Editing Licence to Kill (section)

=== Contemporary reviews ===
[[Derek Malcolm]] in ''[[The Guardian]]'' was broadly approving of ''Licence to Kill'', liking the "harder edge of the earlier Bonds" that the film emulated, but wishing that "it was written and directed with a bit more flair."<ref name="Malcolm (1989)" /> Malcolm praised the way the film attempted "to tell a story rather than use one for the decorative purposes of endless spectacular tropes."<ref name="Malcolm (1989)">{{cite news |last=Malcolm |first=Derek |authorlink=Derek Malcolm|title=James the Sixteenth: Bond is back. |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=15 June 1989}}</ref> Writing in ''The Guardian''{{'}}s sister paper, ''[[The Observer]]'', [[Philip French]] noted that "despite the playful sparkle in his eyes, Timothy Dalton's Bond is&nbsp;... serious here."<ref name="French (1989)">{{cite news |last=French |first=Philip |title=Bond number comes up: CINEMA |newspaper=[[The Observer]] |date=18 June 1989}}</ref> Overall French called ''Licence to Kill'' "an entertaining, untaxing film".<ref name="French (1989)" /> [[Ian Christie (film scholar)|Ian Christie]] in the ''[[Daily Express]]'' excoriated the film, saying that the plot was "absurd but fundamentally dull",<ref name="Christie (1981)">{{cite news |last=Christie |first=Ian |authorlink=Ian Christie (film scholar)|title=Grim Tim is just no joke as James |newspaper=[[Daily Express]] |date=14 June 1989}}</ref> a further problem being that as "there isn't a coherent storyline to link [the stunts], they eventually become tiresome."<ref name="Christie (1981)" />

[[Hilary Mantel]] in ''[[The Spectator]]'' dismissed the film:

{{cquote|It is a very noisy film. There is a weary and repetitive note to the frenzy. ... The sex is low key and off-screen but there is a smirking perverse undertow which makes the film more disagreeable than a [[slasher movie]].<ref name="Mantel (1989)">{{cite news |last=Mantel |first=Hilary |author-link=Hilary Mantel |title=Minimalist Bond |url=http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/1st-july-1989/33/cinema |newspaper=[[The Spectator]] |date=1 July 1989 |access-date=6 November 2020 |archive-date=8 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508013330/http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/1st-july-1989/33/cinema |url-status=live }}</ref>
}}

[[David Robinson (film critic)|David Robinson]], writing in ''[[The Times]]'', observed that ''Licence to Kill'' "will probably neither disappoint nor surprise the great, faithful audience",<ref name="Robinson (1989)">{{cite news |last=Robinson |first=David |authorlink=David Robinson (film critic)|title=Business as usual; Cinema |newspaper=[[The Times]] |date=15 June 1989}}</ref> but bemoaned the fact that "over the years the plots have become less ambitious".<ref name="Robinson (1989)"/> Robinson thought that Dalton's Bond "has more class"<ref name="Robinson (1989)"/> than the previous Bonds and was "a warmer personality".<ref name="Robinson (1989)"/> Iain Johnstone of ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' pointed out that "any vestiges of the gentleman spy&nbsp;... by [[Ian Fleming]]" have now gone,<ref name="Johnstone (1989)">{{cite news|last=Johnstone|first=Iain|title=Bond flies in like a bat out of hell; Arts|newspaper=[[The Sunday Times]]|date=18 June 1989}}</ref> and in its place is a Bond that is "remarkably close both in deed and action to the [[Batman|eponymous hero]] of [[Batman (1989 film)|the ''Batman'' film]]"<ref name="Johnstone (1989)"/> that was released at the same time as ''Licence to Kill''.

[[Adam Mars-Jones]] of ''[[The Independent]]'' gave the film a mixed review, pointing out that it took out some of the more dated ideas from the Fleming novels, such as [[imperialism]]; he wrote that the writers were "trying in effect to reproduce the recipe while leaving out ingredients that would now seem distasteful".<ref name="Mars-Jones (1989)">{{cite news |last=Mars-Jones |first=Adam |authorlink=Adam Mars-Jones|title=Low-tar espionage: Licence to Kill |newspaper=[[The Independent]] |date=15 June 1989}}</ref> Overall Mars-Jones thought that:

{{cquote|James Bond is more like a low-tar cigarette than anything else{{emdash}}less stimulating than the throat-curdling gaspers of yesteryear, but still naggingly implicated in unhealthiness, a feeble bad habit without the kick of a vice.<ref name="Mars-Jones (1989)"/>
}}

