Dalton films and thinking that this was an huge act of restoration of the character, bringing the films back to the darker (and so much richer) Fleming books. Similarly, in this era, GREYSTOKE (1984)went back to the ER Burroughs books to restore Tarzan to a more grimly realistic visage. BTW, both of these characters are in a very exclusive club of being the best known fictional people in the world. one can go to the depths of Mongolia and people there have heard of these 2 characters. Excellent analysis! Wishing you were a ERB fan as well!

I personally enjoy LTK a lot. It should've had better financing. The hair and costume departments should've been fired, Bond should've been more British and sometimes the lighter moments don't work very well. But the plot is one of the strongest among the Bond movies, Dalton is teriffic, it has one of the best villains in the series (perhaps even the best), I enjoy the action scenes and it handles tension very well.

Very interesting to hear your take! I am an unabashed Dalton-as-Bond lover, and while I think your criticisms of L2K are valid and well-thought out, I still immensely enjoy this film, even down to the winking fish. The idea that Dalton could have starred in Goldeneye is very exciting, wish I could glimpse into that parallel universe! Also agree that if David Hedison had played Leiter in Living Daylights (and his character had been given a more significant role in that film), it would have added a lot more weight to the story here. Anyway, thanks for another great thought provoking video, and I oook forward to your analysis of the Roger Moore era -- double-taking pigeons and all!

He's mine too... agree, Living Daylights.

License to Kill is brilliant, easily among the top 5 in the series. The beautiful thing about it, in retrospect, is that Dalton accomplishes what he set out to do...bringing the character back in line with Fleming's vision...but in a way that allowed the cinematic version of Bond to still exist(albeit in a darker, more saturnine incarnation than what had preceded it). In other words, Dalton did not turn the franchise into another entity, altogether, like we've endured with Craig. Of course, I don't blame Craig for this...he simply came along at a time when cinema had become utterly nihilistic and soulless. For instance, there was never anything in any Bond film or novel that hinted at true sadism in the personality of the character...nothing remotely indicative of Bond being a man who would drop somebody off in the desert with a quart of motor oil and find it amusing to speculate over how long it would take the guy to get desperate enough to try to drink it...Dalton's Bond is still Bond...but Craig's is EXCLUSIVELY a contemporary interpretation...I wish Dalton had made several more of these films. However, I can concede that his long term viability could have been open to question, since his greatest cinematic strength was the kind of primal anger he could radiate. This places him somewhat outside of the aloof, cold dedication that was the domain of Connery and Moore...

“License to Kill is a film that’s ‘unworthy’ of Timothy Dalton.” Very well said!

Definitely has one of the best title song sequences and Title Song.

Regardless of what Ive said before, I still would have loved to have seen Tims 3rd/ 4th (potentially 5th) Bond movie. Even if Pierce was never Bond, YES I said it :) For years I know lots of people blamed LTK for killing the Bond movies and thats why we had to wait for 6 years and have a new actor replaced. But since greatness of the internet back in the 2000's was trying to say that wasnt the case, it definitely made me want to revaluate all the movies and try and see them from the point of view of audiences back then on the other movies. Kinda like with Empire strikes back, you find out that not all of the movies were highly praised and sometimes that gets over shadowed when ever a new Bond movie comes out that people dont like and wish the movies were like how they use to be. But some of those old Bond movies werent well received as we all thought. This movie Id say is Tims TMWTGG, but his 3rd movie would have been his TSWLM and all late 80s and early 90's kids would have embraced him as Bond for their generation :)

I’m a License To Kill guy! I love that movie ❤

I love Robert Davi's performance in Licence to Kill, but I guess I always found Sanchez too naive and trusting...I mean, he tells his goons to "check him out," but then does NO follow up himself? Either he's too arrogant or too naive, but either way, it's kind of a big plot hole for me considering the whole premise relies on Bond infiltrating his org. Having said all that, I think the Miami Vice vibe works well (cuz I love me some Miami Vice) and I think I like LTK better than most, perhaps, except for Dutch Bond Fan :) I will also say I picture Timothy Dalton when I'm reading the Fleming Bond novels...

