The First Time you watched LALD...How did you feel?

13

Comments

  • edited February 2020 Posts: 1,282
    If Bond films get made the way they used to in decades like the 70's up to the point of 2002's DAD, this series wouldn't be interesting, let alone unacceptable.

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,992
    Terrified! My dad took me to see it when i was 6 and it scared the bejeesus out of me. All that Voodoo stuff!

    It was the first 'proper grown up film' i had ever seen. Up until then it had been the usual disney fare i was taken to see.

    I vividly remembered the scene where Bond's driver gets a dart in his head, the moment Bond blasts the Snake with the aerosol can, Mr Big 'pulling his face off', the Alligator stepping stones, the speedboat chase and Kananga inflating like a balloon. (which looked much better then than it did years later!)

    I was always fond of it and for a time Roger Moore was my favourite Bond. It was also the first Bond soundtrack i really loved.

    Now it's middle tier Bond for me. Not fantastic but enjoyable for what it is. But i'll always hold a fondness for it as it was my very first Bond film!
  • BT3366 wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I didn't care for it much, and would put it middle or lower of my rankings of the films. It doesn't feel very Bondian to me. I understand some of this was done to distance Moore from Connery's Bond.

    The film doesn't age well in my opinion. I didn't like how Bond tricked Solitaire into bed. He also plays on Rosie Carver's fear and takes her to bed. In light of the metoo movement it plays even worse now.

    The plot itself is rather uninspired. Kananga is going to be a heroin mogul? I don't think that really holds up.

    Some things I like are M crashing Bond's flat. I enjoy the delectable Miss Jane Seymour. She is in my top 5 for leading ladies.

    Sorry to not contribute to the love in.

    I appreciate the candor as I also rank LALD about where you do.

    Funny how LTK constantly gets dinged for being about a drug dealer and few if any criticisms of LALD say the same for Kananga and his scheme. Richard Maibaum said he'd have liked a crack at it, calling Mankiewicz's plot "cooking drugs in the jungle" or something along those lines.

    Another criticism in the past mentioned it's one long chase movie. It's like the film is constructed around set pieces of Bond being pursued in one mode of transportation or another for most of the film. This is where the atmosphere and imagery really benefit it.
    It’s all in the execution. When I think of LTK I think of drug cartels and MIAMI VICE. That was the direct inspiration for the film. Not so with LALD. I don’t even think about the drugs aspect of that film. It’s somewhere in the background because there’s a lot more colorful stuff going on in the forefront. It just feels like a proper Bond film, something Fleming would have written. In fact DN and LALD are excellent companion pieces - what with the Jamaican location and the creepy vibe of the villain and his island and the methods he uses to keep people at bay (fire-breathing dragons/voodoo). It all just screams BOND!!! LTK is basically a late 80s gritty action picture about drugs and revenge. Like I said, it’s all in the execution. I can’t see Fleming writing that screenplay. But I can see him writing DN and LALD.

    That said, I do enjoy LTK. But it does feel... different.

  • Posts: 1,916
    BT3366 wrote: »
    thedove wrote: »
    I didn't care for it much, and would put it middle or lower of my rankings of the films. It doesn't feel very Bondian to me. I understand some of this was done to distance Moore from Connery's Bond.

    The film doesn't age well in my opinion. I didn't like how Bond tricked Solitaire into bed. He also plays on Rosie Carver's fear and takes her to bed. In light of the metoo movement it plays even worse now.

    The plot itself is rather uninspired. Kananga is going to be a heroin mogul? I don't think that really holds up.

    Some things I like are M crashing Bond's flat. I enjoy the delectable Miss Jane Seymour. She is in my top 5 for leading ladies.

    Sorry to not contribute to the love in.

    I appreciate the candor as I also rank LALD about where you do.

    Funny how LTK constantly gets dinged for being about a drug dealer and few if any criticisms of LALD say the same for Kananga and his scheme. Richard Maibaum said he'd have liked a crack at it, calling Mankiewicz's plot "cooking drugs in the jungle" or something along those lines.