For the Canadian newspaper ''[[The Globe and Mail]]'', Rick Groen wrote that in ''Licence to Kill'' "they've excised Bond from the Bond flicks; they've turned James into Jimmy, strong and silent and (roll over, Britannia) downright American",<ref name="Groen (1989)">{{cite news|last=Groen|first=Rick|title=Licence to Kill|newspaper=[[The Globe and Mail]]|date=14 July 1989}}</ref> resulting in a Bond film that is "essentially Bond-less".<ref name="Groen (1989)"/> Summing up, Groen thought "Actually, that dialogue&nbsp;... ain't bad. The silence looks good on Timothy Dalton".<ref name="Groen (1989)"/>

Gary Arnold of ''[[The Washington Times]]'' wrote that a number of factors "fail to prevent the finished product from jamming and misfiring with disillusioning frequency".<ref name="Arnold (1989)">{{cite news |last=Arnold |first=Gary |title=Let Dalton play Bond as debonair but dangerous! |newspaper=[[The Washington Times]] |date=14 July 1989}}</ref> Arnold opined that "demanding that he [Dalton] play Bond's wrathfulness in a transparently seething and hotheaded manner"<ref name="Arnold (1989)"/> means that Dalton "seems to waste away on this second outing as Bond."<ref name="Arnold (1989)"/> Overall Arnold sees that there is a "failure to recognize that Bond productions are simply too extravagant to permit an uncompromised return to first principles."<ref name="Arnold (1989)"/> The critic for ''[[The New York Times]]'', Caryn James, thought Dalton was "the first James Bond with angst, a moody spy for the fin de siecle",<ref name="James (1989)">{{cite news |last=James |first=Caryn |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/14/movies/review-film-dalton-as-a-brooding-bond-in-license-to-kill.html |title=Dalton as a Brooding Bond In 'License to Kill' |access-date=26 September 2011 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=14 July 1989 |archive-date=30 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130530024539/http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/14/movies/review-film-dalton-as-a-brooding-bond-in-license-to-kill.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and that ''Licence to Kill'' "retains its familiar, effective mix of despicably powerful villains, suspiciously tantalizing women and ever-wilder special effects",<ref name="James (1989)"/> but was impressed that "Dalton's glowering presence adds a darker tone".<ref name="James (1989)"/> James concluded that "for all its clever updatings, stylish action and witty escapism, ''Licence to Kill''&nbsp;... is still a little too much by the book."<ref name="James (1989)"/>

[[Roger Ebert]] for the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' gave the film 3{{frac|1|2}} stars out of 4, saying "the stunts all look convincing, and the effect of the closing sequence is exhilarating&nbsp;... ''Licence to Kill'' is one of the best of the recent Bonds."<ref>{{cite news |last=Ebert |first=Roger |authorlink=Roger Ebert| title=Licence To Kill |url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/licence-to-kill-1989 |access-date=24 August 2011 |newspaper=[[Chicago Sun-Times]] |date=14 July 1989 |archive-date=6 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606075323/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F19890714%2FREVIEWS%2F907140301%2F1023 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[Jack Kroll]], writing in ''[[Newsweek]]'', described ''Licence to Kill'' as "a pure, rousingly entertaining action movie".<ref name="Kroll (1989)">{{cite news |last=Kroll |first=Jack |title=Ka-boom, Ka-bam, Ka-Bond |newspaper=[[Newsweek]] |date=17 July 1989}}</ref> Kroll was mixed in his appraisal of Dalton, calling him "a fine actor who hasn't yet stamped Bond with his own personality",<ref name="Kroll (1989)"/> observing "Director John Glen is the [[Busby Berkeley]] of action flicks, and his chorus line is the legendary team of Bond stunt-persons who are at their death-defying best here".<ref name="Kroll (1989)"/> For ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' magazine, [[Richard Corliss]] bemoaned that although the truck stunts were good, it was "a pity nobody – not writers Michael G. Wilson, and Richard Maibaum nor director John Glen – thought to give the humans anything very clever to do."<ref name="Corliss (1989)">{{cite magazine |last=Corliss |first=Richard |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958214,00.html |title=Cinema: We Don't Need Another Heroid |access-date=23 August 2011 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=24 July 1989 |archive-date=22 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111222014118/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958214,00.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> Corliss found Dalton "misused" in the film, adding that "for every plausible reason, he looks as bored in his second Bond film as Sean Connery did in [[Diamonds Are Forever (film)|his sixth]]."<ref name="Corliss (1989)"/>