Every Bond fan has that one movie thatâ??s popular amongst the fandom that they donâ??t like. The backlash towards Thunderball has become so common-place that itâ??s slipped down the rankings for most Bond fans in recent years. I know a few people who abhor Skyfall, even though for a while, it was my very favourite. But for me personally, the one movie in the franchise that I hate that most Bond fans seem to like is The Living Daylights.
Now, itâ??s not a god-awful film. Thereâ??s still some good stuff in the movie, and I donâ??t even know if Iâ??d consider it the worst in the Eon series. But I think out of all the movies, I think this one annoys me the most, and for several reasons.
Letâ??s start with the positives though. I think Timothy Dalton is a good Bond, who whilst still maintaining some of the warmth from Roger, manages to add an edge to the character that was needed. While I think his best performance in the role was yet to come, he does a good job here.
Necros is a pretty cool henchman too, and might even make my top 10 henchmen list in the series. I really like how he can change his accent on a dime, and the inventive and resourceful ways he finds to kill people, and heâ??s a good match for Bond. He speaks only when necessary, and itâ??s amusing that of all bands, he listens to the Pretenders on that stereo of his. Youâ??d at least expect him to be jamming to Mercyful Fate or something else pretty macabre.
John Rhys-Davies as Pushkin is also well-cast and does a good job, although I do think the character is underutilized, and not given enough screen-time; he just disappears after the Tangier section and only appears out of nowhere near the end. Itâ??s a shame that Walter Gottell was too ill to play Gogol in a more intense role, but it was nice to see him make a cameo at the end of the film, and I canâ??t blame the film for that.
Other positives include the Q Branch scenes (save one aspect which Iâ??ll touch on later), the safehouse raid by Necros and Saundersâ?? pretty brutal and creative death. Whittakerâ??s gun is kind of cool too, must be where Blackbeard from Rainbow Six: Siege took inspiration from. I also think the first half, whilst not having the best execution, is pretty interesting, and has the audience asking enough questions to keep our interest, and I can see why many people may like it.
Now, letâ??s cover the negatives, and this is going to be a long list. Firstly, I think Kara Milovy is probably the worst Bond girl in the franchise. Yeah, worse than Stacy Sutton, since at least her and Bond had a dynamic between them that felt almost paternal (that was sadly ruined, but one review at a time). Just imagine Tiffany Case without the humour, and youâ??ll have a good impression of what sheâ??s like: A Bond girl that is both stupid and boring. I donâ??t blame the actress too much for this, as the writing is pretty poor for her (obsessing over a cello is about the extent of her development, and that probably screwed over Bond more than it saved him later), and she turns against Koskov pretty suddenly and without much explanation too. If she were interesting, I wouldnâ??t mind, but she really isnâ??t, and the actress doesnâ??t do enough to make me believe the dynamic between her and Bond. I think the movie is trying to establish that early on, but it just seems too forced and honestly, a childrenâ??s play version of Bond and Tracyâ??s relationship in OHMSS.
Then we have the villains. I donâ??t hate either of them, but theyâ??re very weak considering the lack of development for both, particularly Whittaker. Koskov is the slightly better of the two, and I do enjoy how he plays the suck-up in order to save his own hide, but is otherwise not too spectacular, and I donâ??t think Jeroen Krabbéâ??s Russian accent is very good. Brad Whittaker is even more disappointing and underutilised, only appearing in four scenes, and none of them really memorable, not even the dull final showdown, and I think Joe Don Baker doesnâ??t play the role with enough dignity for my liking, especially given that Koskov does go a little over the top at moments. Theyâ??re not the worst villains in the franchise, but theyâ??re among the most forgettable.
The plan and indeed, plot, is also needlessly convoluted. Itâ??s like they took elements from Octopussy (evil Soviet general, Bond girl gets betrayed by the villain, two main villains) and For Your Eyes Only (thriller reliant on twists and turns) and threw them into a blender, but it just doesnâ??t work. In FYEO, the plot made much more sense: Kristatos wants Columbo axed so he can deliver the ATAC to the Soviets to get paid. Not too complicated. In TLD, Pushkin says no to a weapons deal with Whittaker, so Whittaker and Koskov conspire to have him killed, but they try and make MI6 do it, until they decide to get Necros to do it anyway, so that Koskov can get opium to give to Whittaker, but Koskov already has diamonds to trade with the Mujahedeen for the opium anyway? My best guess is that Koskov gets Whittakerâ??s guns, presumably for Soviet use against the west, and Whittaker gets the opium to finance more gun dealsâ?¦I think? Itâ??s a needlessly complex plan thatâ??s hard to follow in a two-hour movie. And thatâ??s not including Karaâ??s involvement in this convoluted plan. Itâ??s a mess.
Before I get to what kills this movie for me though, some other gripes. Caroline Bliss is a poor Moneypenny that brings down the Q Branch scenes sheâ??s in, although I again blame bad writing for this. Saunders is not a very likeable Bond ally and spends most of his time complaining (although itâ??s nice he gets a slight redemption before his death, and I like how Bond handles his death). John Terry as Felix Leiter is not only pointless, but completely unmemorable, and the action, for the most part, is standard, although I quite like the rooftop scene in Tangier, despite how brief is it, and the stuntwork is pretty good.
But this is the biggest thing I hold against this movie and why I think itâ??s akin to drinking salt-water. The Afghanistan section, and more specifically, the Mujahedeen. I get that this movie is supposed to represent the Cold War, but the good thing about previous Bond movies is that they treated the USSR with at least some degree of courtesy, even in the Connery era. Save for Pushkin, I donâ??t get that at all in this movie, and seeing the Mujahedeen celebrating over dead Soviet soldiers even before the airfield fight against Koskovâ??s men isnâ??t exactly an appealing sight.
Whatâ??s more, without getting too political, we now know that the funding of the Mujahadeen by the West is one of the key factors in allowing for 9/11 to occur. Iâ??m not saying this is the movieâ??s fault or anything like that, but with this new context, it makes their portrayal in this movie seemâ?¦well, disturbing in a sense, and quite difficult to watch, and I canâ??t help but let it hinder my enjoyment of the movie. Iâ??m obviously not saying that the entirety of the Mujahadeen were responsible for 9/11, as that would be ridiculous, but the glorification and funding of them during the tail end of the Cold War is commonly accepted as a mistake nowadays, making this movie seem highly dated and ignorant in that sense. I get that in the secret service, unsavoury contacts are needed to be maintained, but it really doesnâ??t sit well with me.
The Living Daylights has one more crime to attest to though, and thatâ??s just how forgettable it is. The title doesnâ??t even make sense in the context of the film (Iâ??ve not read Flemingâ??s short story though, so I donâ??t really understand the original context), and thereâ??s nothing really that memorable in the movie to make it stand out. Itâ??s probably one of the Bond movies that can be skipped, and you miss practically nothing in the grand context of the series.
I understand why some people may like this film; based on its emphasis on being a spy thriller more than anything else. And while Iâ??m open to those movies (I really like FRWL), I just think TLD doesnâ??t work and has very little going for it. The film has enough positives to stop it from being a 1/10, but itâ??s not a Bond movie I particularly enjoy at all.
D
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by ShinChan