    Another criticism in the past mentioned it's one long chase movie. It's like the film is constructed around set pieces of Bond being pursued in one mode of transportation or another for most of the film. This is where the atmosphere and imagery really benefit it.
    It’s all in the execution. When I think of LTK I think of drug cartels and MIAMI VICE. That was the direct inspiration for the film. Not so with LALD. I don’t even think about the drugs aspect of that film. It’s somewhere in the background because there’s a lot more colorful stuff going on in the forefront. It just feels like a proper Bond film, something Fleming would have written. In fact DN and LALD are excellent companion pieces - what with the Jamaican location and the creepy vibe of the villain and his island and the methods he uses to keep people at bay (fire-breathing dragons/voodoo). It all just screams BOND!!! LTK is basically a late 80s gritty action picture about drugs and revenge. Like I said, it’s all in the execution. I can’t see Fleming writing that screenplay. But I can see him writing DN and LALD.

    That said, I do enjoy LTK. But it does feel... different.

    Nice post, ringfire 211.

    I would counter that LTK's original intent was to film in China and had a warlord involved in drugs if I'm remembering it right before they claimed The Last Emperor had already filmed in China, which I think is a flimsy excuse. Changing the locale to Central America/Mexico was more cost effective.

    I also think the stories of Manuel Noriega having his fortress and people in his country looking out for him as an inspiration for Sanchez as well since the series often took inspiration from real-life events and situations. But I can understand some of the other points as well.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I’ve never heard LTK dinged for being about a drug dealer. Certainly not constantly.

    Really? I've heard that criticism since when it was released with people complaining a drug dealer shouldn't be worthy of James Bond's attention, followed by the Miami Vice comparisons. I think people were disappointed that it was closer to real life and not a madman with some odd physical characteristic.

    I think now more people have reevaluated the character and Davi's portrayal and it's gained more appreciation.

    I've watch every episode of Miami Vice and have the box set. It's a great series, but apart from Daltons slightly more casual dress/ along with the dress code in general (Sanchez) and the heavy being a drug dealer, LTK is absolutely nothing like Miami Vice. The more serious violent style is more of a 'nod' to Die Hard & Lethal Weapon, but not Miami Vice.

    The movie is really well-structured, simple in plot but rather engaging in delivery. It's Bond pretty much on his own, tracking down the people who hurt his friends and either killing them one by one or disrupting their entire lives.

    And that's where the strength of the movie lies. We as the audience are Bond's cohorts on this personal case. We're right there with him as he kills the people that hurt his friends. We're right there with him as he takes the drug kingpin's money and actually uses it against him. We're right there with him as he infiltrates the kingpin's lair and pretends to be his friend so he can screw him over in the end. While most of the Bond movies are pleasing, License to Kill is crowd-pleasing. We want Bond to succeed because we want him to avenge his friends, not just because it's a Bond movie and he's supposed to succeed. Basically nothing like Miami Vice. Wilson compared the script to Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo, where a samurai "without any attacking of the villain or its cohorts, only sowing the seeds of distrust, he manages to have the villain bring himself down". Wilson freely admitted that the idea of the destruction-from-within aspect of the plot came more from Yojimbo and Sergio Leone's remake of that film, A Fistful of Dollars, than from Fleming's use of that plot device from The Man with the Golden Gun.

    It's also a terrific mix of the old and the new. The violence and action are a clear nod to modern times (80's action films), but there's a nice throwback feel to the movie, too (Fleming touches). There's talk of the time Bond was married years earlier (in On Her Majesty's Secret Service) and David Hedison makes a return as Felix Leiter, which makes for nice continuity with the earlier adventure Live and Let Die (even if the actor who plays Bond has changed). License to Kill has a good soundtrack (by Michael Kamen - Die Hard), exotic locations, two nice-looking leading ladies (Carey Lowell and Talisa Soto), an evil villain (Robert Davi) who either cuts out the hearts of his enemies or feeds them to sharks (Live & Let Die Novel), quips that make you laugh and/or groan, explosions, and a short-haired Benicio del Toro (in only his second film role) as a crazy, slimy henchman.

    With its cinematic sensibility, high fashion, pastel colours, charming anti-heroes and existential montages, Miami Vice paved the way for our golden age of deluxe cable TV. But it didn't really influence Bond at all.