I know a lot of people have a problem with the tone and intangible “feel” of LICENCE TO KILL, which I get (it’s somehow not quite what we’re used to from the previous installments), but in a series with well over twenty entries, I appreciate more and more something a bit different from the standard like LTK. And I think the work from Dalton and Davi is extremely strong, which goes a long way for me.

“Bond knew that there was something alien and very un-English about himself. He knew he was a difficult man to cover up. Particularly in England.” ~Ian Fleming, Moonraker Not even Fleming thought Bond should be particularly “British.” This is one of the things Dalton excelled at representing. He was the closest representation of the Bond of the books.

License to kill does get alot more better over the years now and I think it can be fun to watch. But I feel we have to be realistic in the time that it was released that to go from a light heartered family entertainment movie to a straight Miami Vice/ Leathal weapon movie threw alot of people off back in the day. They basicaly blocked young Bond fans who could alternativley go and see indianna jones or ghosbusters 2 more than the Bond movie of that summer. I'll let it go of course because it went through a writers strike and it was a last minute on changing from China to south America and budget restrictions so its not entirley their fault. But I knew lots of people who didnt like this movie growing up during Brosnans era and I dont blame them for hating it. 24:10 yeah I just feel the tone is very off in this movie myself, very un even. Cant wait to listen to your Brosnan reviews :)

Timothy Dalton's opinion of Licence To Kill. Quote taken from the UK premiere: "Oh yes. It's tough and exciting. It's a great adventure thriller." He compares Licence To Kill with The Living Daylights: "The Living Daylights was a wonderfully enjoyable film. That was a step... a step to what we've done now. This is a leap and I'm very, very happy with it." Dalton was a fan of the grittier approach. He wouldn't have considered the film "unworthy" of his tenure in the role. That doesn't negate your opinion of the film, however, I feel Dalton would disagree with your view the film was unworthy of his acting ability or his interpretation of the Bond character.

I think License to Kill was made too early in Dalton's tenure. He should have had three or four movies to really establish himself with audiences first. Audiences were just getting to grips with a new Bond in 1987, and LTK was yet another departure. LTK is what you do as a final movie, not as the second outing.

Ironically, every James Bond movie has always so-called "sacrificial lamb", right? For example, for me, much more powerful moments were Quarrel/Ali Kerim Bey/Aki/Tracy/Ferrara/Vijay/Tibbet/Saunders deaths! Am I now supposed to believe that Felix's injury is more important??? If Della hadn't been killed in this, then all of Bond's further action would be out of proportion. Felix knew what he was risking. The only true innocent victim was Della! Not Felix. Felix's(as a secret agent) marriage was irresponsible towards a wife, actually...

Team *TLD* myself! My surmise is that EON would have crafted a 'third' Dalton 007 film more towards his first rather than second entry, given the glaringly weak box office returns of the latter.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like LTK was the end of the original Bond timeline that began with Dr No? To me, the Brosnan era felt like a reboot.

I'm a Dalton mark, but much prefer Licence to Kill to Living Daylights. LTK might be my favourite tbh. It is the 80's revenge genre trend-hopper Bond, and at the same time closer to the source material than a lot of Bonds. The hard-boiled style almost circles back to feeling very old-school pulp despite the at times aggressive eightiesness of the movie. Bond gets it in the neck quite a bit which is very pulp and true to the books, this isn't the superhero Bond. Q gets a lot to do in this one, Pam is easily one of the best girls and more competent sidekicks Bond ever had. The plot and villains are just better than Living Daylights.

Thanks for the video, I really enjoyed it. But you somtimes say "very unique" that irritates me much more than it should. Unique means one of a kind or unlike everything else. Nothing is a little bit or very one of a kind. it is or it isn't. A small insignificant detail, but there it is. Keep up the good work! 🙂