|
|
Post by paulbearer on Jun 27, 2017 2:30:31 GMT -5
June 27th , 1987.....after 12 yrs of Moore , agent 007 was reborn yet again..... Trivia : -first Dalton Bond -final John Barry soundtrack (his music had genuine and thrilling atmosphere , a tragedy we will NEVER hear such brilliance again  ) -final hand painted movie poster -final KGBs Gogol (6 times , 1977-87) -final Minister of Defence Frederick Gray (6 times , 1977-87) |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jun 27, 2017 3:03:03 GMT -5
Both Timothy Dalton movies were awesome. The Living Daylights has my favourite 007 car in it. Licence to Kill has some amazingly sadistic moments in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 27, 2017 10:23:47 GMT -5
Living Daylights was okay but man is it ever boring. I will defend Licence to Kill as being a killer Bond outing (albeit a bit too similar to a typical late 80s actioner). I think the problem I have with TLD is that I just never remember what it was about. It didn't have especially good villains or a memorable plot, though it was dialed down and more rooted in reality than most of the previous Moore outings. {Spoiler}{Spoiler}
Seriously, help me out here with the plot. The main heel Gen. Koskov basically reveals that the KGB is reviving the Smiert Spionam (Death to Spies) policy and all of these MI6 guys start getting killed. Obviously Koskov and Joe Don Baker's arms dealer guy (Whitaker) were behind this and were doing so to cover up their arms dealings and drug trafficking in Afghanistan. Where it lost me is this: Why do the Smiert Spionam? MI6 and the CIA had no real idea that Koskov was doing any of this before agents start being killed and Bond, Leiter, etc. end up investigating it. It's like they had a bunch of agents killed to cover their tracks but no one knew anything about what they were doing and the actual killing of the agents outed their other illegal activities. Further, the only reason Koskov would want to frame Gen. Pushkin for Smiert Spionam is that he's angry at Pushkin for canceling the KGB's arms deals with Whitaker, but Koskov was already trying to frame Pushkin for this before any deals were canceled. For what was supposed to be the adult, serious Bond movie this seems awfully...dumb. Am I missing something?
With that said I do think Dalton could have used 1 more outing as Bond. He was trying to figure out the role in TLD, but his darker and more violent take was pretty awesome in LTK. I wish he had one more movie in 1991-92, and then he could have turned the reigns over to Brosnan. |
|
agent817
Fry's dog Seymour
Doesn't Know Whose Ring It Is
Posts: 21,976
|
Post by agent817 on Jun 27, 2017 22:50:37 GMT -5
Wow, I feel like I need to watch this movie again to see what it was about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jun 28, 2017 11:44:38 GMT -5
The milkman assassin sequence is still brilliant
|
|
|
|
Post by Duke Cameron on Jun 28, 2017 12:04:59 GMT -5
It also features the second appearance of the parrot who played Max in For Your Eyes Only.
I like The Living Daylights. It has my favorite bond song, soundtrack, car and my second favorite bond in Dalton. (Moore is my favorite)
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jun 28, 2017 20:17:25 GMT -5
I really like this one. The plot's a little dry, but I like Dalton's Bond, and it's overall more fun than License to Kill (which I also like, but always feel kind of dirty after viewing).
I the a-ha song is also catchy as hell.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jun 28, 2017 20:26:44 GMT -5
Living Daylights was okay but man is it ever boring. I will defend Licence to Kill as being a killer Bond outing (albeit a bit too similar to a typical late 80s actioner). I think the problem I have with TLD is that I just never remember what it was about. It didn't have especially good villains or a memorable plot, though it was dialed down and more rooted in reality than most of the previous Moore outings. {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}
Seriously, help me out here with the plot. The main heel Gen. Koskov basically reveals that the KGB is reviving the Smiert Spionam (Death to Spies) policy and all of these MI6 guys start getting killed. Obviously Koskov and Joe Don Baker's arms dealer guy (Whitaker) were behind this and were doing so to cover up their arms dealings and drug trafficking in Afghanistan. Where it lost me is this: Why do the Smiert Spionam? MI6 and the CIA had no real idea that Koskov was doing any of this before agents start being killed and Bond, Leiter, etc. end up investigating it. It's like they had a bunch of agents killed to cover their tracks but no one knew anything about what they were doing and the actual killing of the agents outed their other illegal activities. Further, the only reason Koskov would want to frame Gen. Pushkin for Smiert Spionam is that he's angry at Pushkin for canceling the KGB's arms deals with Whitaker, but Koskov was already trying to frame Pushkin for this before any deals were canceled. For what was supposed to be the adult, serious Bond movie this seems awfully...dumb. Am I missing something?