    The United Artists press kits referred to the film's background as being "Torn straight from the headlines of today's newspapers" and the backdrop of Panama was connected to "the Medellín Cartel in Colombia and corruption of government officials in Mexico thrown in for good measure." This use of the cocaine-smuggling backdrop put Licence to Kill alongside other cinema blockbusters, such as the 1987 films Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop II and RoboCop, and Bond was seen to be "poaching on their turf" with the drug-related revenge story.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @suavejmf , just a note on the MIAMI VICE thing, I know this has been discussed thoroughly on here in the past, but the actual connections between the television show and LTK are irrelevant to the feelings invoked. Yes, when parsed there is only superficial similarities, but, for what ever reason, many people (including me, very much so) independently left the theatre with the thought, "That felt like and epsisoe on MIAMI VICE." You can dismiss it logically, but it was my actual response, and I was to find out I was not alone, in 1989.

    I felt the same when seeing LTK upon opening-night of this movie in my local cinema. And I am a Miami Vice fan and felt that the economic choice of EON setting the scene in the Caribbean and South America was not a wise one as Miami Vice was already very successfully occupying this territory and did it with a lot of flair and darkness. I have the series on dvd too and watched recently a season and the series was darker and more violent than I remembered.
    LTK had some great scenes taken from LALD the book, which I really appreciated being filmed. It gave the story certainly a Fleming feeling for the 007 fan, TD's previous movie also had the Fleming touch with a short story involved. Both movies became more interesting because of that.

    Seeing LALD for the first time was a hoot an half I saw it in cinema in a double bill, and was a more entertaining movie than most of the big spectacle movies I saw in those days. Roger Moore remains a favorite actor of mine, his name in a movie makes me want to watch it. I love especially "Shout at the Devil" "Northsea Hijack"and "Gold". The movie is good balance between action and a wicked sense of humour which only one other Bond actor can match, namely Connery.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @suavejmf , just a note on the MIAMI VICE thing, I know this has been discussed thoroughly on here in the past, but the actual connections between the television show and LTK are irrelevant to the feelings invoked. Yes, when parsed there is only superficial similarities, but, for what ever reason, many people (including me, very much so) independently left the theatre with the thought, "That felt like and epsisoe on MIAMI VICE." You can dismiss it logically, but it was my actual response, and I was to find out I was not alone, in 1989.

    In what way though? Style, clothes, music, cinematography, score, setting? I can’t see any comparisons bar a slight tweak of Bonds clothing style, a drug dealer and some of the locations.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    I got the impression it's because it was partly filmed in the Keys, and because of the drug themes. Rather than any similarity with the TV series
  • Posts: 7,653
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    @suavejmf , just a note on the MIAMI VICE thing, I know this has been discussed thoroughly on here in the past, but the actual connections between the television show and LTK are irrelevant to the feelings invoked. Yes, when parsed there is only superficial similarities, but, for what ever reason, many people (including me, very much so) independently left the theater with the thought, "That felt like and episode on MIAMI VICE." You can dismiss it logically, but it was my actual response, and I was to find out I was not alone, in 1989.

    In what way though? Style, clothes, music, cinematography, score, setting? I can’t see any comparisons bar a slight tweak of Bonds clothing style, a drug dealer and some of the locations.

    How smart is it to do a South American drugslord in an era that is run by Miami Vice and do an exact similar theme, throw in the casual clothes, Florida cigar boats etc. TV actors because of economic reasons.
    Had LTK chosen for a an Asian decor it would have had more an own vibe instead it perhaps opted to the Miami Vice tailwind because of the series popularity and they trusted the movie not enough to did something unique.

    With the Roger Moore era they did this much better with LALD (blaxploitation movies), MR (SW phenomena). to name a few.

    With LTK it feels like a poor mans Miami Vice as the series is far more stylized and more interestingly filmed. The scenes from LALD are actually refreshing to see and the biggest pleasure I get from the movie.