With that said I do think Dalton could have used 1 more outing as Bond. He was trying to figure out the role in TLD, but his darker and more violent take was pretty awesome in LTK. I wish he had one more movie in 1991-92, and then he could have turned the reigns over to Brosnan. It's been a while since I've seen it but from what i recall... {Spoiler}Pushkin was investigating Koskov for misappropriating Russian funds in order to finance his deal with Whitaker. |
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 28, 2017 22:17:11 GMT -5
{Spoiler}
Yeah I vaguely remember that but it seems easier to me to grease a few palms in Russia if you're Koskov and make that go away instead of starting a crazy "kill foreign spies" program and try to frame the guy investigating you. Are we supposed to believe the KGB would care about some arms dealing and sending drugs to NYC to wreck America? But then the Bond movies always did have a curiously honorable view of the USSR as a whole, with a few bad apples like Koskov and the nutjob from Octopussy. As in Gen. Gogol was always an upright guy, and as we see here Pushkin is as well.
Anyway the point is that Koskov is a smooth, sneaky bastard that could likely talk his way out of the money charge. But having the blonde hitman guy kill MI6 agents and drawing the wrath of both British and American intelligence seems pretty stupid if you ask me, especially since trying to frame Pushkin flopped once Bond simply had a heated conversation with the General.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starshine on Jun 28, 2017 23:11:42 GMT -5
{Spoiler}{Spoiler}
Yeah I vaguely remember that but it seems easier to me to grease a few palms in Russia if you're Koskov and make that go away instead of starting a crazy "kill foreign spies" program and try to frame the guy investigating you. Are we supposed to believe the KGB would care about some arms dealing and sending drugs to NYC to wreck America? But then the Bond movies always did have a curiously honorable view of the USSR as a whole, with a few bad apples like Koskov and the nutjob from Octopussy. As in Gen. Gogol was always an upright guy, and as we see here Pushkin is as well.
Anyway the point is that Koskov is a smooth, sneaky bastard that could likely talk his way out of the money charge. But having the blonde hitman guy kill MI6 agents and drawing the wrath of both British and American intelligence seems pretty stupid if you ask me, especially since trying to frame Pushkin flopped once Bond simply had a heated conversation with the General.
{Spoiler}Yeah, I get that. Though I do think it makes more sense if we timeline the events out.
- Whitaker makes a deal with the KGB to sell them black market arms, and Koskov acts as their agent
- While this is going on the two decide to use the funds to transfer diamonds to Afghanistan for an exchange for opium which they'll smuggle to the US to profit off themselves, and then use extra proceeds to purchase Whitaker's arms.
- Pushkin distrusts Whitaker, pulls the KGB out of the deal and demands Koskov to return the money.
- Koskov plans the faux defection in order to try and put a hit on Pushkin by claiming he'd employed 'Smiert Shpionam.' He also employs Necros to take out MI6 spies to give his story credence, along with staging a faux kidnapping in order to go into hiding.
- Upon Pushkin being "assassinated" by Bond, Koskov returns to Russia, and it's implied that he claims the "defection" was an undercover operation ordered by Pushkin.
- Meanwhile, Koskov's girlfriend is keeping tabs on Bond. He uses her to kidnap Bond, with whom he hopes to gain greater favour with the KGB by delivering them Pushkin's killer.
- Theoretically, Koskov would be rich and get a promotion, Whitaker would expand his arms dealing business and become a regular supplier to the KGB, while the KGB use his weapons to keep hold of Afghanistan.
Yeah, it's a little convoluted. But there's a chain of logic there. If you look at Koskov as simply a greedy crook, and ignore any responsibility you'd think someone of his position would hold to his country, then it's easier to swallow. Without the embezzlement, they might be more forgiving. But once they realise Koskov used their deal for drug dealing and personal gain, they would likely execute him. |
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Jun 28, 2017 23:12:28 GMT -5
I liked both movies. Dalton was pretty underrated. It's too bad he didn't get another chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 29, 2017 8:08:50 GMT -5
I think the problem with all of that is Koskov as a character isn't given enough screen time or any big Bond villain reveal scene to explain his plan and why he's doing it. Instead he is basically a toothless heel and Whitaker ends up being the actual main villain who gets the big final scene with Bond at his goofy house with the weapons and historical displays. These guys feel more like villains from a Brosnan direct to video movie from the 1980s instead of actual Bond villains. I think Julian Glover from For Your Eyes Only has a similar problem. Bond villains tend to be awfully dull when they aren't big and cartoonish. FYEO is probably better than TLD though and may well be Roger Moore's finest hour, showing how great he could be when the movie took itself seriously.
|
|
) 