    Anybody not seeing the influence Miami Vice had on LTK is really not aware of said show of is putting his head in the sand like an Ostrich. For me the choices made with LTK was surely also one of the reasons the movie did not do very well as we could see Miami Vice for "free" on the telly each week what did LTK really add or do new in comparison?
    EON failed Dalton by not giving him something other than a pastiche of a tv show while the total BO of LTK was the BO of the Batman's first weekend. Brocolli might have faith in Timothy Dalton as 007 but with this 2nd movie he certainly made a bad choice in how the movie finally was produced.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 653
    Birdleson wrote: »
    It was just a vibe I got. Probably because they both have color schemes primarily composed of sea blues, navy blues and pastels, set in the terrain of Southern Florida. And it was definitely on my mind that the cast was full of television actors, adding to the overall low-budget, TV level production look of the film. Oddly, it doesn’t look cheap to me now; aside from the barroom scene. That looks like it was filmed on a sitcom set. Poorly choreographed too.
    This is very true about the television actors or just American character actors in general that are in the film. Names like Anthony Zerbe, Robert Davi, Grand L. Bush, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Frank McRae, Everett McGill, Don Stroud, Priscilla Barnes, etc. These are staple American character actors that you could see in any typical 80s action movie with Clint or Arnold or Sly or Bronson, etc. or any episodic TV action show of the time (Hunter, T.J. Hooker, The A-Team, etc). I mean we even have Terri from Three’s Company!!!! Never before did we have such a slew of American actors in a Bond film!! The film just felt VERY American as a result.

    Having said that, I would never claim that LTK is in any way inferior to MIAMI VICE. I saw someone say why would they pay money to see LTK when they could just watch MV on the small screen for free?! Well, first of all the story of LTK is leaps and bounds more interesting than your typical MV episode. The Yojimbo/Fistful of Dollars theme is the most engaging part of the film!!!! Bond basically causes the villain to self-implode without laying a finger on him. Brilliant stuff!!! And secondly where in MV did you ever see such cool stunts and set pieces as we see in LTK??? The lasoing of the plane at the beginning in mid-air is superb!!! The waterskiing stuff and especially the tanker finale is absolutely incredible!!! Michael Kamen’s score works so well in those scenes!! Nothing like that EVER on MV!

    Honestly I can see the influence of MV on LTK but like I said the latter is head and shoulders above MV! I never cared for the show. Found it boring. It’s always the same exact thing in every episode. Crockett and Tubbs undercover as drug dealers trying to set up yet another buy or another bust. This type of thing gets old very, very quickly. Yes the show was shot stylistically and had a cinematic quality to it. But so what???? I’m not going to watch a show just for that alone. I need more than style, I need substance. Don’t give me yet another cliched drug dealer they’re trying to set up a buy with and then bust. For this alone, LTK scores major points in the story department.
  • LTK was a respectful film toward LALD, they got David Hedison back as Felix Leiter. Only he and Jeffrey Wright have played the role really well.
  • Posts: 7,653
    You do miss the point really, LTK was just a movie with drugs smuggling, which was shown every week in a new episode of MV (admittedly not every episode was great but the series had some impressive episodes that were very well written nonetheless), the James Bond as played by Timothy Dalton was certainly not a favorite of the general audience and that showed in the BO which was poor compared to the movie Batman whose first weekend BO was better than LTK in its whole run. Batman being something original and with a screen vision of its own and better actors in general.
    LTK's original premise might have been more interesting with an oriental face on drugs smuggling. Overal the cinematic quality of LTK is just pedestrian and on occasion great but is does not feel like a big production, something TLD did certainly not lack.
    LTK always felt less of a movie and story department is just not that great except for adapting the LALD parts of the story. Overall the story was nothing special that lit up the BO apparently. Broccoli made perhaps a cheaper movie by locating to Mexico but it just did not help Dalton in his 2nd 007 outing, it felt just like something people had seen too often on the small screen (you might find it boring but the show was certainly not and it did prove to be a trendsetter in TV as for its style and cinematic style of filming a tv show). And LTK is remembered by the general public as that 007 film by that guy who was just not very good.
    I am 007 fan and find LTK a wasted opportunity to sell the general audience an original and oriental feeling movie instead of a MV pastiche by 007. It just wasn't that better as some people want it to be.
    Most ridicoulous part in the movie was Q send to hostile territory, Q who is in essence worth more than 007 for the Secret Service, it proved to be good for a laugh but also a very silly road to add Q to the movie.
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 653
    SaintMark wrote: »
    You do miss the point really, LTK was just a movie with drugs smuggling, which was shown every week in a new episode of MV (admittedly not every episode was great but the series had some impressive episodes that were very well written nonetheless), the James Bond as played by Timothy Dalton was certainly not a favorite of the general audience and that showed in the BO which was poor compared to the movie Batman whose first weekend BO was better than LTK in its whole run. Batman being something original and with a screen vision of its own and better actors in general.
    LTK's original premise might have been more interesting with an oriental face on drugs smuggling. Overal the cinematic quality of LTK is just pedestrian and on occasion great but is does not feel like a big production, something TLD did certainly not lack.
    LTK always felt less of a movie and story department is just not that great except for adapting the LALD parts of the story. Overall the story was nothing special that lit up the BO apparently. Broccoli made perhaps a cheaper movie by locating to Mexico but it just did not help Dalton in his 2nd 007 outing, it felt just like something people had seen too often on the small screen (you might find it boring but the show was certainly not and it did prove to be a trendsetter in TV as for its style and cinematic style of filming a tv show). And LTK is remembered by the general public as that 007 film by that guy who was just not very good.
    I am 007 fan and find LTK a wasted opportunity to sell the general audience an original and oriental feeling movie instead of a MV pastiche by 007. It just wasn't that better as some people want it to be.
    Most ridicoulous part in the movie was Q send to hostile territory, Q who is in essence worth more than 007 for the Secret Service, it proved to be good for a laugh but also a very silly road to add Q to the movie.
    For the life of me I can’t figure out why you’re so hung up on an Oriental villain. Why is that important??? Dr. No was supposed to be Oriental, YOLT was full of orientals, so was TMWTGG. It would hardly be original in LTK. Drug smuggling but with an oriental villain??? Would that really have improved things??? Besides, I find the story of revenge and destruction from within to be the most engaging part of this drug tale. Whatever LTK’s shortcomings are it’s not in the story department. Sure it doesn’t feel like a classic Fleming Bond story (the way LALD does) but what it does with the story it has it does very well. I’d rather watch this story than any other drug-related story of the time, LETHAL WEAPON included. Also Davi’s villain is much more interesting than your standard drug baron of the time in MV and other movies.

  • LTK may have been an inspiration for the first Fast and Furious movie on the theme of family and destruction from within.
  • Posts: 7,653
    SaintMark wrote: »
    You do miss the point really, LTK was just a movie with drugs smuggling, which was shown every week in a new episode of MV (admittedly not every episode was great but the series had some impressive episodes that were very well written nonetheless), the James Bond as played by Timothy Dalton was certainly not a favorite of the general audience and that showed in the BO which was poor compared to the movie Batman whose first weekend BO was better than LTK in its whole run. Batman being something original and with a screen vision of its own and better actors in general.
    LTK's original premise might have been more interesting with an oriental face on drugs smuggling. Overal the cinematic quality of LTK is just pedestrian and on occasion great but is does not feel like a big production, something TLD did certainly not lack.
    LTK always felt less of a movie and story department is just not that great except for adapting the LALD parts of the story. Overall the story was nothing special that lit up the BO apparently. Broccoli made perhaps a cheaper movie by locating to Mexico but it just did not help Dalton in his 2nd 007 outing, it felt just like something people had seen too often on the small screen (you might find it boring but the show was certainly not and it did prove to be a trendsetter in TV as for its style and cinematic style of filming a tv show). And LTK is remembered by the general public as that 007 film by that guy who was just not very good.
    I am 007 fan and find LTK a wasted opportunity to sell the general audience an original and oriental feeling movie instead of a MV pastiche by 007. It just wasn't that better as some people want it to be.
    Most ridicoulous part in the movie was Q send to hostile territory, Q who is in essence worth more than 007 for the Secret Service, it proved to be good for a laugh but also a very silly road to add Q to the movie.
    For the life of me I can’t figure out why you’re so hung up on an Oriental villain. Why is that important??? Dr. No was supposed to be Oriental, YOLT was full of orientals, so was TMWTGG. It would hardly be original in LTK. Drug smuggling but with an oriental villain??? Would that really have improved things??? Besides, I find the story of revenge and destruction from within to be the most engaging part of this drug tale. Whatever LTK’s shortcomings are it’s not in the story department. Sure it doesn’t feel like a classic Fleming Bond story (the way LALD does) but what it does with the story it has it does very well. I’d rather watch this story than any other drug-related story of the time, LETHAL WEAPON included. Also Davi’s villain is much more interesting than your standard drug baron of the time in MV and other movies.

    LTK was originally planned to take place in China before the money talked.....
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,044
    A chase on the Great Wall of China was planned for LTK if I remember correctly.
  • SF took place in China but....it was too polished and fake Macau like. It tried to copy the generic GE movie.

    TND also squandered its Asian scenes. We need a Daniel Craig style...not Sam Mendes, not Pierce Brosnan polished kind of setting location. LALD got that right with bringing the audience into its atmosphere without it feeling fake. Just reading about Geoffrey Holder taking Jane Seymore on tours about the African diaspora derived influences in the Caribbean including but not limited to rituals....you could imagine the learning experience as an audience. The scenes retained a down to earth tone that didn't rely on a polished work. SF and GE tried too hard on being Bond movies.

  • Of all the villains, Robert Davi and Dominic Greene represented the most credible ones because they were the type to use philanthropic ventures to gain power. Aside from acne scars, they didn't have violent scars or computer generated cyanided jaws or third nipples....LALD followed a similar approach. The fake face, that's it and it was removed halfway through the film.

    Those movies where the villain has a scar-scar were not successful because of that but because of box office money which was made due to long hiatus, or a people's choice actor to play Bond like Pierce Brosnan and also because of the last film being good over the years rather than being a trend that ends as soon as it leaves the box office. MR wouldn't have had a large budget if TSWLME wasn't good. OP wouldn't have been too comfortable to go over the top without FYEO. Sadly these ott sequels including SF were over marketed to make up for their lack of real substance.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    I grew up watching Connery’s flicks on TV, and also reading the books. My first cinematic Bond experience was The Man with the Golden Gun, which even as a kid left me cold: They hired Dracula to be the bad guy, and he wasn’t scary at all! That ‘fun-house’ set was silly! The girl was lame! And don’t get even me started on the damn midget!!

    Then Live and Let Die finally came to TV, and my reaction was… this is not quite as bad as TMWTGG? Maybe? At least now I understood why the audience had been so pleased to see that random redneck tourist show up in Thailand. Suffice it to say that I had a lot of problems with this movie.

    But my biggest problem with LALD was that thing Bond does with the cards to get Solitaire into bed. No, not because he tricks or manipulates her into the sack—Bond’s a bounder and a cad, so I’ll allow that he cheats at cards. But as a teenaged magician myself, I didn’t like the way in which he cheated. First of all: Are we to believe that Bond bought 78 decks of Tarot cards in order to make his rigged deck? In today’s money, a cheap deck of Tarot cards can easily cost $20 a deck (or $1,560 USD total)—and hers was not a cheap deck! Did he buy them in the Harlem voodoo emporium he visits earlier, where he buys a plush-toy snake? Seems like a critical bit of info to leave out!

    BOND: “Seventy-eight copies of this edition of the Tarot, please.”
    CASHIER (rings up purchase): “Maybe I’ll close early today!”
    BOND: “What are you doing after work?”
    CASHIER: “Smokin’ crack! Want some?”

    Anyway, let’s say he bought the cards (nevermind how he knew which edition Solitaire favors, or that he would even need such a thing). On the island, Solitaire catches him fooling around with “her” cards and angrily demands that he leave them alone.
    This brings me to my second objection to this scene: Are we supposed to believe that Solitaire—a woman who literally lives or dies by her skills with the cards—would think for even one second that those cards were anything other than Bond’s own deck? No! She would be able to tell, instantly and at a glance, that his cards were brand new, while her own deck is no doubt well-thumbed and broken in. He even lets her handle one! She wouldn’t have to be Dai Vernon in order to discern that these were not her beautiful cards.

    So for those two reasons I don’t like the way he faked his way into Solitaire’s bed. Much better would have been for Bond to perform a simple card force, and make her choose The Lovers from her own deck (thus saving himself over $1,560 USD).
    After all, James Bond should be able to perform card tricks. We know this because in Moonraker (the novel) M wants Bond to out-cheat a card cheat; Bond has a book or two on his shelf about how to cheat at cards, and he brushes up a bit before going off to do the thing. Now, how does one cheat at cards? By using certain tricks and techniques (false cuts, false shuffles, bottom-dealing, second-dealing, two-card lifts, pinkie breaks, etc)—techniques which are also used by magicians to perform card tricks. Ergo, Bond can do card magic. QED. I will rewrite the scene:

    SOLITAIRE turns over the card. It is the Lovers. “A simple trick, Mr. Bond.”
    BOND: “Yes.” He takes two more cards (the Fool and the Tower) and does a quick three-card monte. “Try again.”
    SOLITAIRE: “I don’t understand. I am supposed to avoid the Lovers? Or to find them?”
    BOND: “You don’t choose the card. The card chooses you.”
    She turns over a card. It is the Lovers.
    SOLITAIRE: “Then I suppose I have no choice.” They go to bed. Afterwards, she says: “I did not fall for your little trick, James. I fell for you. Can you protect me?” And so on….

    I’ve always appreciated in Dr. No the nice touch of having Bond while away the hours as he waits for Dent’s arrival by playing solitaire; perhaps in a future installment he can amuse himself by practicing his fans and flourishes and cascades and one-handed cuts instead.

    Excelsior!
  • edited February 2020 Posts: 1,282
    @DrunkIrishPoet such an insightful post! Better than watching TMWTGG for sure.


    Regarding the Dr. No solitude scenes....films like QoS and CR, even the better parts of SF had their solemn scenes....Bond walking through the desert with Camille, Bond and Vesper scenes and the casino game, Bond and M watching the scenic Scottish Highlands together taking it all in with the audience....makes you feel like you're included.

    In AVTAK you had Bond taking care of Stacy at her house while protecting her like a gentleman.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I always assumed Solitaire had extra cards laying about (makes sense) and he used those.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,016
    pachazo wrote: »
    I always assumed Solitaire had extra cards laying about (makes sense) and he used those.
    Quite frankly. cards with a "007" design on the reverse side never made sense at all, no matter how many sets were available. It's part of "the Voodoo angle" of this movie which I despise (while I still like the movie overall), and it simply isn't meant to make sense.
  • Lacking hardcore reality is what gives life to Austin Powers or parody characters appearing from time to time. It embarrasses the series and limits it putting it at risk of bankruptcy from overspending. TMWTGG and MR each led the series down into dark territories and not just overnight....MR spending caused the series to lose budget funding over the course of ten years which is how LTK couldn't be filmed with better quality.
  • DrunkIrishPoetDrunkIrishPoet The Amber Coast
    Posts: 156
    I agree that the "007" design on the back of the cards makes no sense, but you can't see it in the film--I let this detail slide as an Easter egg for the fans.
    But Ethan Hunt does some slight of hand stuff; Bond should "wow" us with cards.
  • They even made a video game on LALD....but it's no Blood Stone for sure.....

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,016
    I agree that the "007" design on the back of the cards makes no sense, but you can't see it in the film--I let this detail slide as an Easter egg for the fans.
    But Ethan Hunt does some slight of hand stuff; Bond should "wow" us with cards.
    I won't comment on the Ethan Hunt stuff (seems like a bit of Whataboutism to me), but I remember very strongly seeing those "007"-backed playing cards the very first time that I watched that movie, about January or February 1974, and I have never been able to un-see them...for whatever it may be worth. At any rate, as you say, they didn't make sense.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I always assumed Solitaire had extra cards laying about (makes sense) and he used those.
    Quite frankly. cards with a "007" design on the reverse side never made sense at all, no matter how many sets were available. It's part of "the Voodoo angle" of this movie which I despise (while I still like the movie overall), and it simply isn't meant to make sense.

    If she was a true clairvoyant then she could've had the cards custom made to tailor to her vision of the future. Not that difficult to imagine, really.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,016
    pachazo wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    I always assumed Solitaire had extra cards laying about (makes sense) and he used those.
    Quite frankly. cards with a "007" design on the reverse side never made sense at all, no matter how many sets were available. It's part of "the Voodoo angle" of this movie which I despise (while I still like the movie overall), and it simply isn't meant to make sense.

    If she was a true clairvoyant then she could've had the cards custom made to tailor to her vision of the future. Not that difficult to imagine, really.
    Still, where would Bond have organised all those "lovers" cards with the same design? No, it doesn't make sense either way. Apart from the fact that I don't buy the "clairvoyance" angle in a Bond film, no matter what.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    She had extra cards on hand. Look, I acknowledge the whole Voodoo angle is "out there", along with the other superstitions and supernatural abilities that are presented to us, but it can all be defended within the context of the film.
  • I must have watched it when I was very young, so I did not think. I found Tee Hee's hand fascinating!
Sign In or Register to comment.